i was honored to be the principle co-sponser with my good friend, wally herer, of the ways and means committee, to have a bipartisan effort to move this legislation forward. i didn't vote for this bill in 2005 in the first place and i have been working to fix it ever since the impact was revealed to us. . tax compliance is an important goal. we have somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 to $300 billion a year that is owed to the federal government to meet our obligations and reduce burdens on others that is not paid. but this bill is decidedly not the approach to take. my good friend, congressman hanna, a freshman republican from upstate new york, has an excellent op-ed in today's "roll call" that outlines how onerous it is from his perspective

having been a small contractor. there are three points that i think ought to be made as we go forward. first of all, we got this bill because we didn't follow regular order in 2005. i don't think there was ever a hearing before our ways and means committee that talked about this bill that allowed contractors and small businesses to be able to explain the impact. i am very pleased that i think chairman camp is committed to trying to follow regular order in this congress unlike what happened in 2005. the second point is that this reveals a flaw in the c.b.o. calculation. i'm not faulting c.b.o. they are following their rules. but they assume that the federal government has the capacity to implement it, and they only

count the revenues. well, you don't have to go very far to understand that this wouldn't just be a burden on small business, it wouldn't just be a burden on state and local government, cost of compliance for the federal government itself will, i guarantee you, be more than the amount of money that would be collected. finally, i felt that we could do better in paying for it, but frankly i think the situation we are in in the months ahead is that we are going to need to do both. we will be making the adjustment that is advanced by my friends from the ways and means committee, and we will be approving the elements that are in the motion from -- that the democrats would do in terms of fixing an egregious tax loophole for oil companies that only serves to improve their bottom line, does nothing to increase

oil supply, does nothing to lower prices. but i will try and move both of those forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. mr. blumenauer: i very much appreciate it. i get a little wound up on this, but we have been working on it for a long time. but i want to conclude by saying that i hope we don't allow some strategic differences on the floor of the house between the two parties in terms of priorities, as i say we will end up approving both these approaches because the scale of our deficit is such that we need to do it, the administration will support it, both parties will ultimately get there, and i think the american public will support it, but we need to come together to make sure that this legislation that we are working on this week does not fall victim to crossed signals on the other side of the capitol. we need to work with the other body. we need to send a strong signal

here to make sure that this mistake from 2005 is corrected now and spares unnecessary hardship for our business community, but also for state and local government and indeed for the federal government itself. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois,. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman illinois is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of this rule, in particular h.r. 674, repealing the 3% withholding tax on government contracts. it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but now we clearly see it is a mandate that drains precious resources from america's job creators, small businesses. the profit margin for many cases affected by the proposal is often less than the 3% mandate. the colding tax will create

substantial cash flow problems and drain capital from many business that is could otherwise be used to invest and grow or hire more workers. mr. hultgren: mr. chairman, i join with many business owners, state and local governments, and educational institutions in supporting h.r. 674 to repeal this tax. and provide a meaningful step towards instilling certainty among job creators in getting this economy moving on the right track. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. keating: thank you, mr. speaker, i hope the previous question is defeated so i can offer an amendment along with my colleagues to really correct something that, frankly, is outrageous. it's not only outrageous, but it is exhibit a of what's wrong with this congress. the underlying bill to do away with the 3% withholding, i met

with my local businesspeople, had discussions, and this is a great opportunity for bipartisan efforts to help create some jobs, help small businesses go forward. we are actually in agreement with something that's going to do all those things and i'm proud to support that and i'm proud to reach across the aisle and support that, but i got to tell you, you just can't mess things up more than you are messing things up here, because the offset that was taken by the majority party is a tax on people that have social security and medicaid. now, why are you doing that when you're trying to get people some economic benefits through businesses and really an effort that we both should be applauded for working together on? the amendment i'm going to offer is going to correct that.

it's going to correct it in a way that makes perfect sense and is exhibit a about what can be right about this congress. we are going to take away that oil subsidy that in the next several years is going to amount to 4 $43.6 billion in a -- $63.6 billion in a windfall to our richest, most profitable companies that don't need it. 93% of that windfall goes to preferred stock buybacks and executive and c.e.o. remuneration that is not necessary. so here's what's -- we have something we agree on. we have something that's going to be of benefit, that's going to create jobs and help small businesses. now we can go one of two ways in terms of paying for that. we can have an additional tax on the medicaid and social security recipients, or we can continue to -- i thank the gentleman. or we can continue to reward the c.e.o.'s and big oil. that's not a tough choice.

so i hope that the previous question is defeated so we can offer something that makes sense. you know what? it's time for this congress to get it right. we have a chance to do it and i hope we will. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just encourage my friends on the left who want to raise taxes, raise taxes if you can, but the bottom line is raising revenue does not make you more responsible, does not make you use the revenues that you currently have more responsibly. all the notion of raising taxes that use that to fix this situation is inconsistent with the reality and is a part of the alternate universe we ought not to be part of. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo. mr. manzullo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise under the rule and underlying bill. instead of going after tax delinquents, the law punishes everyone for the failings of a

few. when i chaired the small business committee several years ago, i saw a lot of harms and injuries taking place to small businesspeople. this is a tough one. and h.r. 674 would repeal that. the 3% withholding will disproportionately hurts small businesses. i met with several electrical contractors in my office recently, and the first thing on their mind, in their hearts was the fact that this should be repealed because it simply does not make sense. the bill would repeal the onerous law to the benefit of farmers and others who sell goods and services to the government at all levels, but also it repeals an unfunded mandate imposed upon state and local governments that requires them to be the tax collectors for the i.r.s. so the bill would free up precious financial resources so businesses have the flexibility to hire more workers to complete the task at hand. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i would urge my good friend from south carolina to know that i have the last speaker -- i am the last speaker. if you have other speakers i'll reserve my time. i reserve my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. dennis ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the rule and underlying bill. now more than ever regulatory tax reform are needed. the 3% contractor withholding requirement is yet another onerous regulatory tax policy that will hinder small business' ability to survive and hire new employees. the 10.6% unemployment in my home state of florida cannot handle another government job-killing regulation. repealing this regulation will ensure america's small businesses are not assessed another regulatory cost that will either be passed on to

consumers and costs or will force another small business to shut its doors. the 3% withholding requirement was originally intended to make sure contractors pay taxes. in reality it is simply a one-size-fit all government approach to a problem filled with unintended consequences, one of the most tragic consequences could be the cost to our seniors, 95% of medicare physicians will be affected by this withholding tax. our seniors should not suffer because our tax code is too confusing, too burdensome, and too big. mr. speaker, this regulation shows why we need a tax code that is flatter, smaller, and medicare reform with fewer scare tactics and more choices. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, president obama as has been cited along with many of our colleagues support changing the definition of modified adjusted gross income. but like on other occasions i have disagreed with this president on matters and in this instance i do, there are many in

the institution who have a different view. but there's no reason why a bill reducing access to health care for millions of americans has to be tied to a bill that will put money back into the pockets of middle class and working poor americans. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made a conscious decision to make it harder for americans to pay their medical bills. now they could have just as easily tied this bill to one that reduces oil and gas subsidies. but listen, i just spoke to a group of students about 15 or 20 of them from american university, and i put the question to them regarding this rule explaining to them some of the dynamics of the institution, i put the question to them what

would seem more sensible to you? would it be that 500,000 people should and may lose their coverage under a measure, or that the oil companies and gas companies, and i added, g.e., that those kinds of companies cause these kinds of matters not to have to come into play at this time in our institution? now, democrat, sandy levin, my good friend from michigan, the ranking member, introduced a substitute that would eliminate oil and gas subsidy in order to repeal the withholding requirement while still allowing americans to keep their health care coverage. yet they wouldn't waive the rules for that.

as they have done a number of times, my republican friends, for their own amendments, proving once again that the rules are only sacred when oil and gas and big business profits are at stake. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, an amendment will be offered to the rule to let mr. levin, mr. bishop, of new york, mr. keating of massachusetts, offer the amendment we tried to have made in order in the rules committee yesterday. as we have said, the amendment will roll back special tax loopholes for immensely profitable big oil companies. is there anybody that doubts that? i'd like to hear from these oil company representatives. they are entitled. they are not a person that some have said, they are a corporation, and they don't

have, i guess, a conscience because their bottom line is to make a profit. they made a lot of it and all we are asking them to do in this case and others, and i'll be back down here another time asking them to share some of it with the american people and not cause the pressing down of our states and counties and municipalities and causing people who are disabled and indeed some will lose their insurance because of this, and maybe some of these people have never had a disabled person, but i had a momma that was disabled for the last two years of her life, 30 years previous to that, being almost bedridden, and i know what disability is and i'm sure some of my friends do here, had i not been alive she would have died many years earlier because she had no ability to provide for herself, yet shell oil and exxon and g.e. and all these people do and they are right about their profit making, but they are wrong about not being able to share it with the people. .

i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. we find ourselves at a place where we should have been at for many, many months. and that is working in a bipartisan way to save american jobs. mr. speaker, it is amazing that we have this opportunity to have the president's support and those of us on the right, to have members, the democrat leadership, joining us. 269 co-sponsors on this legislation, that simply says to the job creators, we believe in you. mr. speaker, today we have a very simple vote.

we can remove the impediment to job creation from the backs of small businesses with no overall increase in government spending. that should be our vote today. mr. speaker, i encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 1904. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 444 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of the bill h.r. 1904. the chair appoints the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, to preside over the committee of

the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1904 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of federal and nonfederal land and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, our nation has suffered through 32 consecutive

months of over 8% unemployment and people everywhere across our great nation continue to ask, where are the jobs? congress' top priority right now is job creation and today we have an opportunity to act on that commitment by passing a bill that would put thousands of americans to work. the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act sponsored by our colleague from arizona, mr. gosar, is a commonsense measure that will create new american jobs and strengthen our economy through increased u.s. mineral production. the bill authorizes an equal value land exchange between resolution copper, the federal government, the state of arizona and the town of superior, arizona, that will open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. the bill requires the cost of the land exchange be fully paid for by the mine developer, ensuring fair treatment for

taxpayers and for the government. this project will provide substantial benefits to the united states in the form of job creation, economic growth and increased national security. this mining project will support nearly 3,700 jobs. these are good paying american wage jobs that will equate to more than $220 million in annual wages. at a time when our economy continues to struggle, this mining project will provide a much-immediated -- much-needed boost through private investments. this mining activity will have over $60 billion in economic impact and will generate $20 billion in total federal, state, county and local tax revenue. so this bill, mr. chairman, is a perfect example of how safely and responsibly harvesting our resources will generate revenue and get our economy back on track. the importance of u.s. copper

production cannot be overstated. our nation has become increasingly reliant on foreign countries for our mineral resources. placing our economic competitiveness and national security at risk. the u.s. currently imports 30% of the copper we need and we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries if we fail to develop our own resources and the vast resources indeed we have in this country. the copper produced from this single project, from this single project, will meet 25% of the united states' entire copper demand. the copper could be used for a variety of projects, ranging from hybrid cars, like the prius, to medical devices, plumbing and computers. without it the microphones and lights that we're using here right now would not be functioning. it's also essential for national security -- defense equipment and technology. it is used in satellites, space and aviation, weapons guidance

and communications. the benefits and the reasons to pass this bill, mr. chairman, are plentyful. however, we are likely to hear several inaccurate claims from those across the aisle who are opposed to mining in america. i would like to take a moment to set the record straight right from the beginning. first, the bill follows the standard federal land appraisal process, procedures issued by the department of justice which has been used in this country for decades. the appraisal requires full market value to be paid for by both the land and minerals within. if by chance there is copper production beyond, beyond, mr. chairman, the appraised value, the mine developer will be required to pay the united states the difference. which would be assessed on an annual basis. this is an added guarantee to ensure that taxpayers get a fair return on their copper resources. second, this bill is about creating nearly 3,700 american

jobs. it's not about helping foreign mining interests as some have charged. opposing this mine and not producing copper in the u.s. is what truly benefits foreign nations by sending american jobs overseas. and making it increasingly reliant on foreign resources of critical minerals. third, the bill requires full compliance with environmental laws and tribal consultation prior to constructing the mine. this bill provides more conservation and protection of culturally sensitive and critical habitat than otherwise would occur. especially in areas to be conveyed currently under private ownership. fourth, the developer has already secured over half the water needed for this project and has committed to having 100% of the water it needs in hand before construction begins. claims that the project will require the same amount of used by the city of tempe is, mr.

chairman, a gross exaggeration. finally this bill does not trade away sacred sites. as previously stated, the bill requires tribal concentration and there is a map that will be shown later on today that talks about the copper triangle in this part of arizona and you'll see that on this map, which will be shown later, this mine is right in the middle of that copper triangle. h.r. 1904 is about creating new american jobs, strengthening our economy and decreasing our dependence on foreign minerals. the bill has broad support both locally and nationally, including arizona governor, the arizona chamber of commerce, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturing and the national mining association. they all, mr. chairman, recognize the job-creating benefits of this bill. so i urge my colleagues to strongly support h.r. 1904, to

put americans back to work on american jobs and utilizing the vast resources in this country that we should be using for economic and for national security reasons. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. h.r. 1904 is a triple threat. it will rob native people of their heritage, it will rob local people of their water and it will rob the american people of their money. this legislation is simply an abdication of our responsibilities as steward of public lands and the public trufert. and it must be rejected. the congress routinely considers land exchanges. it is our responsibility to weigh the merits of each proposal to determine whether it is in the best interest of the american people. some proposals facilitate public recreation, some help local communities build courthouse and

schools and -- courthouses and schools and some serve important environmental goals. the land exchange required by 1904 serves none of those purposes. rather this legislation will take thousands of acres of healthy, protected, sacred public land and convert it into billions of dollars in corporate profits for two foreign mining companies. h.r. 1904 trades away several sites that are sacred to native people. the hearing record before the natural resources committee includes desperate pleas from apache, white mountain apache, tonto apache, other apaches and the pueblo and others pleading to respect the religious and cultural traditions. instead the bill waives compliance with nepa, the native american protection act and the

historic preservation act and all other statutes that might give the tribes voice and respect at the table before this decision is finalized. . the time insult comes when the bill requires consultation with native people after the land exchange. after that exchange has already occurred. this will not be government to government consultation as required by the treaty trust relationship, rather it continues a pattern of neglect and belittles native people once again. the legislation also threatens to take a drown prone area turning it into a desert. according to testimony received by the committee, a mining operation like the one planned by resolution copper requires an estimated 40,000 acre-feet of water per year. this is roughly the amount of water used by the entire city of tempe in arizona. the temperature does not own any

water rights, has failed to indicate where the water for the mining operation will come from. historically mining companies have simply sunk their wells deeper than their neighbors and taken water that they need. a federal mining permit process along with compliance with nepa and other laws might mitigate or at least explore these concerns, but the legislation allows resolution copper to skip these steps leaving the people of southeastern arizona in grave danger of severe water shortages. nepa happens after the land train is finalized. the parent company of resolution copper holds all the cards. compliance with nepa becomes unclear and poses legal issues regarding private property. finally, the legislation will allow the parent company of resolution copper to realize billions in profits without guaranteeing a fair return to the current owners of the land, the american people. the bill contains appraisal and

payment provisions, but the language is nonstandard and in some cases totally unique. why are such provisions necessary when a simple straightforward royalty would provide a fair and predictable return to the taxpayers? at a time when we are told that everybody from college students to the elderly must accept drastic cuts to basic federal programs, it is unconscionable that we would approve a massive transfer much wealth from the american people to a foreign-owned mining company without insisting on a fair return. supportive of this legislation -- supporters claim it would create jobs. job creation has been the excuse used here on the house floor to push legislation dismantling the last century of environmental protection and h.r. 1904 continues that pattern. the job creation claims are based on predictions provided by industry and the companies which stand to profit from this deal without a mining plan to verify

or corroborate any of the information. thus they are all highly suspect. when the proposal was first developed in 2005, the arizona republic and the tucson citizen reported the mine would create 450 jobs. without explanation these predictions have skyrocketed over the years to 1,200, 3,700 today, and 6,000 jobs as well have been brought up as numbers of jobs that would be created. none of these numbers are supported by facts. the trend in mining over the last several decades is clear, mining companies are producing more and more and using fewer and fewer workers. rio tinto are pioneers in the use of auto mation and the resolution copper project is an opportunity to perfect these technologies. even further, the number of jobs actually created by h.r. 1904 will pale in comparleson to the

economic and environmental devastation that it could cause. mr. chairman, this is a special interest legislation that is not in the interest of the american people. this legislation asks congress to be business agents for foreign owned corporations and not stewards of the public land or represent the american taxpayer. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, the sponsor of this bill, somebody who has been absolutely tenacious in seeing that this legislation advances to where it is today, so i yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, i rise today in support of my legislation, h.r. 1904, the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act.

mr. gosar: legislation that will create american jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and minerals, protect high profile conservation lands, and generate revenue for federal and state treasuries. in this time of serious economic hardship, congress must engage in serious debate over serious issues. what should not guide congress is an endless game of unfounded attacks that leads to trumped up fear amongoring to gain political advantage, particularly in this case the fear of robots. this legislation is a real job creator. i would like to tell a story about chris astore. a current employee at the mine site and a member of the an carlos apache tribe. chris grew up attending public schools on the reservation and graduated from high school in nearby globe. in 2010 chris was among those first in the first group of the resolution experience participants, a paid three-week

program resolution launched in the summer of 2010 to introduce potential employees to the world of mining. each participant receives a mine and safety health administrative certified training, then is exposed to the various work disciplines within resolution copper. following this three-week program, many of the program participants are hired by the company or as contractors. among the hired employees was chris astore. chris is one of seven apaches who have been hired by resolution copper or its contractor since the program began in the summer of 2010. chris now works as a core handler, one of the seven-member crew that retrieves drill core samples from the rigs that do the project. i have had the blessing of doing this in my own life for my dad. under the guidance of geologists, the core handlers log, process, and archive core samples with geologists and mine engineers, helping them to rely and understand the nature of the

ore body. i would like to eventually try different jobs, get a broader view, learn, and grow into a supervisory role, chris says. i also want to be trained to work underground. prior to the resolution experience, chris worked at the pinto valley copper mine an open pit mine a few miles northeast of the project which is owned by b.h.p. however this mine is currently closed. before joining resolution's experience, chris had been out of work for more than a year. chris is now a 31-year-old father of three children, ages 13, 9, and 5. with his stable good paying job including great medical benefits, chris is able to confidently support his family. i can take care of my kids better and provide what they need and sometimes even what they want, he says. life was not always good for chris. he grew up as an only child, raised by his mother and grandparents. he spent most of his childhood on the reservation. he went where my mom could find

work, he says. he never knew my dad. chris feels fortunate to have a job and to live on the reservation where more than 80% of the residents live in poverty and 7 out of 10 eligible workers are unemployed. it is true that modern mining technology uses high-tech equipment to accomplish certain tasks. this is done for efficiency sake and the sake of the worker. mining is a potentially hazardous task and certainly a difficult one that must be done with precision. chris is not a robot. you can still see there's a need for people to run the mine, to drive the trucks, to feed the workers, to drill the holes, to engineer the dig, build the structures, process the minerals, and, yes, build, maintain, and control technology. chris is a real human being operating this technology already aids the site. if we pass this legislation,

over 3,700 more success stories like chris' will come to fruition. i urge my colleagues to continue this debate with serious discussions about the facts about this bill not scare tactics. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: i would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from arizona, my colleague, mr. pastor. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. pastor: i want to thank mr. grijalva for the courtesy. mr. chairman, unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: mr. chairman, this is an issue that i have been working on for probably the last 10 years. and one of the interests that i have on this issue is i was born and grew up in this copper triangle that we are talking about today. it's a beautiful area and at one time copper was the industry for this copper triangle and over

the past 20, 25 years obviously many of the mines shut down and the copper production stopped in arizona. and so i have to tell you that my interest in this land exchange and -- would be the possible economic rise of this area. i traveled through this area because my mom still lives up in miami, arizona, where i was born and raised. and i traveled regularly at least once a month through these canyons and i could tell you that it's the most beautiful site, about 85 miles east of phoenix, where you can still see fine, pristine environment with some of the spectacular rock formation that you'll ever see in this country. so it's very beautiful. but also it's an area that's hit

some hard times. i grew up in a mining town so i know what a mining town is. during the summers while i was attending arizona state university, i would go work in the mines. so i worked in the leeching plant, the electroplant, the leeching tanks, ball mills, so i have the experience of knowing this type of life. so i know the economic boom that copper mining can bring to a community, but i also have experienced the impact, the adverse impact that copper mining can have not only on the people that work in there, but also on the environment. so i have seen both sides. it's with that interest that i have seen the evolution of this debate, at one time even i sponsored a bill that would deal

with the economic development of these mining towns, superior, globe miami, etc., and the area we are talking about being exchanged is an area that i know well. as a kid growing up we used this area for picnic site and in some cases probably the site where we didn't go to school, that's where we had our impromptu picnic. so i know this area. i have to tell you that the issue about the jobs as it will be discussed, and i guess the number of jobs is in the eyes of the beholder, mining has changed. and i know that it's a different type of mining than the one i experienced, and so we can debate on the mum of jobs. -- number of jobs. but i will tell you that this will be -- this will bring some economic development to these areas of the copper triangle.

that i cannot deny. but the issue for me is at what price? at what price do we bring this economic development without some protection to the environment, without some protection to the employee rights, but more, what do we do ensure that the american public who owns this property -- and there is no debate that this ore , deposit is some of the richest ore bodies, copper, gold, silver , and other rare metals will be mined here. it's one of the richest deposits of ore not only in north america but probably in this world. and that's why resolution copper has maintained nine years, 10 years of trying to get this bill

done, because they know how rich this is. so at what price do we pay for this economic boom? well, mr. chairman, i would tell you that one of the differences that i have with the sponsor of this bill, and i have to thank him because representative go czar reached out verierly -- gosar reached out very early and we talked about this particular bill, and he has improved the bill i sponsored, but i feel that he has not gone far enough. so this bill would be highly improved if the amendment offered today that gives an 8% on the extraction of the ore would be fair to the american public. and so if that amendment is adopted, obviously it will be very difficult to oppose this bill. but if the amendment is not adopted, then, mr. chairman, i would tell you that the american

public is paying a high price for the economic development of the copper triangle and the only enrichment will be for those copper companies that are of foreign extraction. so, mr. chairman, i thank you for the time. i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield 2 1/2 minutes to another gentleman from arizona, mr. quail, 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. quayle: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1904. the bill authored by my good friend and fellow arizonan, congressman gosar, that will create thousands of jobs in arizona. i want to commend chairman hastings for thinks work on this and bringing this to the floor today. what we see right now is a jobs crisis that we have in america.

and we need to be able to unleash the ingenuity of our job creators. and we also have to make sure that we're not putting up barriers for people to actually start companies, expand companies and hire new workers. h.r. 1904 have will have broad economic impacts not only for arizona but for the country as a whole. because it will create 3,700 jobs equaling nearly $220.5 million in annual wages. these are good, high-paying jobs right here in america. and it will also generate nearly $20 billion in federal, state, county and local tax revenue. this is a win-win. not only is this legislation completely paid for, but it also ensures that mining is done in a responsible manner. because h.r. 1904 requires full compliance with nepa and also requires tribal consultation prior to mine construction. now, mr. chairman, copper is a

vital mineral that we have in the united states and across the world. it's going to continue to be vital. because it's a critical mineral that was widely used in construction, telecommunications, electricity and transportation. copper's also extremely conductive. which makes it very important in power generation, in utility transmission. our actual desire and demand for copper is just going to continue to go up. and that's why we've actually started to import close to 30% of our copper from a foreign -- from foreign countries. if we opened up this mine and allowed this land swap to happen, this project alone could provide us with enough copper to meet 25% of current u.s. demand. by taking advantage of the american sources of copper, we can prevent supply disruxes and -- disruptions and decrease our dependence on foreign imports but most importantly, mr. chairman, this bill creates thousands of american jobs in a responsible manner at no cost to the taxpayer. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. there is a cost to the taxpayer, mr. speaker. the fact that this very valuable extraction in mineral is being extracted without any royalties, without any payment. i would consider that a cost to the american taxpayer. and the issue about nepa is not semantics. neep and other environmental -- nepa and other environmental profits should occur before the land trade, not after. after the land trade it will be very difficult for compliance to happen, as a consequence now that this land will be in the hands of a foreign-owned company, it will be private property. with that let me yield to -- as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of natural resources committee, the gentleman, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from arizona.

mr. chairman, the new deal was a jobs plan. president obama has put forward a jobs plan. h.r. 1904 is not a jobs plan. h.r. 1904 is a massive payout to multinational mining giants wearing a jobs plan as a disguise. and that disguise is slipping. real jobs are about making wise investments in businesses and technologies that put americans to work. this bill just gives billions of dollars in copper to foreign mining companies for free. so let's do the math. estimates vary on the value of the copper.

from $2 billion to $7 billion or $8 billion. so let's just split the difference down the middle and say that the copper might be worth $5 billion. the jobs claims for this bill vary wildly as well from 500 to 5,000 jobs. now, there's a good reason to believe the jobs numbers will be on the very low end, but let's be optimistic and take the highest jobs claim possible, so supporters of this bill are going to give away $5 billion in hopes of creating 5,000 jobs. well, that's $1 million per job, mr. chairman. $1 million not paid necessarily to the workers themselves, but paid to foreign mining giants. now, is that the kind of wise

investment that we need? i do not think so. i think that we need some new jobs, but they should be real jobs, they should be here. much of the work that's going to be done in this mining is going to be done by robots. so there will be full employment for our -- for r-2-d-2 and for the transformers but the total number of jobs here, very speculative and very expensive per job created. that's the real question here. because i think many human beings are just going to remain unemployment -- unemployed under this plan and since it's a multinational that gets the benefits, there will be plenty of accountants and lawyers in london and melbourne, all around the world, that will be employed, but in america, not so many. and those that are there, very expensive. especially since the per capita cost is very, very high.

now, why do we know that? well, we know it because rio tinto and b.p.h. stand to pocket an enormous amount of money. billions of dollars off of this deal. so if you count the food service workers and the executive dining rooms of these companies, well, you can see where there will be some jobs that are created. if you're adding it up that way. but, the truth is this is a windfall, a windfall, which is why i am going to make an amendment to charge a reasonable royalty for the privilege of mining this copper on public lands in the united states. and when the -- when the majority votes no on that, when the republicans say, no, we don't want to -- a royalty payment that can actually be collected by the american people, we'll see what the real aim of this is, which is to privatize this resource for multinational corporations without giving the full benefit

to the american taxpayer for the copper which is mined and mr. grijalva and mr. garamendi will offer an amendment to require local hiring and local ore processing and make it in america, make it here, and have americans working here, doing this work. people from arizona itself. that's the real debate that we're going to have. and in conclusion, mr. lujan as well will offer an amendment to protect native american sacred sites from being destroyed by this bill. and when that is defeated as well by the majority it will be painfully clear just how far they are willing to go to enrich these foreign corporations. this should not be a filings basement sale, this should not be a fire sale, giving away american valuable copper resources to multinationals, we

should be able to put a price tag on what the american people are getting from this bargain basement sale, this giveaway, without proper compensation given to the american taxpayer. that's what this bill and the debate is going to be all about. it's whether or not in fact there is corporate profit earring at taxpayer -- profit at taxpayer expense which is at the heart of this bill. history are record that when the public cried out for a jobs plan to put americans back to work, that what was put together was a retirement plan for executives at rio tinto and b.p.h. that did not in fact -- b.h.p. that did not in fact get a return for american taxpayers. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another gentleman from arizona, somebody else who has been involved in this issue for some time, mr.

franks, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: i certainly thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. mr. chairman, let me first just congratulate mr. gosar on the introduction and passage of this legislation. he has done an amazing job in helping this legislation get to where it is now and i have every confidence that he will see it through to the end. mr. chairman, according to united states geological survey reports, the united states currently imports over 30% of the country's copper demand. and in 2010 alone domestic copper production decreased by another 5%. it decreased by another 5%. and just as relying on foreign oil imports threatens national security, relying on foreign copper suppliers also threatens u.s. industry. we must use domestic resources to meet that growing demand and this legislation is a major step in the right direction. producing enough copper to meet as much as 25% of america's

current demand. the southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act would open up the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, mr. chairman. it would create new american jobs, reduce our dependent on -- dependence on foreign sources of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of minerals and generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue. now, in the midst of a prolonged recession, mr. chairman, that has hit arizona very hard, we really cannot afford not to pass this legislation because it so uniformly benefits our labor force, our state and local governments and conservationists who would benefit from the much of the high value land exchange in opening this land to mining. i would just encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. it's time that america begin to produce our own energy and our own minerals and to get back on track of being the greatest nation in the history of the world and i would yield back and thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the claim is that this legislation's going to boost the u.s. economy tremendously. but the copper will likely benefit china more than the united states. 9% of rio tinto is owned by the state-controlled aluminum corporation of china. rio tintto has a long established relationship. they refused to disclaim what level of exportation they were going to make to china of this copper-ore. at a time when we should focus on u.s. industry, on supporting that industry, creating jobs here in america, we should not be trading away billions in copper to supply china's needs. this bill doesn't require -- doesn't even require the ore extracted from this mine will be processed here. much less that it will be marketed or sold here. with that let me yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the resource committee, mr. garamendi. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. grijalva, thank you very much. let me just fell you, my family's been in -- tell you, my

family's been in mining since the 1860's, gold mining which isn't working too well in california right now and i'm not at all opposed to mining copper in arizona although there are issues local to be dealt with and let that go to another individual. i was deputy secretary at the department of interior and had the turent to deal with the appraisals and land transfers. this bill as structured is a bad deal for american taxpayers and for americans. it basically is an enormous giveaway of extraordinary value to these two companies. as has been mentioned by our colleagues from arizona who are in support of the bill, this is one of the biggest deposits of copper and other minerals in the united states and quite possibly among the biggest in the world. what is its value? the mechanisms that's used to determine the value of the trade is called a capitalization appraisal. which has to assume that -- has

to assume the cost, has to make assumptions on the extraction, the cost of extraction, and the value -- and the amount of ore to be obtained. there is no way in the appraisal process that that can be done with any accuracy at all. and in the language of the bill, there are certain provisions that make it impossible for the united states government to go back and do a reappraisal. so, we're left with a bad financial deal. also the copper mining has to be done properly with environmental reviews and all. that that's not the issue for me. the issue for me is, let's make sure the american public gets the right value out of this and there's only one way to do it. and that is, as the ore is extracted, it then has a known quantity and a known value and a royalty on the ore extracted, that is the material, copper, gold, and other materials is then known and if you simply put a royalty on that, then the

american public will get its fair share of its property. this property doesn't belong to rio tinto or b.h.p., it belongs to us, americans. may i have another 0 seconds, mr. grijalva? -- 30 seconds, mr. grijalva? it belongs to us as americans and we ought to be getting our full value. this is not an obscure or new provision. this is the standard procedure, we used it for oil extraction, except in deepwater. it's something that really will give us the value. secondly, and i'll make this very, very short, is that the equipment used ought to be american-made. there are going to be a lot of equipment, a lot of different equipment and materials used, let's make that american-made. that's an amendment that will come later. but right now deal with the royalty issue so that us americans, all of us, 300 million, will get our share of the extraordinary value that this mine will produce. with that i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from washington.

mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the natural resources committee and a gentleman whose district has long mining history, the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i came to the floor to speak in favor of this bill because, frankly, i find it hard to believe what i'm hearing from those arguing against it. does anyone honestly believe that passing this bill will create jobs only for an army of robots? are you kidding me? robots? according to one study this bill may create as many as 3,000 real jobs, for humans. mr. speaker, my district in northern michigan is a long way from arizona, we, too, have a long rich history of copper mining. today people need copper in their daily lives. the growing demand means we need

more mines. creating more jobs. in arizona and michigan. my own father was a miner. congress needs to demonstrate that the american people -- to the american people that it supports mining jobs in developing our nation's resources, as this bill does in a way that's both environmentally responsible and culturally respectful. i urge the passage of this bill and yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: could i inquire how much time each side has? the chair: the gentleman has 8 minutes and the gentleman from washington has 13 1/2. mr. grijalva: if i may yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i'm afraid that this bill is another example of the majority having no real jobs agenda. the republicans are claiming that this bill will create jobs

in arizona, and of course our whole country wants more jobs anywhere we can get them, but the truth is that no one really knows the exact economic impact of this mine. the only job numbers that we have to go on are those provided by rio tinto, a foreign parent company of resolution copper. when this proposal was first developed in 2005, it was propertied that the mine would create about 450 jobs. without any explanation, no data, no analysis, very little, the estimates have skyrocketed to over 1,200 jobs or even 6,000 jobs. that sounds enticing, particularly to a country where we have 10%, 9% unemployment. but without any data to support it, it just seems like speculation. you could just say it's going to create a gazillion jobs. why not? anything to get the deal. there's no way to know because the numbers are not supported by a mining plan of operations or

an impartial economic documentation of any kind. this bill is an affront to the national environmental policy act under this legislation by the time any environmental review or accurate job figures are available, the land will already be in private hands. in fact, there is no job requirement in the bill. there is no job requirement in the bill despite the vaunted promises of 6,000, 11 million jobs. this bill doesn't include any local jobs requirement from the mining company. at a time when the whole country is looking to congress to create much needed jobs, and we really are vulnerable to any promises of jobs, our colleagues across the aisle should be really focusing on creating jobs in america not just large vaunted promises that really have no background or substantiation. our colleagues across the aisle are spending the time in this house to create a special

interest carve out for a giant multinational corporation. this, by the way, owned by people outside the united states. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another gentleman who has been a long time supporter of this project, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. listening to the debate you wonder what bill we are debating here. the opposition seems to be talking about something completely, completely different. we have heard under the rule debate yesterday and some of the debate today that this won't create any jobs in arizona. that somehow these jobs will go to robots. come on, this isn't the jetsons doing this. i have no idea what's being talked about here. let me just give you a couple of examples of those who are employed currently. there are 500 people currently employed by resolution on the mine.

500. 90% of them are arizonans. 90% of the 500 right now. they are estimated 1,400 jobs directly related to the mine or directly in the mine, and some 3,700 beyond that. ancillary jobs that come as a result of it. guzman, a local superior trading contractor, he had several local employees working for him on this project. that's a person, not a robot. jeb doneland, a globe based contractor whose company is doing much of the reclamation work on the project. elizabeth, she's a long-time resident. she was actually born in the hospital that was run by the company on the previous mine that her father worked on. that company hospital now serves as project's headquarters. two of her sons work for a resolution contractor. mike alvarez, third generation from superior, works with a map technician. these are all real people.

not robots. you didn't hear me say c3po or anybody like that. so the arguments we hear coming out of the opposition on this are just complete, complete nonsense. about this not creating jobs. talk about royalties. if we want to go in and change the mining act of 1872, let's do it. i'll be there. a lot of us have argued for that, but this is not the place to address the mining act of 1872. let's address that when it should be addressed and let's address the facts at hand. and the facts are these, jobs will be created. this is a great bill. let's pass it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, mr. flake. you're right. this isn't the jetsons doing this. i'd probably feel more comfortable if that was the case, but given the time we have left i'll reserve the balance of

my time, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, how much time on both sides? the chair: 11 1/2 and six. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have another speaker coming to the floor so i'll yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, 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 is 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 c.b.o., the congressional budget office in looking at the land exchange aspect of this and the other costs associated, have concluded that the costs to the taxpayer is effectively zero.

now, that's official agency that we go by. so when we hear that there are a whole bunch of costs associated with that to the taxpayer, that's simply not so. but 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 our 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 decided -- was designed to have a disperfection 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 in the constitution to direct policy. why should a nepa policy be used to slow down direction that congress has given? so that's the only part of the nepa policy that will 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 deepa laws and nothing has changed. nothing has changed. so when people throw out nepa, when people throw around nepa as something -- 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 give away. in fact, there are some of my persuasion that may have a bit of heartburn with this because the 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 have heard the arguments over there and the time and i have been here and yet this is something 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 is a give away here is simply not the case because the exchange is of equal value. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am very pleased to yield to a former member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from new mexico, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding. every day in my district in new mexico people ask what's gone wrong with the american economy? what's gone wrong with the american economy is that the federal government spends $3.6 trillion a year and it brings in $2.1 trillion a year. so they ask then why are the revenues to the government down?

i say because jobs are down. and they want to know why jobs are down? and i can point to the resistance of this bill and explain why jobs are down. this is a very commonsense bill. it says we are going to take land, almost twice as much land and exchange it to a private company, we'll give them half as much land and let them have a copper mine there. and the americans are currently importing about 32% of all the copper that we use. this one mine, if the resistence were dropped and were put into operation, would provide 25% of the domestic copper demand for the next 50 years. why i have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle say it's because there are robots working in the mine. the mines i go into, and i will guarantee you this mine will be conducted with engineers, with mechanics, it's going to be conducted with blue collar laborers down the hole working

in the mine. they've got better machinery than they did 100 years ago. they are not there working with pick and shovel. but these are real jobs, 1,200 to 1,500 jobs long term, 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs. it's a $4 billion increase in our economy. and we can't get agreement. this town which talks so much about jobs on both sides of the aisle and we hear the president moving around the country, i haven't heard the president once come out and say at least free up these 1,200 jobs. i will sign this jobs package. instead he wants to raise taxes to increase jobs. that's his idea. this is a private investment in a private land where they create a lot of long-term jobs. more than this they are self-sufficient. the price of copper is almost four times what it was 10 years ago. the most recent report is that people are stealing copper bells off of churches and going in and

cutting them up and selling them. copper is in that great a demand and we still find resistence from our friends on the other side of the aisle for creating these jobs and no one seems to understand and the american public why. what is this about? . it's about agenda politics. we are not going to let any resources go in the west. the west had its timber jobs choked off, mining jobs choked off, it had resistance to the oil and gas jobs. they are trying to shut that down. the west is starving for jobs. in fact, we in the western caucus have recently put out a report highlighting all of the many ways we can create jobs now. the jobs frontier, i would recommend people go to it. this is one of the bills in the jobs frontier. i hardly recommend we pass h.r. 1904 and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. as i indicated, much of the opposition coming from indian country to this legislation. all pueblos, including six in -- all the pueblos in new mexico have opposed this legislation. all the intertribal council of arizona is opposed to this legislation. 26 tribes from across the country, including texas, have opposed this legislation. they see an impact on sacred sites, history, culture that has not been factored into this discussion nor have native people's, particularly those affected nearby san carlos, apache been allowed to run what is important which is the government-to-government consultation. just to point, the chairman, my friend of the natural resources committee mentioned c.b.o. score for this bill. there are also two points to

make. c.b.o. says this bill could cost the taxpayers up to $5 billion over 10 years. this cost is not offset. c.b.o. says the payments to government could be significant but the bill's provisions don't allow c.b.o. to score them accurately. a straight royalty for sure would have certainty and would return what we -- was needed and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. before i yield to another gentleman from arizona, i just responded, c.b.o. said in their scoring which is so insignificant it's hard to measure. with that, mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: mr. chairman, this is where i ran out of the financial services committee because it's important to be an arizonan.

i spend a lot of time in this part of the state. much of the communities have devastating unemployment. and they are literally furious with washington, d.c., for destroying their timber jobs and squeezing their mining jobs and then we stand here with something that for little state like arizona -- for a little state like arizona could be billions and billions of dollars of economic growth. when you think about this one ore deposit could represent 20% of the nation's copper, you know, how can we even be debating this. when you also realize, an average single family home uses about 440 pounds of copper. how about a car? a car uses about 55 pounds of copper. this is where it will come from. and the last thing i want to say, and to my good friend, congressman gosar from northern arizona, and all tee --

mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. schweikert: he's gigantic here. as a freshman to step into this body to deal with sometimes a can tank russ issue but -- cantankerous issue but those who love arizona, this spornt. this is a lot of jobs. this is a lot of economic growth. and congressman gosar gets a lot of credit for getting it this far. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. mr. grijalva: can i inquire how much time has on each side? the chair: we are at five and three. mr. grijalva: i'm going to be prepared to close, but i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the sponsor of this legislation, again, somebody who has been absolutely tenacious on this issue, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. my legislation shows you can protect the land and water and have a good economy with jobs.

the land exchange that will bring into federal stewardship 5,500 acres of high-prix or the conservation lands in exchange for the largest copper area in the world. i'd like to speak about one. the 7-b ranch located in pinal county, arizona, is 3,073 acres dedicated as one of the last great places on earth and the forest service testified that this property was priceless. you get a chance to see some of it. this area is home to a free-flowing arteeshan wetteland populated by leopard frogs, nesting birds and native fish. this par sell is recognized as an important bird area. these are amazing sites. these are priceless. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me just talk about the

opposition and it is not only with affection for the state that i grew up with and i was born in but it's also for the future of that state and it's also for the future of important rules and laws that have protected our environment for many years to assure that the jobs we're talking about are not just a panacea and a selling point as opposed to a reality. the opposition to this copper land exchange bill is based on many factors but let me just point out two. this is the fourth version of the land exchange. it began with former colleague ramsey. then, mr. pastor, mrs. kirkpatrick and now my friend, mr. gosar from arizona. they are not the same, none of those. and the one major difference is

that with the exception of the legislation before us, the nepa process, the consultation all occurred before the land exchange, not after. once we do that process, something comes up that needs compliance and mitigation. it becomes subject to the private property owner, a foreign company that will now have this public land, to deal with that question, as serious compliance issues and legal issues. the other point is the water. the 12 years have already been done of the 20 that the mine needs to be operated. other important areas in the water supply for the region that seems like a significant number. but to bank, to bank water for this project on the outskirts of phoenix does nothing to mitigate the potential usage of

water, the potential drain of water in those these aquifers in that region and the effect it would be. nepa would tell us what the effect is. a full study would tell us. we are not having that done. we are working on supposition. i think that's a mistake. we cannot afford it with this bill. a full and open process. if we would have done it with the ramsey bill almost eight years ago we would be through that process many, many years ago and perhaps be talking about a differently crafted piece of legislation. we aren't doing that. the -- and the last thing is there's something sacred and spiritual about this as well. native people are not just complaining because they want to complain. they are legitimately saying that we need to have consultations. there should be full studies

and factored into the decisionmaking must be the historical and cultural and sacred and religious areas that we need protected and ensured it will be protected. those discussions have not occurred. h.r. -- it's a land giveaway, and the gentleman from new mexico said why our economy is in the bad place, well, this legislation tells you why. it's a sweetheart deal for a multicultural corporation, foreign owned. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. grijalva: i will after i'm done with my sumation if i am time, sir. this is jobs for -- it's a touchy term, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the reality is we attempt to as a pioneer -- they've done it in australia, they have done it other parts of the world. there is no reason to believe that that same pattern is not

going to be applied to the mine that they own in the resolution. the sucking sound we will be hearing is the loss of water levels in that area and the effect it will have. and it uses unusual appraisal procedures which will not guarantee that the company is going to pay any fair price for the billions of dollars of copper they stand to receive from the american people. and like i said earlier, something has to be sacred. h.r. 1904 takes away many sites that are sacred to may tif people. we've received plea from indian country over and over and over again and we should deal with those issues before the land exchange, not if this legislation has it after. and add insult to injury, we kept talking about jobs. there is an agenda before this congress to begin to immediately create jobs for the american people. that is stalled, and from what

i hear from leadership, permanently derailed. so as american people look for real employment and real opportunity, we present a false hope in this legislation, something that hasn't been vetted, and i urge opposition to the legislation. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington has two minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, how much time do i have? the chair: two. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. chairman, i am -- i just want to make two points in concluding debate before we go into the amendment process and the reference was made to nepa and i responded to that a bitterlyier 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. and the second i'd want to make is on the issue of creation of jobs. honestly, when you hear debate on the floor on this issue, that's problem emblan attic of the debate 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 way 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. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill is shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 112-258. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except those printed in part b of the report. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to division for the -- division of the question. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? mr. lujan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-258 offered by mr.

hew has of new mexico. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: this amendment asks us to respect the sacred site of our brothers and sisters. this doesn't offer to protect sacred sites of the area and does not offer true tribal consultation to the tribes. we all know that consultation and not after decisions have already been made. the tribes in this area believe resolution copper will have negative impact to their sacred and traditional sites in the area. again, this amendment will not kill this project. it would show respect and offer protections to both surface and subsurface sites on the proposed land conveyance. more specifically, my amendment states that the federal land to be conveyed will not include native american sacred or cultural site, whether surface or subsurface.

this amendment would offer a basic level of respect for many religious and cultural sites to many tribes in the region. as our dear friend, congressman kildee, reminds us daily, we have a trust responsibility for our tribal brothers and sisters, and those who oppose this responsibility will dismantle it piece by piece with a escapele and not at all at once with an ax. in the current form, h.r. 1904 would approve a federal land exchange to transfer ownership of 2,400 acres of land on the tonighto national forest to resolution copper for the purposes of a block cave copper mine. the federal lands to be exchanged are part of the ancestral lands of the san pedro tribes. these lands have unique religious, traditional and archaeological significance to many tribes in southern arizona. behind me is a photo of one of those areas that's most sacred, apache leap. you heard from my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle that their bills provides protection under the proposed area to be exchanged, but i don't believe that to be true. . if it were true why is every tribal organization in this country oppose this bill? it's because they do not believe these so-called protections to be real. opposing organizations include but are not limited to the national congress of american indians. the united south and eastern tribes, the all indian pueblo council of new mexico, the apache tribes, and many other tribes across the country. many chairman, all of these organizations and tribal leaders know that the degradation of these cultural sites means a loss of identity and culture, not to mention utter disrespect for the religion and history of the tribes connected to this area. just to be clear, supporting my amendment will not kill the project. it with simply mean respecting and preserving the religious, cultural, and archaeological and historic significance of the

land that means so much to the tribes in the region. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. 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 decision that is affect the people on their reservation lands. this bill before the house today explicitly includes a section requiring government to government consultation. section 4-c, mr. chairman, of the bill is titled, i quote, consultation with indian tribes,

end quote. 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 the site that is not located on reservation land. the closest native american reservation is the an carlos apache located more than 20 miles east of the mine site. 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 is where copper is mined or quarried right now. this is the proposed site of the mine. and the an carlos apatch -- san carlos apache reservation is up here. the real effect of this

amendment would be to allow the department secretary to veto and block the project on this grounds that are previous identified cultural site exist 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 environmental assessment in 2008, three years ago, in which, and i quote, several attempts were made to identify sacred sites and effects on ceremonial use of sacred sites, end quote. the official conclusion was the finding of no significant impact and that finding was sustained on appeal. furthermore, the terminative 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 lit litigation and

subjective or political decisions. in the land exchange within the bill, environmentally sensitive and cultural important lands are given protection. thousands more acres as i alluded to earlier on are added for the protection that are made available for the development of this mine. the ratio is roughly two to one. 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 amendments would be for political mischief between the time of the mine operating, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the lujan amendment. i reserve my time the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, just to be clear with this amendment, it does not kill the project.

the amendment simply states that the secretary will exclude sacred and cultural sites as identified by the secretary. if we are serious about protecting sacred sites and respecting tribes across the country, i don't know why this is so complicated. the only area in the legislation as we look at section 8 of the bill talks about preserving and consulting with tribes about apache leap. but again it's too little, too late. it's consulting after the fact not before the legislation is taken into effect. so, mr. chairman, you know, if we are going to go into a site, save the cathedral in santa fe or the vatican in rome, and they were going to go and do something to that land. don't worry, we have some other land we'll give you, it's about the religious and sake considered as read nature -- nature of these sites we are talking about. at the very essence let's look to see what we can do to preserve the government to government trust responsibilities that we have with our tribes and respect

those religious sites. respect those sacred sites. and see what we can do to work together collectively, again, this isn't going to kill the project. let's work together to make sure we respect the tribes that we are so honored to represent here in the congress. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from new mexico. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. if the gentleman from new mexico would answer a question, it's my understanding that we have rock climbers who are always out there. hikers up in there. that would be the equivalent to allowing people to rappel down the side of the washington monument, but i never heard objection to anyone to exclude those kinds of activities. so it comes across just a little bit strange that we would talk about limiting one activity while people are crawling and rappeling down these sites already. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i understand the other side has yielded back

their time. how much time do i have left? the chair: one minute. mr. hastings: more than happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i find it interesting that my opponent on the other side actually focuses a picture of apache leap which specifically excluded from this legislation. so therefore when we talk about in regards to protecting the sites, we have done so. as far as the consultation is concerned, we have done consultations -- no, i will not yield. when we are talking about -- that is apache leap. the chair: the time is controlled by the gentleman from arizona. the chair would ask the gentleman from new mexico to -- mr. gosar: we cite all the native tribes. their far from innocent. during our conversation within the resources committee, former tribal chairman and 16-year tribal council man testified that reducing so the traditional

apache values are not mutually exclusive with economic development. given that the san carlos apache is one of the most impoverished tribes in the nation with unemployment rates around 70% and poverty affecting every facet of tribal members' life, i couldn't agree more with him. he also points that the campground in question is a long way from the reservation. he also pointed out the majority of tribal members he speaks about in this project support this project. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired on the amendment. the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. lujan: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new mexico will be postponed. it is now in ordinary it consider amendment number 2. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i have an amendment

at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report number 112-258, offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 444, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. chairman, very much. mr. chairman, there are two versions of this land bill. one with the markey amendment, one without the markey amendment. the difference is the version with the markey amendment is a deal the american taxpayers should take. without my amendment this is a deal that takes the taxpayers. without the markey amendment, this larned deal is a -- land deal is a shell game. all about misdirection and sur

prize outcomes. we are urged to keep our eye on the beautiful surface acres the federal government would get in this deal and the unique payment scheme included in the bill. this is like the guy on the street who tells you to watch his right hand while his left hand is picking your pocket. this is not about the surface, this is about the copper and whether rio tinto will have to pay its fair value. and the fact is the payment scheme in this bill is completely, let me say it again, the payment scheme in this bill is completely speculative. it will be based on information only the company has access to and is subject to serious manipulation. in the end rio tinto could end up paying absolutely nothing for

the massive windfall they stand to receive with this legislation. with the markey amendment this bill is simple. it would require no guesswork on the part of the taxpayers. it would allow for no manipulation that could change the american taxpayer. my amendment strikes the convoluted payment scheme in this bill and replaces it with a simple 8% royalty on the copper produced each year from this money. this is the american people's copper. what are they going to get out of this? how about 8%? can we give these taxpayers 8%? we don't know how much copper exactly is down there. the benefit of my amendment is we don't need to know ahead of time. the rio tinto makes $1 is, then they owe the taxpayer a nickel

and three pennies. if they make $8 billion, the u.s. treasury gets $640 million. now the company will argue a royalty is unfair. well, guess who is already paying royalties, mr. chairman? oil and gas companies pay 12.5% when they drill on the taxpayers' land. that's what exxonmobil pays. that's what shell pays. you know who else pays the royalty? rio tinto and b.h.p. when they mine on state land. so if you're in colorado, wyoming, state land, you are paying a royalty. let's go to the american taxpayers' land. those same companies that pay to the states don't pay to uncle sam. and the revenue from a royalty is money we could use. what could we use the money for? make sure we don't have to cut medicare payments for grandma.

make sure we have student loans for kids to be able to go to college. that's what the money could be used for. should it just be pocketed by rio tinto by these companies? so i ask my colleagues, which deal do you want to go home with and tell your constituents you were for. the deal where they got some nice land in arizona while a foreign mining company got billions in copper? or the deal where they got the land plus hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments for the u.s. taxpayer? with the markey amendment, we in congress are responsible stewards doing our due diligence to protect the federal treasury to get the taxpayer what they are owed. without the markey amendment, i will not -- i will not yield. without the markey amendment this house looks like the old keystone kops fumbling around in circles while billions walked right out the door that should be in the mokets of every taxpayer in this con-- pockets of every taxpayer in this contry. we have a supercommittee debating how much they are going

to cut poor people, students, national defense, what we are going to spend on the protection of our country, how many policemen we can afford to have. . we are going to turn a blind eye to billions of dollars into the pockets of a foreign corporation. that's not wrong, that's not right, rather. vote for the markey amendment. capture this money for the american taxpayer. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 the 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-c 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 upfront, but if in fact this vain is larger than what is anticipated, there is a further provision that says that should it exceed that amazed 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% 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 that they 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 uzz because that is required -- united states because that is required in the bill under current law. what this amendment really does is sending a signal to companies that want to invest on federal lands, to utilize the resources we have, that they are not welcomed in the united states, they are not welcomed and they should go overseas where they are welcomed taking american jobs with them and making us less economically viable as a country and also costing us jobs. so with that i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

massachusetts has used all of his time so you need to use yours. mr. hastings: i would yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to point out, if we want to address the royalty on this and other mining ventures, let's address the mining act of 1872. there were attempts to do this in the 1990's, attempts to increase royalties or impose a 5% royalty and many on the other side of the aisle opposed that measure. so there have been few attempts. i would encourage, let's go back to it, but we can't do it here on this one bill. make no mistake about it, this is an attempt to kill this legislation, nothing else. it's not an attempt to garner the taxpayer more revenue. this is an attempt to kill the bill. i encourage rejection of the amendment and adoption of the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from

washington. mr. hastings: how much time do i have, mr. chairman? the chair: two minutes. mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. pearce: it's interesting to listen to the arguments, to listen to the arguments that were given just now on why we should support the markey amendment. you'd believe that republicans have set up this massive scheme for avoiding payment for royalties. now, this law is -- has been in place on the books for a very long time, but i remember that the democrats were in control for two years, the house, the senate and the white house, and they elected not to pass this royalty bill because they knew it would damage the economy. like the gentleman from arizona just said, this is a single attempt to kill this one bill. 25% of the nation's copper needs could be met for the next 50 years and they're trying to kill the bill. that's what defies explanation.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i just want to point out, the unprecedented nature of this amendment. now, 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 because what is sacred -- -- if this were to be passed, 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. now, boy, that is going to instill confidence, i can really see in, 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 process. the chair: all time for debate on the markey amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. markey: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, beamentbeament massachusetts will be postponed. -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title of the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-258 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 44, the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: when the democrats were in the majority, including the 8% royalty requirement, and met almost unanimous opposition from my republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we had been told that the creation of jobs is the principal motivation and justification for h.r. 1904. but when we examined these job claims they start to fall apart. we've heard 47, sometimes 6,000. the numbers aren't supported by the facts. the amendment that we have before the house right now is offered by myself and the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is the only way to ensure that at least some jobs will be created in arizona as a

result of this bill. our amendment adds conditions to guarantee job creation in the community of superior, arizona, and the surrounding area and strengthen the overall benefits to the u.s. economy. section 1 of this amendment guarantees that the remote operation center is located in superior. modern mines and royalty, in particular, use a range of automation technology, most of the human labor is done offsite at remote operation centers. it is presently operating the australia mine in perth, a metro area. our amendment will ensure that this remote operation center is in superior and operates from superior, arizona. if this legislation is truly about jobs and lefting up the local economy, it's important that local residents have access to jobs that is created by this mine. section 2 of our amendment

makes sure that arizonans are considered first for employment. without active recruit amount and any hiring preference for area residents, how do we know that the residents of the region and arizona will benefit from the project? our amendment makes sure that that happens. it's if the bill is really about jobs and our national interest, then we should guarantee that the oil producer of this mine has a direct impact on the u.s. economy. section 3 of the amendment will make sure that all raw materials extracted from the mine is processed in the united states, not in china, or any other foreign country. finally, section 4 of this amendment will ensure that all equipment in the mine is made in the u.s.a., puts american manufacturers before foreign compet force. if the promise of job creation have any shed incredible, the grijalva-garamendi amendment must be adopted to ensure the promises we have heard and there are guarantees that have

been talked about this afternoon are in fact reality and this amendment would make it a requirement. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the fundamental purpose of h.r. 1904 is to make copper in the united states and create thousands of american jobs. this amendment is purposely written to make the 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 at the project will lose their jobs and the 3,700 total jobs that would be created would never materialize. the lead sponsor of this matter 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's simply an amendment in

wolf's clothing. this amendment dictates specific mandates on business operation, mr. chairman, that are unrealistic, unprecedented and unworkable. let me give you an example. it mandates the precise town in which the mine operation 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 cooper tino to, where, -- kuper tino to, where -- cupertino to, where, detroit? those investing thousands of american jobs that democrats in the district of columbia want to dictate where to operate their business. but on the other hand, there

maybe some consistency because when president obama and house democrats hand out over half a billion in stimulus dollars to the fiskar 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 not one ounce of copper goes on any item it violates this law, this amendment to be used outside the united states. i'm sensitive of 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. and what about copper jewelry, mr. chairman? an american built jewelry that includes copper components or a multitude of other everyday items that we build in america and sell abroad that contains copper. this amendment would make it impossible to use the copper from into bin, but on the other hand, that's probably what the intent is. finally, the amendment mandates that all equipment that use to mine or support mining activities be made in the united states. the purpose of the bill is to allow the third largest underdeveloped copper resource in the world to be developed in america, to create american jobs and provide up to 25% of america's copper consumption. it defies renal and logic to say this economic boost to america can't happen if one piece of equipment used for the mine isn't made in the united states. and 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, such as papers and pencils? i phones and blackberrys, 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 america's copper production and america copper creation, and with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reservices his time. for clarity of the record, du mean an amendment in sheep's clothing, not an amendment in wolf's clothing? mr. hastings: whatever interpretation i'm speaking to you and whatever you're saying. the chair: got it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me yield to the co-sponsor of the amendment, mr. garamendi from california, for the balance of the time. the chair: two minutes, the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: our worthy chairman has put up a dozen

kinard, none of which addresses the underlying issue right here. this amendment is a very simple one that would locate in arizona the headquarters for this mine. is there something wrong with that? not moving this off to finland. come on. this amendment would also provide that the copper, and it's been stated by the proponents of the bill that 5% of the copper needs in the -- 25% of the copper needs in this united states would come from this mine. so why not use this copper in the united states? seems to be to be perfectly reasonable despite all the stuff tossed around here. the other part has to do with the equipment. does the worthy gentleman from washington oppose to using american-made equipment in american mines? is that what this is all about? yes, there may be some definitional problems. i would be glad to work with

you on the definitional problems but the underlying point is why would we set up all of this so we can import equipment from china? why not simply require that this mine, which under the bill itself is a -- enormous giveaway of american property, a property owned by the american people, an enormous unparalleled giveaway of our value, why not simply require that at least if they're going to be given all of this they be required to buy american-made equipment for the mine operation? what's wrong with that? why not make it in america? if this mine's in america, why not use american-made men -- american-made equipment and hire american and in this case arizonans? you got a problem with hiring arizonans? you got a problem with locating in arizona, the headquarters of this mine in which you prefer -- or would you prefer london or maybe somewhere in australia?

come, come on. these are very simple amendments so that americans can go to work. these are very simple amendments so that we will buy -- so that this company will buy american-made equipment. to mine our copper. which under your proposal is given away. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time controlled by the gentleman from arizona has expired. the gentleman from washington has a minute left. mr. hastings: a minute and a half? the chair: no, one. one minute. mr. hastings: in that case i will yield myself the balance of the time. i just want to respond to my good friend from california about working with us if there's a flaw in this amendment. i 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 tried our amendment on the floor of the house and it's precisely the same amendment. i just don't -- you know, i have a hard time thinking that

somebody wants to work with us, when they tried out the same amendment with the same arguments that got defeated twice. and i just want to mention this, mr. chairman. it's a worthy goal to buy america and to promote buying america. but not if that's 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. so, mr. chairman, i urge defeat of this amendment and with that i yield back my time. the chair: all time for debate on the grijalva amendment is expired. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: with that, mr. chairman, i'd like to ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i

move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it and accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1904 and pursuant to house resolution 444 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. chairman, i have a new report. the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 1904 direct mess to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: of the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1904 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. not earlier than 3:30 p.m.@@

at the history and four acres of human remains. a real life "c.s.i.." also a look at ruth's author and his life in knoxville. kathy on how haily fell in love with the city during a 1982 visit. and on american history tv on c-span3, a visit to the sequoia birth place museum. director explains how an indian silver smith, sequoia, successfully created a system of writing for the cherokee language. also, a visit to secret city, oak ridge national laboratory historian on the lab's partner -- part informant development of atomic bomb.

and is knoxville a true southern city? historian on its history and future. watch throughout the weekend on book tv and american history tv. in knoxville, tennessee. >> the house coming back at about 3:30 for votes on the arizona land swap bill. until then, representative tom price who is also a republican policy committee chairman, talks about the g.o.p. strategy on job creation. host: for the third time in three days the president is going to announce proposals that work around congress. what's the meaming to congress? guest: well, i think the message to congress is that we hope that he begins to work with us. what the house republicans have done repeat lid over the past 10 months is to put bill after

bill after bill in the senate, sitting on harry reid's desk, that will in fact create jobs, so we hope the president gives harry reid a call and says, why don't we begin working together so we can solve these remarkable challenges? host: because you deal with policy and economic issues, what's the economic ramifications of what the president's proposing, especially if he plans to go around congress? guest: significantly increased unemployment, no real job creation, all sorts of uncertainty out there in the market for both small and large job creators and so that's why we find ourselves in this really troubling time right now. which is why we have called on the president to come back to washington, let's work together and solve these challenges. i don't think the economy is interested in a president that is going to be out there free jns lansing it. i think -- freelansing it. i think what the economy wants to know is that the people here in washington are going to work together and solve the challenges. host: he targets student loans. what's been the republican response to how students handled their loans, especially as they graduate college with

debt? guest: there's remarkable challenges out there especially for stublets. the best thing we can do for student loans is to create a vibrant job market, a vibrant economy so, that they're able to pay back the loans that they took. the solution is not to have government insert itself at every single turn. the solution is to work together, to get this economy rolling which is why we've created our jobs creation plan, put forward all sorts of pieces of legislation again that are stacking up in the senate the senate. host: consolidation, is that good or bad for the federal government to be involved in that? guest: you never know what the president's talking about until you see the writing on the piece of paper and he gives a great speech, as everybody knows but once we see the specific proposal that he has, there are committees on education in both the house and the senate and we'll work through that process and see whether or not it's something that we can support. host: when it comes to financial issues, there's a hearing today which will air with the supercommittee as far as doug elmendorf coming before the committee. are you concerned about reaching a deadline and coming up with a final plan before

that deadline? guest: the deadline is short, there's no doubt about it. november 23 is when the committee has to report to congress, it actually is a little sooner than that because of the logistics that have to be done to get the bill ready for congress to consider. but all of that being said, we want to work together to decrease spending at the federal level so that we can reinvigorate the economy and put in place our jobs plan. host: as far as the actual supercommittee work, what about the aspects that you've heard in the last couple of days, especially one aspect, the drawdown costs for iraq and afghanistan? should that be the total tally as far as the $1.2 trillion is concerned? guest: we've never supported that. that's not money that's actually being spent by the federal government. we believe that, as we put forward in our budget earlier this year, that you can actually get $6 trillion in savings if you go about this in a very methodical, logical and compassionate fashion. we believe that you got to fundamentally reform medicare and medicaid so that you can save those programs, there's a

path to get to saving social security, instead of doing what the president has proposed and in fact passed in the last congress which is to take $500 billion out of the medicare system, which they that doesn't make any sense for seniors. host: if the figure happens not to be $1.2 trillion, how will those in congress react especially as stories of lining up to support what comes out of the supercommittee, regardless of what the tally is? guest: we're hopeful that the supercommittee will in fact produce a work product that both the house and the senate can respond to positively. for some folks the problem is, as a surgeon, i can tell you that it's better to reduce things by -- with a scalpel, not with a ma chetty. when you cut things absolutely across the board, then you're cutting some things that ought

to be reduced in terms of spending and you're reducing some spending where things ought not be reduced because they ought to be priorities for our country. host: what would be examples of both of those categories? guest: security and the nonsecurity side. there's some areas in the area of defense, for example, are the size of our force, in terms of the army, if you just take a slice across the top of the budget for the army, then you actually get into individuals, personnel. that may not be wise for our country. in the area of health care, something that's near and dear to my heart, saving medicare, if you just whack across medicare with a certain amount, then you may reduce spending in an area that ought to be increased as opposed to decreased for specific diseases. host: our guest with us until 8:30. if you want to ask him questions, here's how you can do so. it's journal@c-span.org.

first call is chicago, illinois. go ahead. caller: hi, mr. -- oh, god. what is his last name? host: representative tom price. caller: yes, mr. price. i'm a democrat but i think everybody in this country should have a fair share. how can -- the question i have to ask you is how can you sit up here with a straight face and say that president obama should come back and work with you all when this man has tried to work with with you all for three solid years? america's not stupid. america's not dumb. when the polls swing your way, we know what the american people want. that's you're favorite line. the the american people. now that they're swinging away from you all and people are taking the blinders off and seeing what the republicans standing for, and it's only this president. may i say that a whole party and a few of its own party have literally stood against this

man on everything. now this man hasn't had a chance to get his policies out like he should. guest: well, the frustration and anger that i hear in your voice is heard across this land. and it's because the economy isn't moving, because jobs aren't being created and because people have a great frustration. you do, clearly, about the manner in which their government is not working together. but america's always been a place where you could earn success and where people wanted to be treated fairly. you're absolutely right. when you talk about the president working with us, look, for the previous two years i chaired an organization in our conference called the republican study committee. we came up with positive solution after positive solution after positive solution. every single week we called on the president to meet with our group, in the last congress, and every single week we were denied. so the fact of the matter is, the president's got a very difficult job, there's no doubt about it. but he can't go out on the road and say republicans won't work

with us this when in fact he doesn't even meet with us to discuss the challenges that we've got. that's all i'm saying. you determine who you want to believe in that instance but i can tell that you the president refused to meet with us at every single turn. host: tennessee, danny, republican line. you're on with representative tom price. caller: yeah, hi. i've been a long time republican. i'm just wondering, how come the job creators aren't paying the .05%? if they was creating jobs, maybe that .05% wouldn't be any problem at all. i just don't understand why that .05% would be that much for them to create jobs like they're supposed to in the first place? guest: well, the job creators both large and small, folks, are out there, they're simply americans trying to make ends meet. and right now in the marketplace, in the economy, what we see is all sorts of

uncertainty, nobody knows what their tax bill is going to be, nobody know what is their energy bill is going to be. nobody knows the consequences of the health care legislation and how much that's going to cost them. so what we hear from those job creators is that they're just pulling back and waiting until they see what happens. in addition to that, we've had the federal government come in and pick out certain companies and reward them in ways that distorts that marketplace. solyndra is the classic example most recently out in california. the solar panel company that got over $500 million and in fact was a company that never should have gotten those sorts of resources and when that happens, it distorts the fairness in our economy and the ability to compete with each other. so the job creators themselves aren't having all sorts of -- aren't making all sorts of money at this point and they're finding themselves incredibly difficult to be able to invest at this time because they don't know what the rules of the game are going to be. host: kbs and "the new york times" put out a poll looking

at the approval rating of congress. that came back at 9% approval rating. guest: that means they share the frustration that we share and that is that we're not able to work together to address the challenges that we face. what we need to do is to recognize that the american people are very frustrated. we're frustrated with the fact that we can't seem to get folks pushing in the right direction or pulling in the right direction or the same direction. so, this is going to take an election, i think, to work itself out. but in the meantime weave got 12 months to go before that election and what the american people want to see is their representatives in washington and the house and in the senate and with the president, work together to come up with some solutions. again, harry reid, our jobs plan is very specific. it has specific reductions in regulations, it's got specific reductions in taxes, it's got specific solutions to be able to provide an opportunity for those small and large job creators across this country to create jobs. those bills are stacked up like wood in the senate on harry

reid's desk. i'm not sure why he won't act on them, but he won't. host: what's the republican responsibility for that 9% figure, though? guest: all of us bear responsibility for it. when i go home, i hear that same frustration. republicans, democrats, independents, they're all frustrated. and rightly so. what people see is a gridlock here in washington that is not helpful. it's not helpful to solving problems, but they also see a president and folks here in washington that tend to demagogue issues in a way that's not productive. and that's why -- that's why i get so frustrated when i hear the president out on the road say, why don't folks just work with us? well, come on back, let's go, let's meet. we're ready to meteorite today, mr. president. host: lancaster, pennsylvania. shannon, independent line. caller: hi, yes. i agree with -- we're at a stalemate here and each party's got their own agendas, it doesn't seem to me that the government of the people by the

people and for the people has s working for the people in their best interest. it seems like people that we elect in the servitude of our government, they got their own agendas, their own personal interests and they push their statements through the election process to gain our favor. so they can manipulate the powers when they take office. and it's just so frustrating these days. i feel like our country is in a state of being held hostage and hostage takers is the american government. that us citizens voted into office. guest: i'll tell you, i think that's what a lot of the 2010 election was about. there are 87 and now 89 new freshmen on the republican side of the aisle and i think that they were elected, many of them to office, because of that frustration and that concern that you voiced. one of the interesting numbers is 38 of those 89 had never run for any office before in their life. so they woke up one morning, as i suspect many of the listeners out there did over the past couple of years, and said, what

the heck's going on in this country? i don't recognize the kinds of solutions that are coming out of washington and therefore i've got to get involved in the process. and they have in fact reinvigorated the congress of the united states on the house side, which is why we've been working just as diligently as we can to positively solve the challenges that we face. and what we'd like is a willing partner on the other side that would do the same. host: the president addressed those issues in las vegas when he specifically talked about congress answered specifically talked about the dysfunction that as we would describe is in it. here's what he said. then get your response to it. >> we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional congress to do its job. where they won't sk act, i will. in recent weeks, we decided to stop waiting for congress to fix no child left behind. and decided to give states the flexibility they need to help our children meet higher standards. we took steps on our own to reduce the time it takes for

small businesses to get paid when they have a contract with the federal government. and without any help from congress we eliminated outdated regulations that will save hospitals and patients billions of dollars. these steps aren't substitutes for the bold action that we need to create jobs and grow the economy. but they will make a difference. so we're not going to wait for congress. i told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without congress. steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive and help heal the economy and we're going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis. guest: well, mr. president, we can't wait either. we can't wait for you to repeal the unelected board in medicare that will deny care to seniors. we can't wait for you to assist us in decreasing the regulations that are present in the economy right now that make it so it's impossible for small

and large job creators across this land to create jobs. we can't wait for you to assist us in making certain that we're able to gain the kind of energy resources from this country so we aren't reliant on foreign oil and the increasing way that we have been. we can't wait for you to positively work with us to solve the challenges that we face. so, on one thing we can agree. we can't wait. host: laurel, mississippi, joe on our democrats line. caller: i want you to explain to the american people, what is the difference in a bill and a plan and do the house, the republican majority of the house, do they have a bill for a job plan? guest: absolutely. and i appreciate the question. in fact, what we have is 16, 15 or 16 pieces of legislation in our jobs plan that we passed through the house. bills that would in fact decrease the tax burden on small and large job creators so, that they can create jobs. bills that would decrease

regulations so that again small and large job creators across this land can get to work in creating jobs. pieces of legislation that would provide greater certainty in the area of energy. you know, i had an opportunity to speak with bernie marcus recently who was the fellow who started home depot, big company. and that company started with an idea that he had and when i asked him when we asked him whether or not he could start that company today, if it would be possible, he said no. because of the rules and the regulations and the reach of the federal government, it would be impossible for him to start a company like home depot today. that ought to send a chill up and down the spine of every single american. because when you can't dream those kinds of things, when you can't dream big dreams, then what it does is tamp down the kind of opportunity and the kind of dreams that your kids, your grandchildren have, and makes it so that the american dream is less likely to be achieved. what we all want is an america where there's great

opportunity, where dreams can be realized. and what i think the american people are voicing their frustration about, from the left to the right, is that they sense that their government is decreasing their ability to realize their dreams. and that's just wrong. we've got to get back on track. host: an email from a viewer who asked, does your guest feel that the huge deficit can be fixed with just cutting? does revenue need to be included? guest: no. deficit can't be fixed with just decreasing spending. spending reductions are important so that we can get the economy rolling again. but the way that should decrease the deficit and grow and decrease the debt is to grow the economy. is to make it so you have a more vibrant economy. about 1/3 of the decrease in -- 1/3 of the increase in the deficit is a decrease in the growth in the economy. so when the economy grows, then you get actually more tax revenue to the federal government. which is why it's so important, why it's so important to put in place the kinds of rules and programs here in washington that allow the economy to thrive. host: war saw, wisconsin -- warsaw, wisconsin, go ahead,

steve, republican line. caller: yeah, representative price, good morning. we would like to see the bureaucracy cut, like the department of energy, department of education, e.p.a. , not totally cut out, but we want it reduced. we want their power reduced because in many cases the bureaucracy is holding back the american dream. so, i'll hang up and wait for your reply. thank you. guest: thanks so much. you're absolutely right. the size of the federal government has increased significantly and oftentimes not accomplishing the mission for which it was designed. the department of energy that you mentioned is a classic example. department of of energy was started in the 1970's. its sole purpose was to make sure we remained less reliant on foreign oil. at that time we were 25% reliant on foreign oil. now we're 60% to 70%. so the department of energy has

failed miserably in its mission. any entity like that in the private sector would have been long gone. instead what we do is reward the department of energy, increase its budget, increase the number of individuals there, and so you're right. what we need to do is decrease the federal government in its size, in terms of the bureaucracy, to only those functions that ought to be in place by the federal government and not continue to increase the size of the bureaucracy. dwhow that what you do is crowd out the private sector. that's where you get the job creation. host: let's hear next from louisville, kentucky. independent line, gregg. caller: good morning. mr. price, i would like you to explain why high speed rail is being blocked or not allowed to be developed in this country. it is a massive device that we could use to really create jobs from administration to construction to all other forms of employment. it would really have an impact. it's a clean source of

transportation. is it because the airline industries really have you guys on the hill to keep this from coming forward? what is the story on that? guest: no, absolutely not. appreciate the question. there may be a role for high speed rail in some areas where there are corridors, transit corridors where there's a lot of people moving back and forth. high speed rail in terms of its cost effectiveness, though, is somewhat suspect in much of our nation because there's not the concentrated population. it may be that in the northeast and certain areas in our country where there is a concentrated population, that it makes sense. what i will say is that infrastructure ought to be a priority. the maintenance and building of roads, our water and sewer system, oftentimes in many places in this country needs to be updated. and so infrastructure is important. and the president has talked about the need for infrastructure improvement. and expansion. and he's absolutely right. where we disagree is that he believes we ought to pay for that with borrowing on the context of the priority of the

federal government. so that's a common ground where we can begin to work on and hopefully come up with a solution that will say, yes, this this is an area where the priority of the federal government, where the priority of federal taxpayer dollars ought to be put. host: you talk about corporation. an effort on the house today that talks about part of the president's -- president's job package, with holding 3% of payments to contractors as a down payment to future taxes and the story from the hill says that the white house even supports this proposal. guest: this is a proposal that both we and the president have had. it's a 3% with holding that we will repeal. the president has supported a temporary repeal. we support a complete repeal. and i think we're going to be able to meet common ground on this. host: how does that work? what's the context? guest: the context is that there is a law that was passed, a number of years ago, that said that any contracts or any business between a governmental entity and a business would have a 3% with holding, be 3% with held. and right now the margins for many businesses aren't even 3%. so this is an important thing

to do away with, it is stifling many areas of the economy and so this is an area where we actually agree and i think we'll get this law passed. we hope that what the president will do is talk to senator reid and say, yes, let's pass this, because the senate refused to act on this last week. but the president put out a statement yesterday that said he supported it. host: why is the senate resistant? guest: i think the question is whether or not -- how are you going to pay for it? and we believe that the pay-for, the way we make this budget neutral is a more appropriate solution in the house as opposed to the senate. host: why work with the white house on this and not other issues? guest: i can't tell you why that is but i hope we begin to use this as a kernel that can grow into greater cooperation. host: dearborn, michigan. you're next. republican line. caller: hello, representative price. i'm a republican and i voted for bush, i voted for mccain. and i watched c-span. i'm disabled.

from a bad auto accident that the insurance company would not pay for. and i watch and what i observe and what i've learned is that you -- all -- the republicans and even some democrats, you're all owned by the corporations. and i've seen the bills that you have and they're given tax breaks to the corporations and you're wanting to roll back e.p.a. regulations and i'll tell you, i have asthma and i have drug insurance. they will not pay for the inhalers except one inhaler, $5, which that inhaler doesn't even work. and next year the drug insurance companies are only going to pay anything over $90 for an inhaler. and why is that? because if you republicans get your way, the clean air act and all your mercury and all this stuff in the air is going to increase and people are going

to have more asthma and insurance companies aren't going to pay. guest: well, virginia, great to hear you from. deerborn's actually my hometown. you may or may not know that i'm a physician. i'm an orthopedic surgeon. so the last thing i want is for anybody to have increased health challenges. i would suggest to you that what the federal government is doing right now is making it more difficult for you to receive the kind of care that you want. as we move down the road. now, the status quo in health care is wholly unacceptable. you're absolutely right. the system is not working. but the solution isn't to put the government in charge of it. the solution is to put patients in charge of it. which is why we have promote what had we call the empowering patients first act, which is a piece of legislation that would allow you and provide for you to be able to have the kind of health coverage that you want, solve the insurance challenges that you noted and reduce the lawsuit abuse that is rampant in this country. so there are positive solutions to get patients engaged in this process and have the system be response to have patients which it isn't right now. host: a viewer asked, what are

the top three pieces of legislation or congressional bills that congress is working on now to increase employment? guest: well, i'm glad you asked. our job creators package includes items to decrease the regulation, as i mentioned, there are regulations that are coming out of washington right now that are making it more difficult for both small and large businesses to create jobs. decreasing the tax liability on businesses, right now businesses are really struggling and they don't know what their taxes are going to be. so they're withholding -- they're holding back on the kind of capital they have to create jobs. and then making certain that there is certainty out there in the market from an energy standpoint, from a health care standpoint, so they know what their costs are going to be. there isn't a single piece of legislation that washington can pass that will say to the economy, go create jobs. washington's role, the government's role in all of this process is to put in place a set of rules that are fair to the system. so that the economy can grow and thrive and that we can have the kind of competition out there that results in the kind

of job creation that we've known in the past. host: riverside, california. renee, democrats line. caller: hi. hello? host: hello, you're on. caller: hi, yes, i want to ask the representative how he keeps badgering the president about not compromising with him when the republicans already have signed this paper that they're not going to raise any taxes, so that right there puts you at odds because for the last 30 years we've cut taxes and look where the country is right now. so if we don't have any revenue and you're going to continue cutting taxes, that means that the poor are going to be poorer and the rich are going to be richer. guest: yeah, i share that frustration about not being able to get this economy rolling. and taxes are one of the reasons that it's not rolling. as you may or may not know and certainly some of the litsners

out there know in terms of business taxes, we have the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world. so our competition out there in this global economy, for anybody who's looking to create a job or expand their business, our competition in other countries says, come here. don't come to the united states. because of the tax structure. so we aren't isolated in this world right now. we're not -- we can't just, you know, throw up the fences and put in place the policies that won't allow us -- allow us to be competitive. we need to be competitive in the world. one of the ways we can be competitive is to make is to -- to make it so the tax structure is so that businesses will want to come here and expand here and right now that's the not -- that's not the case. host: much has been made from the rick perry's proposal for a flat tax. the editors of "the wall street journal" say this is desirable precisely because of its spurt of faster growth and more job creation and the dynamic effect those would have on government

revenues. do you see -- do you agree with that? guest: yeah. i think a couple things happen with a flat tax or fundamental tax reform. one is certainty. as i mentioned, the businesses out there, small and large businesses, don't know what the rules of the game are going to be. they're withholding any expansion in their business. the second is that when you broaden the base and lower the rates for taxes, you actually allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, more money in a private economy, more money in the economy out there would increase the vibrancy of the economy. so i think a flat tax, which is what we passed in our budget earlier this year, in the house republicans, and i may mention that that was sent over to the senate as well and it's been over 900 days since the senate has passed a budget. that a flat tax makes a whole lot of sense. the alternative is a national retail sales tax where you do away with all taxes as they relate to income. that makes some sense to me as well because that would inspire and invigorate the economy but i'm not -- i don't think what

we want is both a national income tax and a national sales tax. that's the wort of both worlds. host: what about his idea of opting in or out of a flat tax? if you wanted to keep deductions, you'd have the ability to do so? guest: i haven't seen the numbers run on. that it's a novel idea. it makes a lot sense to me. i'm all for individuals being able to select the kind of system that they're in. the kind of solution that we put in actually for medicare is to allow individuals to opt in or out of the system as they see fit. it's these kinds of things that empower individuals, that say, we believe in citizens, we believe in individuals across this great country as opposed to we believe in ever-increasing government. host: here's rick perry talking about his proposal. >> every american the option of throwing out that three million words of the current tax code, and i might add, the cost of complying with all of that code , in order to pay a 20% flat

tax on their income. the best representation in my plan is this postcard. this is the size of what we're talking about right here. taxpayers will be able to fill this out and file their taxes on that. guest: i think the simplicity that rick perry, that governor erry, talks about there is exactly what the american people want to embrace. they know that the tax code is incredibly complex, that it's contradictory. you can't figure out what the heck the rules of the game are. so the simplicity of what governor perry is propose something very attractive. host: louisville, kentucky. jim, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i am another dissatisfied republican calling. i am hoping that the dr. price would please pay attention to some of us moderates. a couple of comments if i might make and then you're the -- hear the doctor's responses. first off, the idea about home depot, the c.e.o. saying that

he couldn't start up a new business today because of the economy, it's the economy. now, it's the economy, it's not higher taxes because president obama compromised and allowed the bush tax cuts to continue. so that just doesn't fly. number two, all the top economists that i've ever heard say that we need to cut spending in the long run and increase taxes. we need to borrow short-term, the money we don't have, just to get us through this horrible period in our history. apparently you all don't understand how bad it is out there for the middle and lower class people. the last thing i would simply say is this, the media has bought into this idea that it's the senate and house that are all dysfunctional and i disagree totally. i think the democrats have gone way past what they should do to compromise. so it brings me to this comment. mrs. mcconnell a long time ago,

of our state here, said privately that he didn't think that the american people were really smart enough to make wise decisions and i'm afraid if people don't pay attention in this next election and get rid of some heartless people and people who are not statesmen, then maybe mcconnell is right. and i'll ask you one last question. did you sign the no tax pledge? guest: yeah, i did sign the no tax pledge because i believe that increasing taxes, especially at this time, is -- it would be a further death now to the economy. i have my trust and faith in the american people. i believe the american people are wise and are smart and they will make -- given all of the information, the right decisions. and that's what gisks me the hope and the optimism that i have for this great country. is that the american people are going to rally around and say, we believe in america, we bleave in ourselves, we believe in the american dream. the comment that you made about home depot, it's not the economy that i was referring to.

it's the regulations that are put in place from washington that would make it impossible for that business to start. i meet with businesses all across this country and hear their concerns about why they can't reinvigorate their own business itself. and especially in the area of medical manufacturing, medical devices, a companies are held to an incredibly high standard, unlike anything else in the world, that makes it so they can't bring new products online. so that our health care is actually being compromised because of the rules in place from washington. and then finally on the whole issue of borrowing, goodness gracious, if we haven't learned that we ought not be borrowing the amount that we're borrowing right now, i don't know when we will. we're borrowing about 40-plus cents on every dollar that we spend. you can't continue that. you know you can't continue that in your family. you certainly can't do that in your business. and no government can either. so what we need to do is to embrace fiscal responsibility, get our fiscal house in order,

balance the budget and move toward paying off the debt. those kinds of things will actually reinvigorate the economy. host: the c.b.o. says that the top 1% of americans with highest incomes saw their incomes increase an average of 275% between 1979 and 2007. by comparison it also says that 60% of americans in the middle of their income scale saw that they increased by just 40% during the same time period. guest: yeah. and that's not ideal. by any means. but what that -- there are two ways to address that. one is to say that you can increase the vitality of the economy so that everybody can see their income increased or you can say to the top earners, no, you can't do that, we're going to beat you down and punish you for being successful. i believe in an america and i think the american people believe in an america where everybody has the opportunity to realize their dream. that's what we seem to be missing right now. that's what the american people i think look to washington and they say, don't you understand that i've got big dreams? don't you understand that i want to be able to compete in this society? don't you understand that i want the opportunity to have

earned success instead of learned helplessness which is what we seem to be seeing from the other side? earned success is what america's always been about. let's have that faith in america and allow individuals to realize big dreams. host: how does that address the concerns of those on occupy wall street and other areas of the united states and the world? guest: i think the whole occupy wall street issue has been one that has voiced a frustration and now has been demonstrated from the right end of the political spectrum to the left end, that the system's not working. now, for those individuals who actually believe in america, believe in free market capitalism and believe in entrepreneurship and believe in dreams, they're as frustrated regardless of where they fit on the political spectrum. what they want to see is an economy that's working and a nation that's working and that's what we're striving for. host: atlantic city, you are next. andre, independent line. caller: yes, good morning, mr. price. i'm calling from atlantic city and i have a two-part question and a statement. my two-part question to you is,

as a republican, what would you rate the presidency of george bush in his eight years, how realistic would it be -- no, how realistic was it for whoever was to be the next president to change the results of his presidency? and the statement i have is that, i hear you speak a lot about dreams. the american people would buy into that when the system of the country was working. but now we have reached a point in our country, the lowest terms we have reached in a long time, and now is more being held accountable. we want to hear parties speaking more of accountability and asking the people, giving the power back to the people to make the things work. thank you. guest: thank you. i agree with the accountability and giving power back to the people so that we increase the vibrancy of this economy and allow people to realize their

dreams. in terms of the previous president, look, no president is going to doxalyha -- 100% what you want or 100% what i want. think president bush did a lot of good things and he did some things that increased the size and scope and reach of government, that i wasn't in favor of. this is a remarkably challenging time in our nation's history. what i believe, however, is i think what hopefully most of the viewers believe and that is that if we find ourselves in challenging times, then we ought to get back to fundamentals, back to basics, back to principles that made us the greatest nation in the history of the world. and i think that's what creates so much frustration out there, is because people don't see that we're getting back to basics and back to fundamentals, we're increasing the size and reach -- >> we're going to take you back live now to the house and they finish up work on the arizona land swap bill. 1904. will the gentleman from ohio, mr. latourette, kindly resume

the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1904 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast arizona by authorizing and directing an exchange of federal and nonfederal land and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rows earlier today, a -- rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 112-258 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 1 nt by mr. lujan of new mexico, amendment number 2 by mr. markey of massachusetts, amendment number 3 by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair will reduce to two

minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-258 by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-258 offered by mr. lujan of new mexico. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of taking this recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote followed by two two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

continues. host: it is wednesday at 9:15.

as we do it every time, it is time to kick a spotlight on a magazine. megan mcardle wrote the piece on whether congressman are guilty of insider trading, and does it matter? to start off with, our members are guilty -- are members of congress guilty of insider trading? guest: this turned out to be a complicated question. in the 1990's there was a professor that did a study that looked at what the disclosure forms that members of congress had to file, and to attract those things with things that had happened to companies they own. for example, lloyd bentsen had conveniently bought and sold dairy companies before regulation affected what they were doing in terms of prices

and so forth. there was a business professor in the south who saw this and made a splash in one of those of news shows. he was watching it and thought that is not right, you need to do this right. you need to look and see if congress outperforms the market. it took him forever. he had to get all these disclosure forms. this was back before the internet and not really available. he goes through and get the team together, including his wife, in dix and to -- puts a data set together. he looks to see if they outperform the standard portfolio. the answer was they outperformed by 30%, which is huge. it does not sound like that much, but this is the 1990's, so we're talking about anyone who can breathe and hit the key on the keyboard can make 20% in the market. to out do that is an enormous

thing. this year he followed up with a study on the house, and show they do not over performance well, 6%. that is still an enormous over performance compared to the rest of the market. host: how do we define insider trading? guest: this is interesting. a lot of people think it is a fraud on the market, but it is more complicated than that. for example, if you work for publicly-traded company, and you are aware of your new product line is not doing well and you trade on the information from your definitely guilty of insider trading. this became a crime during the 1930's. before that people did not really think of it -- they expected everyone was corrupt. that is the family insider- trading. what is definitely not insider trading is if you are talking about this at another employee

at a movie theater and as someone over here issue and they got in trade this, that is definitely legal. there was a man in the 1970's who when they print perspectives for murderers, they try too hard identity, but they have to prepare the prospectuses before that, and he went out and treated on them. he got insider-trading, but the supreme court ruled this is not insider trading, because he did not have a fiduciary duty to hold this information private. however, a few years later, a fellow who was riding for "the wall street journal" was

essentially leaking what was going to be in the column to traders who would trade on the information before it ran. he was also done that for insider trading, ended this case the role against him. what they said is he had misappropriated information that belong to his employer. so they said he had misappropriated information. that is very different from fraud on the market. one law professor i talk to pointed out this implies it is perfectly legal for "the wall street journal" to front run its own trade iades. what it was undermined confidence if we knew they went out before and did anything and treated in the stock? no, of course not. the law is very complicated. how does this apply to congress? the problem with getting congressman for insider trading

is who employs them? who would they be misappropriating information? morally they are employees of the united states people, and i agree. a law professor has argued this that they have a fiduciary duty, but it is not clear. it is not clear they would violate the rules we have surrounding insider-trading. host: our guest with us until 10:00 to talk about insider trading. as a member of congress ever been found guilty of insider trading? guest: as far as i was able to ascertain, no one has ever gone after a congressman for insider trading. anecdotally, i tried to talk to people who prosecute these

cases. i did not get a lot of interest in talking to a journalist about this. i take this to mean there's not a lot of interest in pursuing the issue, because not only is your boss and who wants to go after your boss for insider- trading, but also because it is inherently political. it is very difficult to decide who goods targeted by ethics investigations. it is not always true. there are really egregious cases that get on after the matter who is part of it, but the boundary cases often get prosecuted when your party loses control. i do not think a lot of prosecutors want to dive into that. host: what kind of information would members of congress have if it were happening to make these decisions regarding stock? guest: all sorts of decisions. if you think about how many decisions they're making that would affect the company.

think about the lloyd bentsen case. with that case, if you are a big dairy processor, knowing what of milkrolled what tprice will be, is a highway bill going to go through land of that is owned by a company that could sell it for lot of money, how are you going to regulate various products? congress' ha can and has almost put companies out of business by surrounding changes of what they do. all of those things have enormous impact on companies. it would be relatively easy it there were no controls on it, and if you did not really have any compunction about it. it would be relatively easy by knowing what regulations were going through. host: megan mcardle our guest

until 10:00. mark from florida. caller: good morning. and true professional you are. i want to make a point. i think a problem we have, in our history when the executive branch and legislative branch have run amok and corruption, which i think what has happened, and you will never get anyone in congress because they have friends, family that do investing for them and the kids run through different things, but in our history, the media and the newspapers used to be the ones that have the power of another little check and balance to where they could inform the public of the culture of corruption in such. what we have now is i think the media is corrupt as well. if you look at big business media and who they are in cahoots with as well -- look at

the martha stewart case. they busted her on telephone calls and this and that. the media cover that 24/7. host: caller, thanks. guest: there is a lot there. there is a lot the the fact is that congress is in charge of regulating itself, largely because of the dangers of having congressman subject to executive oversight or so forth. that is on to say there never subject to the laws, they absolutely are. and having someone else watch them is problematic, so they watch themselves. doctors have this problem. journalists have this problem. groups that self-regulate, you

have a lot of sympathy for other members of your group, and you do not want to lay your yourself with disclosure regulations when you know you are doing nothing wrong. host: delray beach, florida. keep on the democrat line -- keith of the democrats' line. caller: are talking to me? it is debbie. i have a question regarding the solar company would need tupelo's t with nancy pelosi's . also, countrywide loans and whether congressperson get a sweetheart deal. and guest: these are three separate questions. the first question about her brother-in-law, it really in

illustrates the limits of the spirit and even if you require their stocks, youodivest will have family that have stocks and will care more than those that do not have more direct stake in the stock. on lobbying, it is a complicated question, and a little bit outside of this scope of this article, which pertains directly to the question of is something that is a crime for everyone else not a crime for congress people? more broadly, we can touch people who have a -- it is very common for people to try to escape the insider-trading by having their family members trade for them. it is actually a very common practice.

it is harder than using to get away with it. consistently. we now have computer programs that hit the stands out if someone is looking. host: megan mcardle, i have a copy of a financial disclosure statement that is required by congress. if they have to fill these out, could you find the transit they're getting benefits from trade? guest: they do have to fill out financial disclosure forms. i did not want to imply the members of congress are not honest about the link these out, but if you look at a case of charlie rangel who had interest he was not disclosing either on these forms or to the irs. this went on for years where he had tax incomes, rental houses in pr he was not disclosing. it's we are deals that were control for ght contrent

apartments. -- sweetheart deals that a giving him rent control for apartments. interestingly people have done follow-ups and show they underperformed the market. it is still in contention whether or not this is happening, or whether the financial disclosure forms and publication of these studies have made people think twice about doing this. you do not know. what they said to me is there is not even the space to report short-selling. if you think about the regulations that could adversely affect the company, short-selling in a lot of cases is obvious thing to do. you find out we just discontinued some big bomber that boeing is selling and you short the stock before it is sold, that is not even reported on these disclosures. host: amounts of income have to

be reported, but not the amount of the spouse's income over $1,000. the cap on outside income was $24,000 in 2005. when it comes to assets worth more than $5,000 at the end of the calendar year. exchanges amounted to more than $1,000, and along with the date and amount of transaction. what else could be on the forms that is of interest? guest: short sells as a big one. more broadly the question of auditing is the real issue. these forms are only reported retrospectively. you only get the data years after it has happened. then it is really old news. it is harder to get the energy to go into these cases. that was hypothetical by the way. i am not adding new charges to

its ethics investigation. audit is the largest bank. frequency of reporting. insiders to trade in their own stock after reports these things much more closer to real time. it seems to me reasonable to at the very least require congress to do that, but i think when you think about not just the possibility for insider trading, but when you think about all of the conflict of interest, and all of us know no matter how hard you try to not think about conflicts of interest, it is difficult to divorce yourself entirely. maybe we should think about having congressman put their assets into one trust. host: fort knox, ky. peter on the republican line. isler: very quickly, ma'am, there any way possible that your organization and yourself to do it investigating into the history of congressional

conflict of interest since the vietnam war era. also, when it was a known time out on the street that many of your members of congress and their staff members had what was called stock holdings in defense contracts companies that were engaged in contractual operations in vietnam, and since then another source of information for these congressman is also that because they have connections with these lobbyists of these companies, the lobbyists -- who is to not say they are bringing information to them about potential contracts that are coming up in war zones? unfortunately that would be known as war profiteering. to get to my question, will you and your organization conduct a

series, which covers possible congressional connections with lobbyists of these corporations? guest: i think people do those sorts of studies. as i say, this really goes back to the core problem, which is unless we have them divest all of their assets, there is always going to be conflicts of interest, if it is not defense contracts, it could well be agribusiness or many other things that the congress affects every day. host: is it is congress members that have to fill these types of forms? guest: the supreme court also does disclosures. i assume what he is referring to is clarence thomas. there been a lot of people suggesting he should recuse

himself because his wife has been an active campaigner against health care. i think that is a little bit of a stretch in a bunch of ways. it is not really shocking that his wife is campaigning against health care. she was an activist before they got married. it is not clear -- she does not necessarily do worse if health care passes. if it stays live, it is not like she does worsen that way. she then gets to raise more money to campaign against it. there is not a financial conflict of interest host. host: and still, texas. clay on the republican line. -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 189, the nays are 233rk the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-258

by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-258 offered by mr. marky of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 173, the nays will 238, the amendment is not agreed to. the up finished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house report 112-258 by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. grijalva. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part b of house report 112-258, offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva. the chair: those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a railroaded vote is order. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this question, the yeas are 182, the nays are 240, the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: pleasure. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h r. 1904, house resolution 444, and report it back to the house with the amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the bill has had under consideration h.r. 1904 and pursuant to house resolution 444 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate amendment -- vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the

amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to facilitate the efficient extraction of mineral resources in southeast arizona by authorizing and directing federal and nonfederal land and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members please take their seats. the house will come to order. members please take their seats. the house will come to order.

the chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. we ask that the house now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the brave men and women in uniform who have given their lifes in afghanistan and iraq and in honor of all those who serve in the armed forces and their families. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed, in its current

form. the speaker: the gentleman qualifies, the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. deutch of florida moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2904 to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with an amendment. insert before the period the following except that such terms shall not include any company successor, assigned, or joint venture with an ownership interest in any property or project any portion of which is owned by the iran foreign investment company. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, bipartisan unity may be rare these days --

the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. deutch: but if there is one issue we have consistently come together on, it is the threat posed by a nuclear armed iran. that's why last year this body voted to enact tough new sanctions aimed at preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. that's why 332 members of this house. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, that's why 332 members of this house are today co-sponsors of new legislation to strengthen iran's sanctions law and it is also why this body should join me on this final amendment to the bill so we do not reward

companies that provide financial aid and material support to the iranian regime because this bill in its current form will bolster iran's illicit quest for nuclear weapons this legislation rewards u.s. land to resolution copper, a company owned by rio tinto. which also owns a majority stake in a mine in libya. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may proceed. mr. deutch: in namibia where it's partners with the iran foreign investment company. the iran foreign investment company is wholly owned by the iranian regime. quite simply, we are about to reward a company that partners with the iranian regime to mine, of all things, the

uranium it needs to become a nuclear power this congress cannot be in the business of assisting a regime that plots attacks on u.s. soil, that kills american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan and threatens to wipe our ally israel off the map. iran has made its intentions clear. it is not intended for peaceful purposes. last month, an ally report -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. if members would please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. deutch: the iaea noted the military dimensions to the iranian program, the threat is real and this congress has always taken it seriously. we have watched iran attempt to make a mockery of u.s. law by finding new ways to evade sanctions and now we are going to help them do it. my amendment does one thin. it blocks any iran exchange with a company or affiliate

connected to the iran foreign investment company. let me be clear. this will not prevent passage of the legislation. if adopted, it will be incorporated and we'll vote on the final bill. we have come together against a nuclear armed iran before and we can do it again today. let's put partisanship aside and let's unite against the very real threat of a nuclear armed iranian regime. i am pleased to yield to the ranking member mr. markey. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. the bill before us today proposes to give away national forestland to the resolution copper corporation so they can build a giant copper mine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman may continue. mr. markey: there could be between $2 billion and $7 billion worth of copper on this land. who exactly is this company that's going to be the

beneficiary of republican majority largess? a controlling 55% of resolution copper shares are owned by the giant mining conglomerate rio tinto. what else does rio tinto own? they own 65% of the world's largest open pit uranium mine. the mine in namibia. their second largest partner in the uranium mine with a 15% stake and two people on the board of directors is none other than the government of iran. the u.n. the u.n. security council has condemned iran for its violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and this house has twice enacted strong iran nuclear sanctions and yet rio tinto is in partnership with the iranian government to mine uranium. for what purpose?

and with this bill today we are rewarding rio tinto. we are telling rio tinto, never mind the u.n. sanctions, never mind the sanctions of u.s. law. what the deutch amendment does is say, if you want to do business with america, you need to stop doing business with iran and mahmud ahmadinejad. -- mahmoud ahmadinejad. under this amendment, as soon as rio tinto severs its partnership with iran and ahmadinejad, the copper affiliate can proceed to take title to these very valuable federal lands in arizona, in the united states of america. i don't think that's too much for this congress to ask. vote for a strong nuclear nonproliferation policy. send a message to ahmadinejad, vote for the deutch amendment. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back?

the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me be perfectly clear and i'll 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 but the larger debate, it is interesting to me how i hear the other side come up with all of these different ideas. here's what the debate is. the debate has been going on for

some time. probably about three years, come to think of it, it's about creating jobs in this country. our approach on this side is very simple. it's similar 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, what they want to do and we heard this in the debate is to raise taxes and create public jobs. this creates private jobs, i say vote no on the motion to recommit and pass the bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. . a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. . pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit h.r. 1904. it will be preceded by five-minute votes on h.r. 1904, ordering the previous question on the house resolution 448, adopting house resolution 448 if ordered and suspending the rules and passing h.r. 2527. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 187, the yeas are 237, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235, the nays are 186, the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on ordering the previous question onres. laugs 448 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: resolution providing for consideration of the bill h r. 2576 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligible for certain health care related programs and providing for consideration of

the bill h.r. 674 to amend the internal revenue code of 1976 for 3% withholding on certain pames made by government entities. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. s that five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]