Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill has gone through regular order as no other bill has. It went through its committee in regular order and was passed out in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 60-1. It came on the floor with 152 amendments to be considered and was passed out with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It went to the Senate, was passed out in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and the conference report was signed by the conferees in a clear bipartisan effort. This is one of those good bills that does authorize our military forces through fiscal year 2012, and it is significant. But I would like, in closing, to talk about one of the issues that I think was brought up, and brought up with some exaggeration to the content of what is there that deals specifically with military detainees. I want this very clear because both Congressman McKeon, who is the chairman of the committee, Congressman Smith, who is the ranking member of the committee, spoke at length in Rules Committee on this specific issue. They were asked about the issue; they addressed the issue. Let me make this very clear. Anything in this law that deals with detainees does not change in any way, shape, or form existing law. It does not deny anyone habeas corpus opportunities. That is not waived in any way, shape, or form. Let me quote from Mr. Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee, when talking about different things, he simply said that there is the possibility of indefinite detention without a normal criminal charge, but even if you do that, which, once again, the President said he won't do, but even if you did that in certain isolated circumstances where it could be necessary under the law of war, even if you do that, habeas corpus still applies, which means you have to have a hearing in front of a Federal judge to make your case under the law for why you have the right to detain this person. And to do that, you have to show there is a connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban, and you have to show there is a threat that they present. So habeas corpus applies to everyone, whether they are a citizen, illegal alien, or a noncitizen. Habeas corpus still applies. It is very clear in both sections 1021 and 1022 that protections for American citizens are clearly stated in there. In the Senate, they added, in 1021, the words: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. In 1022 it makes it very clear, before somebody can be detained, there are two standards which must be met. First of all, there has to be association with an armed force that is in coordination and acting against the interests of the United States and, not just membership, they have to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out attacks or attempted attacks against the United States or its coalition partners. You can't just go out and pick people off the streets. There has to be a standard. And everyone still gets habeas corpus rights in all of these events. Let me quote again from the law, from the report, the bill that we are debating and discussing and voting: ``The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section''--this power--``does not extend to citizens of the United States,'' which means you can't do this kind of detainment against a citizen or a lawful alien of the United States. Only in this section, and in both sections, do you have to meet certain very restrictive criteria which are not different than what we are currently doing, which simply means in the past history of this United States, especially in some of our war times, there have been Presidents who we jokingly say used to throw people in jail who were opposed to them. President Obama could still do that under existing statute, but he can't do it with this language in this particular bill. There are specifics that are set forth. There are specific protections written for American citizens, specific protections written for illegal aliens of the United States. It is only a very restricted authority and a very restricted power, and it doesn't affect habeas corpus. It doesn't change existing law. In essence, those people who worked in the committee on this bill have done a yeoman's work in coming up with a good bill. Those people who worked in the conference did a yeoman's work in coming up with a good conference report. This is a good rule, which is a standard conference report rule. And with the only exception that we still must be very careful that if we follow the administration's advice and cut our military spending too much, not only are we putting our military in jeopardy and our equipment in jeopardy, but we are destroying jobs, which is what we don't want to be doing in this particular time period. I would urge everyone to vote for this rule, and I would urge everyone to vote for the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 493 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the text of the amendment printed in the Congressional Record dated December 13, 2011 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1, which will bear the title ``to support the middle class and create jobs, and for other purposes''. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not--apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 6 of this resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a standard conference report rule and other end-of-the-year housekeeping provisions. H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, has been considered in committee. It was debated on the House floor. It included 152 amendments made in order before passing this Chamber, and that was done in May with an overwhelming and bipartisan majority. It went through the Senate. And now we bring to you today a bipartisan conference report. I have to commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for truly continuing the tradition of bipartisanship and mutual cooperation in the Armed Services Committee and in this particular bill. There are some times when Congress has a reputation of being somewhat contentious and partisan, sometimes deservedly so. However, I have been a member of the Armed Services Committee myself for several years, and I recognize that they clearly understand Article I of the Constitution, which requires a common defense of our country; and in that particular committee, partisanship really has been checked at the door regarding the product of the Armed Services Committee, which is this annual Defense authorization bill. In its essence, I think the process has been good, the efforts have been good, and it has made a significant issue that we are bringing here to the floor ready to pass in its final version from the conference committee. There are significant underlying issues that I think we will talk about during the course of the discussion on the rule and perhaps on the bill as well, but those things, I think, will be handled as they appear at that particular time. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the issues and accusations that were brought up by the gentleman from Florida will be something that we will address in the course of this debate, but I wish to do this in somewhat of a regular order. There are other issues, as he said, that are significant. To address the first of those, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey is right, yesterday the House did act in a bipartisan way. Now it's up to the Senate to act--amend, change, anything except just sitting there and not taking action. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you for the time. Mr. Speaker, I will apologize in advance for actually talking on topic here. In 1791, the Second Session of Congress, John Page was a Congressman from Virginia, and he objected to his peers who wanted to leave and let the designation of postal routes be left to the President. They trusted the President, justifiably, but John Page threatened his colleagues by saying that if we do so he will move to adjourn and leave all the objects of legislation to the President's sole consideration and direction. Now, the issue at hand back in 1791 was not necessarily what roads and routes should be taken, even though they did have an economic impact. The issue was who should designate those routes because every rule and regulation is, by definition, a legislative function. It is not a function of the administration that should be given to the President or the bureaucracies that are created because of it. It is a congressional function. But we do not take the time to make the details in our particular piece of legislation. When we simply ask in our legislation that a Secretary in a department shall have the power to write rules and regulations and then leave it at that, we are abrogating our responsibility. ``Country of origin'' labeling sounded like a great idea. We should know if we are buying American beef. Even though it was passed before I became a Member of Congress, it was my eighth year in Congress before they were able to write the rules because Congress did not take the time and effort to go through the details of understanding what we were doing when we are passing legislation. The States--my home State--has an administrative review committee that reviews every rule and regulation, because these are rules and regulations that our people must obey, and if they don't, they are subject to jail and fines; and it is done by a nameless executive bureaucracy that has no accountability to the people by ballot box, nor do they have it to us. We can simply say, Well, I'm sorry about the situation. They, over there, did it, instead of taking the time to do our responsibility. I am told that we need experts over in the executive branch to do this. The Founding Fathers designed the situation in this country so that people could make judgments for themselves. The idea of needing experts only came in the late 1800s, early 1900s when an individual, who eventually became President, wrote a book about Congress without ever having visited Congress. And in that, he claimed this balance of power, this separation of responsibilities was, in his words, ``constitutional witchcraft.'' From that time on, we decided to abrogate legislative responsibility and simply give it to the other branch, like it's one of those simple things. Congress has passed 16 jobs bills in the House and sent them over where the Democrat majority in the Senate has refused to deal with any of those bills. Congress is now also dealing with a variety of regulation bills which harm our ability to be economically competitive and harm our ability to actually build new jobs. And once again, the Democrat majority in the Senate has failed to do that. This is our time and responsibility to look forward to this situation, to take our role and responsibility and pass this particular bill because, like John Page said, It is our job. It is our responsibility. We should accept that responsibility.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago the Forest Service paid the huge sum of $1 for two parcels of land, a total of 30 acres, surrounded on three sides by private property. In that intervening time period, per the Forest Service's own plans, not only have they not needed them, they have not used them and, until 5 years ago, forgot they had them. The city of Mantua now desperately needs this for its cemetery expansion as well as for a town hall and a fire station to protect people who actually go on the real forest lands. Three times this House has passed this piece of legislation, and the Senate has found it too complex to consider. This time, the Senate has passed a very similar bill over to us, not as good as the one we had, but when one considers we have sent over to them a budget bill, multiple appropriation bills, repeal of ObamaCare, 16 job bills, and numerous regulatory reform bills, the fact that the Senate did anything should be a cause of our celebration today. And, therefore, I urge, even though this is not a perfect bill, it's a pretty good one, so I urge its adoption so that we can send it to the President's desk and let the Senate know we do appreciate them when they finally, finally do their work.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, in closing, this is the map of the area which we're talking about. Everything that's orange there--or copper color--are historic or existing mines in this particular area. The yellow one is where this mine would take place. This is the mining district of the State of Arizona. Actually, even Arizona has the color copper in its State flag. We are talking about jobs in Arizona versus jobs in where we are importing copper from now. We are importing copper from Chile, Canada, Peru, and Mexico--in that order. We can either create jobs there or we can create jobs in Arizona. We can either develop our own resources or we can allow ourselves to rely on resources from foreign places. We can go forward in what we are trying to do here, realizing that even firemen and policemen need copper before they can actually do their work. All of us are going to have to have this mineral. We might as well get our minerals here, develop our jobs here, use our future here. This is a great bill, and it is a fair rule in which all of the amendments--one technical and three which have nice sounds to them but which are going to be very difficult to put into reality if they actually are to pass--will be debated here on the floor. Madam Speaker, in closing, I wish to reiterate once again the fairness of this structured rule. I urge this rule's adoption, and I urge the adoption of the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I tell my colleague that I am prepared to close.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Minnesota Twins pitcher Jim Kaat, who should be in the Hall of Fame--so for today we'll call it ``Coppers Town'' Hall of Fame--once said to a reporter that he was working on a new pitch. He called it a strike. You've heard a lot of accusations so far about this particular bill, most of which are balls, low, outside and in the dirt. I now yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, a Representative from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), to actually pitch some strikes about what this bill actually will do.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I'm just trying to envision in my own mind all those robots that are working in the Rio Tinto mine in my State that have also developed the land plan that have developed those communities there. They really have disguised themselves extremely well. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. There is nothing in statute--only in reality-- that will force it to be used here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will be happy to do it. In fact, I want the sponsor to respond specifically to that in just a second. But the answer is, clearly, we have a desire for copper. We have a demand for copper. The concept of free enterprise and the balance of trade that we need will demand that the majority of that copper be used here. If you want to try to come up with amendments to try and mandate that, there are some potential amendments that will be debated on this floor in this very good, fair structured rule. However, you have to be very careful that sometimes when you try and make these mandates and put them in law, it makes it very difficult to enforce those particular mandates. And I will tell you that one of the amendments that will be debated here on the floor has wonderful intention but is almost impossible to enforce. So will it happen? Of course, it will happen, because we have that need; we have that desire right now.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As the gentleman from Florida knows, I do like baseball this time of year. One of the statistics that I saw the other day is that Pete Rose had 29 of his 4,000-plus hits off of pitchers who would eventually become dentists. It is a true statement. It has almost no impact on anything, but it is a true statement. Some of the rhetoric we've heard so far is true, but has no impact on what we're talking about. Madam Speaker, 15 different times Republicans have come on the floor of this House and have introduced jobs bills. Those jobs bills are still sitting over in the Senate. Thousands of jobs would be up and available right now if the Senate were actually to move on any of those 15. This is the 16th jobs bill that we have brought to the floor. One of the issues we have here is there is a need in our lives for copper. The business community needs copper. Individuals need copper. In our personal lives we need copper. If you want to build a three- megawatt turbine for wind generation power, you need five tons of copper to do that. If you want to build a hybrid car or an electric car, you need at least 55 pounds of copper to build the car. The average home has 435 pounds of copper in that home. In fact, the study I looked at said each individual in his lifetime will consume 935 pounds of copper. I'm not quite sure how we do that. I certainly hope the verb ``consume'' was not literal, but more a hypothetical word, because I really have not had much copper on my Cornflakes lately. But we will consume copper. Whether we produce copper or not, we consume copper. We need copper. The fact of the matter is the United States now imports 30 percent of all the copper. We are relying upon other countries to produce copper. Why is this a jobs bill? For those people who vote for this bill, we will be establishing the opportunity to develop a mine that could produce a quarter of our needs for copper for the next 40 years. We will move us to self-sufficiency; and, more importantly, we will create jobs with this particular bill. Indirect and direct jobs are 3,700 for this mine; 3,000 jobs for the construction of this facility, 500 who are already in the pre-permitting phase right now. That's what the opportunity is. If we vote against this bill, we'll still be providing jobs, but jobs overseas for miners in Chile; for the smelting factories in China, where we have to send the stuff because we don't have enough smelters right here to do. We will produce jobs, but we have either the choice of producing jobs in America so that we can create American jobs and have American self-sufficiency, or we can create jobs abroad. It's our choice on this particular bill. This is a jobs bill. Whether you vote for it or against it, it is still a jobs bill. I just hope we vote for it because I hope our priority is creating American jobs for American need of copper, which there is no way to get around. We have to have this crucial mineral, and this is the place in which to do it. This particular bill will be a land transfer in which the Federal Government makes out like a bandit in it. The Federal Government will get 5,400 acres of land. The industry gets 2,400 acres to try and get this production going. The city of Superior gets 500 acres, 30 of which go to their cemetery. That's the purpose of this bill. This bill is viable for our economy, for our job creation, and for natural resources. It does it in a responsible way. And all the scare tactics out there that have been waved about before don't exist. There is not one single, solitary environmental rule that is waived for the creation of this mine. Not one. Twice this bill has been introduced before this Congress by a Democrat sponsor. It's the same bill, except this one doesn't provide a rock-climbing park for the State of Arizona. Other than that, it's the same bill with the same considerations and the same restrictions and the same guarantees. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman has another speaker or wishes to take some time, then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule of H.R. 1904, the Southeast Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011. It makes in order every amendment that was filed with the Rules Committee. So this is, like the Texas victory last night, a very fair rule and continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which otherwise conform to the House rules. That's been the goal of Chairman Dreier in his continuing record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this open rule. Madam Speaker, this Resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1904, the ``Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, and makes in order every amendment that was filed with Rules Committee. So this is a very fair rule, and continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which otherwise conform to House Rules, which has been the goal of our Chairman, Mr. Dreier, in continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this rule. H.R. 1904, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011, introduced by the Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, would authorize a fair value exchange and conveyance of land between the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona Town of ``Superior,'' and the Resolution Copper Mining LLC in Southeast Arizona, for the multiple purposes of protection of sensitive habitat and cultural areas, as well as facilitating the development of the largest undeveloped copper resource in the world right here in the United States. One of the key pillars of a viable economy, and job creation, is the sound and environmentally responsible development of our own domestic natural resources. This bill does that. Its passage will facilitate responsible copper mining within our own country, putting thousands of Americans to work with good paying jobs, and, over time, bringing billions in return for both the federal government and state and local governments. In spite of predictable interest group scare tactics against this legislation, H.R. 1904 does not waive any existing environmental rules or regulations regarding mining. The companies involved not only must pay fair market value for the equal value exchange, but must comply with all mining laws and regulations regarding the environment. Passage of this bill will result in a higher amount of habitat acreage being protected than before, so the environmental community should be on board with this bill. Copper is one of the key components used in virtually all manufacturing and electronics. For those concerned with so-called ``green energy,'' nearly 5 tons of copper is necessary to manufacture a single 3 megawatt wind turbine. And that is just one example to show how copper is used nearly everywhere. For our country develop our own God-given natural resources not only helps our own economy, creates jobs, but also reduces our dependence on foreign sources and helps with our balance of trade with other nations. This bill is strongly supported by state and local government officials in Arizona including Governor Jan Brewer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the Associated General Contractors of America. This is a good bill, and a fair Rule. I urge their adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by the gentleman, this is a bipartisan bill. I urge its adoption. It's a very good bill. I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.