Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), who also has been very tenacious on this issue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1904.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a member of the Natural Resources Committee whose district has a long mining history.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona who has been a longtime supporter of this project, Mr. Flake.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to respond to my good friend from California about working with us if there is a flaw in this amendment. I would just remind him he offered a similar amendment in committee; we brought up precisely the same arguments, precisely the same arguments. And here we are, we trot out an amendment on the floor of the House, and it's precisely the same amendment. I have a hard time thinking that somebody wants to work with us when they trot out the same amendment with the same arguments that got defeated twice. I just want to mention this, Mr. Chairman. It's a worthy goal to buy American and promote buy American, but not when that sentiment is used to block a project to create American jobs and that results in America being less dependent on foreign minerals that gets our economy going. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fundamental purpose of H.R. 1904 is to make copper in the United States and to create thousands of American jobs. This amendment is purposefully written to make this mine impossible by mandating conditions that can't be achieved. As a result of that, if this were to pass, the 500 people currently employed on the project would lose their jobs, and the 3,700 total jobs that would be created would never materialize. The lead sponsor of this amendment has fought this proposed mine for years. Listen, I respect his position, but this amendment isn't written to improve the bill; it's intended to kill the mine. It is simply an amendment in wolf's clothing. This amendment dictates specific mandates on business operations, Mr. Chairman, that are unrealistic, unprecedented, and unworkable. Let me give you an example. It mandates the precise town in which the mine operations center must be located. The Federal Government should not be dictating where and only where a company is allowed to conduct its private business. If you take this to the logical extreme, what's next? Will House Democrats push a new law to require Apple to move from Cupertino to--where?-- Detroit? How ironic that when a company that is investing hundreds of millions of its private dollars in Arizona to create thousands of American jobs that Democrats in the District of Columbia want to dictate where to operate its business. On the other hand, there may be some consistency, because when President Obama and House Democrats handed out over half a billion stimulus dollars to the Fisker car company, they allowed that to be built in Finland, which, Mr. Chairman, I might add, is not even a State. The amendment also requires that all copper produced from this mine be used in the United States. Copper is a basic component used to construct and build items. It's ridiculous to mandate that if 1 ounce of copper goes into an item it violates this law, this amendment, to be used outside the United States. I am sensitive to this because I'm from Washington. If a Boeing plane is using copper made from this mine, that Boeing plane can therefore never fly out of the United States. If copper pipe is used in the plumbing of a boat that's built in America, it can never ship American goods in this global economy. What about copper jewelry, Mr. Chairman, or an American-built car that includes copper components, or the multitude of everyday items that we build in America and sell abroad that contain copper? The fact is that this amendment would make it impossible to use the copper from this mine; but on the other hand, that's probably what the intent is. Finally, the amendment mandates that all equipment used to mine or support mining activities be made in the United States. The purpose of the bill is to allow the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world to be developed in America to create American jobs and provide up to 25 percent of America's copper consumption. It defies reason and logic to say that this economic boost to America can't happen if one piece of equipment used for the mine isn't made in the United States. Let me go a little bit further, Mr. Chairman. The word ``equipment'' is never defined. Does it include everyday office items that will support mine activities, such as paper or pencils? What about cell phones for workers? iPhones and Blackberries, I might add, are not manufactured in America. So I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote against this amendment, which stands in the way of American copper production and American copper creation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to point out the unprecedented nature of this amendment. Let's think about it. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) properly pointed out that we operate under the 1872 act, and there is some discussion about that; but to single out one company in one area in one State for this tax sends a terrible, terrible signal to our economic system. If this were to be passed, then what is sacred about this industry compared to any other industry that somebody doesn't like? We will sponsor an amendment to tax one individual company. Boy, that is going to instill confidence, I can really see, in our economic system if an amendment like this is adopted. It is a bad amendment, and it will have a detrimental effect on this project. I urge the defeat of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have another speaker coming to the floor; so I will yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard some curious arguments on the other side, as my colleagues on this side have pointed out a few times, but let me just talk about a couple of them where there's a charge that this will cost the taxpayers. We measure what the costs are to the taxpayers of this country by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. And CBO, in looking at the land exchange aspects of this and the other costs associated, have concluded that the cost to the taxpayer is effectively zero. Now that's the official agency that we go by, so when we hear that there's a whole bunch of costs associated with that to the taxpayer, it's simply not so. What is even more ironic, Mr. Chairman, when they make that argument, they ignore the fact that jobs that will be created here get paid wages. Those wages then will be subjected to tax policies of the Federal Government to where the Federal Government actually gets more revenue. But that is ignored, it seems like all the time, when we hear the other side argue on this issue. Let me talk about the issue of NEPA because that has been bandied around a few times. The NEPA laws of our country are not changed at all by the passage of this bill, but what we do is we put logic to the process. Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, our great government was designed to have a dispersion of power. We sit in the legislative branch and we make the policy of this country, and the executive branch carries out that policy. It's been that way since our Republic was founded. All we are saying is that when Congress directs an action--in this case, an action of a land exchange--it shall not be subject to NEPA because we are exercising our authority under the Constitution to direct policy. Why should a NEPA policy be used to slow down a direction that Congress has given? So that's the only part of the NEPA policy that we are affecting in this bill. Now, I want to say this very explicitly. Under this bill, all NEPA laws as to the construction and the carrying on of this mine will be subject to NEPA laws. And nothing is changed. Nothing is changed. So when people throw around NEPA as one reason why we shouldn't adopt this, that is simply a bogus argument. Finally, I just want to make one more point here about this being a giveaway. In fact, there are some of my persuasion that may have a bit of heartburn with this because, as a matter of fact, we are giving the Federal Government more land than we are exchanging for private development of this copper land. Mr. Chairman, I know you've heard the arguments over this in the time you and I have been here, and yet this is something that I think is worthy of support because we do want to make sure that those lands are protected in a way. So to suggest that there's a giveaway here is simply not the case because the exchange is of equal value. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in deference to my good friend from Massachusetts, there is only one bill before us, and that's a bill without the Markey amendment, and I hope it stays that way. This amendment requires a company to pay for the minerals twice. The value of the copper is already included in the appraised value of the land under current law of the United States. That's the law. Section 4(e) of the bill requires the developer to pay full market value for the Federal land and minerals within. Under the requirements of this bill, the United States is fully compensated for the copper up front. But, if, in fact, this vein is larger than what is anticipated, there is a further provision that says that should it exceed that appraised value, the developer, i.e., the copper mining company, is required to compensate the United States through annual assessments. As the market moves forward, the Markey amendment adds an 8 percent royalty to the full, to the top payment. This would mean that the company would be paying a huge premium in addition to what current law is of the value they have already paid. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, this is unprecedented in any law or any activity regarding mining. This amendment isn't about ensuring the full payment to the United States, because that is required in the bill under current law. What this amendment really does is send a signal to companies that want to invest in Federal lands, to utilize the resources we have, that they are not welcome in the United States. They are not welcome, and they should go overseas where they are welcome, taking American jobs with them and making us less economically viable as a country and also costing us jobs. With that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would just respond that CBO also said in their scoring that it's so insignificant, it's hard to measure. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, when I became chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources this last January, I established a new subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. The purpose was to ensure a special forum for the issues and concerns important to Indian tribes and native people. I respect the views and special concerns of Indian tribes, and it's important that they have a role and are consulted in decisions that affect the people on their reservation lands. This bill before the House today explicitly includes a section requiring government-to-government consultation. Section 4c, Mr. Chairman, of the bill is titled, and I quote, ``Consultation with Indian tribes.'' Consultation must occur before the mine operations ever begin. To repeat, the mine cannot happen without consultation with interested tribes. To be clear, the mine is a site that is not located on reservation land. The closest Native American reservation is the San Carlos Apache, located more than 20 miles east of the mine site. And it should be noted too that where this mine is proposed to be developed is right in the heart of what we call Arizona's historic copper triangle right here. These orange dots here are where copper is mined or quarried right now. This is the proposed site of the mine. And the San Carlos Apache reservation is up here. As you can see, there's activity between here and the San Carlos reservation. The real effect of this amendment would be to allow the Department Secretary to veto and block the project on the subjective grounds that a previously identified cultural site exists on these lands. As stated previously, this is a geographic triangle that's historically home to numerous mines. I might add too, Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service completed an environmental assessment in 2008, 3 years ago, in which, and I quote, ``several attempts were made to identify sacred sites and effects on ceremonial use of sacred sites.'' The official conclusion was a Finding of No Significant Impact, and that finding was sustained on appeal. Furthermore, the terms ``Native American,'' ``sacred,'' and ``cultural'' in the amendment offered by my friend from New Mexico are undefined, and thus it cannot be predicted what effect this amendment would have. It opens the door to time-consuming litigation and subjective or political decisions. In the land exchange within the bill, environmentally sensitive and culturally important lands are given protection. Thousands of more acres, as I alluded to earlier on, are added for the protection than are made available for the development of this mine; the ratio is roughly 2-1. The bill specifically and permanently, for example, protects Apache Leap. Because this bill ensures and requires tribal consultation before development of the mine and because the real effect of the amendment would be for political mischief, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Lujan amendment. Harrison Talgo, Sr., Bylas, AZ, October 21, 2011. Hon. Eric Cantor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Cantor: I am the former Chairman of the San Carlos Apache Nation and served in the Tribal Council for 16 years. Many times I have come before Congress as an official representative of my government to present issues affecting and in the best interest of the San Carlos Apache Tribal Government. But today I write to you as a concerned private citizen of Bylas, Arizona which is located within the San Carlos Apache Tribal Reservation and want to express my support of H.R. 1904, The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011. The current Tribal leadership does not share my position. I have tried very hard to understand why they oppose this project when we are in such desperate need of jobs and industry. I believe that traditional Apache values are not mutually exclusive with economic development. We are one of the poorest Indian tribes in the nation. Seven in 10 eligible workers in the Tribe are unemployed. Almost 80 percent of our people live in poverty. Alcoholism and drug use are rampant and suicide rates are high. The average Apache male has a life expectancy of 54 years, about 20 years shorter than the average American male. The proposed Resolution Copper Mine would bring hundreds of new, high-paying jobs to our region. It represents progress and hope and prosperity. I have previously testified before Congress in support of economic development projects. I have done so in the face of opposition from other leaders who have opposed these same opportunities on and near the reservation. Some of those projects experienced costly delays as a result of the Council's opposition, but they all were built eventually. And to our benefit, they have all hired Apaches. I am confident the Resolution project will be no different. In fact, some members of the San Carlos Apache Nation are already employed by the company and its contractors. I respect the Council's desire to protect sites that have cultural or historical significance. I want that, too. But Oak Flat is a long way from us, and I believe strongly that it is possible for our traditional values to co-exist with economic progress. In fact, I don't believe one can survive without the other. Economic progress and prosperity leads to a better standard of living, better health, better services and better education. It increases our capacity to learn and expands our cultural horizons. It gives us additional resources to explore and study our past, to protect what we hold sacred, to showcase and display those things that are culturally important, and to help the outside world better understand and appreciate the stories and traditions of our fathers. For all these reasons, I respectfully urge your support and passage of the H.R. 1904. Sincerely, Harrison Talgo, Sr., Former Chairman, San Carlos Apache Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I claim time in opposition.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two points in concluding debate before we go into the amendment process. A reference was made to NEPA, and I responded to that just a bit earlier where I simply said that there is a division of powers. And we are making an action. With passage of this legislation signed into law by the President, we have said that there will be a land exchange. That's the policy of the country. Now, anything that happens on that land after the exchange has happened is subject to NEPA review. I have absolutely no problem with that and nothing in this bill changes that process. The second point I would want to make is on the issue of creation of jobs. Honestly, when you hear the debate here on the floor on this issue, that's probably emblematic of the debate that has been going on in this Congress since day one. Apparently, the other side thinks that the only way you can create jobs is raising taxes and expanding the public sector. We believe that the best ways to create jobs and grow our economy are based on the principles that have gotten the United States from where we were when the Republic was created until now, by relying on the private sector. This is a private sector investment on lands that create a tremendous amount of wealth. This is a job creator, and I think that this bill deserves passage. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I understand the other side has yielded back their time. How much time do I have left?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am more than happy to yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear, and I will say this as slowly as I can so it can be understood. This bill does not waive any economic sanction laws. All of those laws still stand. Now, let me say this. This bill is about creating jobs in Arizona. By creating jobs in Arizona, we are creating American jobs in Arizona. It is interesting to me how I hear the other side come up with all of these different ideas. The debate has been going on for some time-- probably about 3 years, come to think of it. Here is what the debate is: It's about creating jobs in this country. Our approach on this side is very simple. It's simple because it's based on the premise of our country. We rely on the private sector. We rely on people to make an investment to create American jobs. Their side wants to--and we heard this in debate--raise taxes and create public jobs. This creates private jobs. I say vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and pass the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.