On the recordOctober 26, 2011
Our worthy chairman has put up a dozen canards, none of which really address the underlying issue here. This amendment is a very simple one that would locate in Arizona the headquarters for this mine. Is there something wrong with that? We are 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 25 percent of the copper needs in the United States would come from this mine, so why not use this copper in the United States? It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, despite all the canards that we just tossed around here a few moments ago. The other part of this has to do with the equipment. Is the worthy gentleman from Washington opposed to using American-made equipment in American mines? Is that what this is all about? Yes, there may be some definitional problems. I'd be delighted to work with you on the definitional problems, but the underlying point is why would we set up all of this so that we could import the equipment from China or Japan or some other place. Why not simply require that this mine, which under the bill itself is an enormous giveaway of American property, of property owned by the American people and the 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?…
Source
govinfo.gov




