    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070, H.R. 2621, AND H.R. 3155

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS

                                AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           Thursday, November 3, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-81

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    71-119 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, AK                        Dale E. Kildee, MI
    John J. Duncan, Jr., TN              Peter A. DeFazio, OR
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Rush D. Holt, NJ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    John Fleming, LA                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Mike Coffman, CO                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Dan Boren, OK
    Glenn Thompson, PA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Jeff Denham, CA                          CNMI
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Martin Heinrich, NM
    David Rivera, FL                     Ben Ray Lujan, NM
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      John P. Sarbanes, MD
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Betty Sutton, OH
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Niki Tsongas, MA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Kristi L. Noem, SD                   John Garamendi, CA
    Steve Southerland II, FL             Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Bill Flores, TX                      Vacancy
    Andy Harris, MD
    Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
    Jon Runyan, NJ
    Bill Johnson, OH
    Mark Amodei, NV

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                    Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
                     David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                 RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, AK                        Dale E. Kildee, MI
    John J. Duncan, Jr., TN              Peter A. DeFazio, OR
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Rush D. Holt, NJ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Martin Heinrich, NM
    Mike Coffman, CO                     John P. Sarbanes, MD
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Betty Sutton, OH
    David Rivera, FL                     Niki Tsongas, MA
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  John Garamendi, CA
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
    Kristi L. Noem, SD
    Bill Johnson, OH
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, November 3, 2011.......................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     2
        Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
          Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Prepared statement of.......   110

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Abbey, Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
          Department of the Interior, Oral statement on H.R. 1980 and
          H.R. 2070..................................................    24
            Oral statement on H.R. 3155..............................    47
            Joint prepared statement with U.S. Department of
              Agriculture on H.R. 3155...............................    49
        Bennet, Hon. Michael, a U.S. Senator from the State of
          Colorado...................................................     8
            Prepared statement on H.R. 2621..........................     9
        Flake, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Arizona, Oral statement on H.R. 3155....................    13
        Fowler, George ``Poppy'', WW II Veteran......................    32
            Prepared statement on H.R. 2070..........................    32
        Franks, Hon. Trent, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................    10
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    12
        Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah.....    33
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    36
            Letter to The Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary, U.S.
              Department of the Interior, submitted for the record...    34
        Johnson, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Ohio..............................................    19
            Prepared statement on H.R. 2070..........................    23
            FDR Prayer submitted for the record......................    19
        Johnson, Buster, Supervisor, Mohave County, Arizona..........    51
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    53
        Lightfoot, Ricky R., Trustee and Former President and CEO,
          Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado........    38
            Prepared statement on H.R. 2621..........................    39
        McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona..     6
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................     7
        Myers, Richard J., Vice President, Policy Development,
          Planning, and Supplier Programs, Nuclear Energy Institute..    93
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    95
        Roberts, Harold R., Executive Vice President, Denison Mines
          (USA) Corp.................................................    89
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    91
        Runyan, Hon. Jon, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of New Jersey..............................................    15
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1980..........................    16
        Tipton, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................    16
            Prepared statement on H.R. 2621..........................    18
    ?

        Trautwein, Mark, Former Staff Consultant on Environment,
          Energy and Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular
          Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives.....................    66
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    68
        Verkamp, Stephen, President, Verkamp's Inc...................   100
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................   102
        Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, United
          States Department of Agriculture...........................    27
            Prepared statement on H.R. 2621..........................    28
            Joint prepared statement with U.S. Department of the
              Interior on H.R. 3155..................................    49
        Wenrich, Karen, Ph.D., Research Geologist, U.S. Geological
          Survey, Retired............................................    58
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3155..........................    60
        Young, Judith C., Chair, Gold Star Mothers National Monument
          Foundation.................................................    29
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1980..........................    31

    Additional materials supplied:
        The American Legion, Letter submitted for the record on H.R.
          2070.......................................................    21
        FDR Prayer submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill
          Johnson....................................................    19
        Lower Colorado River Water Quality Partnership, Letter to the
          Bureau of Land Management submitted for the record.........    81
        National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
          Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 1980............    25
        National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
          Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 2070............    26
        Ohio Christian Alliance, Letter to The Honorable Doc Hastings
          on H.R. 2070...............................................    22
        Western Business Roundtable, Letter to The Honorable Trent
          Franks on H.R. 3155........................................   111
        The Wilderness Society, Statement submitted for the record on
          H.R. 3155..................................................   112

                                      (IV)

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1980, TO AUTHORIZE THE GOLD STAR MOTHERS
     NATIONAL MONUMENT FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ``GOLD STAR MOTHERS NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT OF
     2011;'' H.R. 2070, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO INSTALL
    IN THE AREA OF THE WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A
        SUITABLE PLAQUE OR AN INSCRIPTION WITH THE WORDS THAT PRESIDENT
       FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT PRAYED WITH THE NATION ON JUNE 6, 1944, THE
     MORNING OF D-DAY, ``WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL PRAYER ACT OF 2011;'' H.R.
     2621, TO ESTABLISH THE CHIMNEY ROCK NATIONAL MONUMENT IN THE STATE OF
      COLORADO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``CHIMNEY ROCK NATIONAL MONUMENT
     ESTABLISHMENT ACT;'' AND H.R. 3155, TO PRESERVE THE MULTIPLE USE LAND
      MANAGEMENT POLICY IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
              ``NORTHERN ARIZONA MINING CONTINUITY ACT OF 2011.''

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, November 3, 2011

                         U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
    Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, Tipton, Johnson
    of Ohio, Grijalva, Kildee, and Garamendi.
        Also Present: Representative Gosar.
        Mr. Bishop. I appreciate all the guests who have joined us
    here. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The
    Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands is
    meeting today to hear testimony on four bills that fall within
    our jurisdiction: H.R. 1980, the Gold Star Mothers National
    Monument; H.R. 2070, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act; H.R.
    2621, the Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act; and
    H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act.
        Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
    Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
    to include any other Member's opening statement in the hearing
    record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business
    today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        We are pleased to have the sponsors of all the bills here
    with us today. The first three that we will hear testimony on
    are the Gold Star Mothers Act, the World War II Memorial Act,
    and the Chimney Rock National Monument Act. To those sponsors
    and those who are testifying on them, I am glad you do these
    bills. It is about time. We are happy to start the process on
    all of those.
        We also have witnesses here for the Northern Arizona Mining
    Continuity Act. We are pleased to have you here. I understand
    we are happy to welcome Senator McCain and Senator Bennet, and
    I understand that Senator Hatch is talking on the Floor now,
    but he intends to join us momentarily also to talk about these
    bills.
        We have a long list of witnesses. I want to say something
    just very briefly about all the bills.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                           THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Bishop. I have already stated something about the three
    that I think are great. The fourth one I also think is great.
    It deals with Arizona. We will hear some unique testimony.
        Unfortunately I have already heard testimony on this bill
    in this Committee before and in other committees before. So the
    testimony and the expertise have run the gamut from experts
    from the State of Arizona who have told us about the bill to
    Louise Slaughter talking about the bill in the Rules Committee
    meeting.
        So I have heard all of this several times before. I think
    you are going to hear some unique spins. I think you are going
    to hear the Administration come forward, auditioning for the
    roles of Petruchio and Katherine in Taming of the Shrew because
    they will tell us the sun is the moon, the day is night, that
    green is red and black is white. And it is a unique concept,
    but they will do it.
        We are talking about the Arizona Strip, an area the size
    roughly of the State of New Jersey. So I am glad you are here
    to represent that. In the infinite opinion of the lands artists
    that we do have, they want to control a million acres of
    potential energy development along this strip, which is
    something akin to saying that if there was a terrorist threat
    to the Statue of Liberty, they would close down the boardwalk
    at Atlantic City.
        The 1 million acres is the size roughly of the State of
    Delaware. I mean, this is excessive. The Secretary at one time
    told us that he had withdrawn this because the Congress would
    make even more Draconian limitations if he had not stepped in.
    So, to our good friends from the Senate, shame on you for even
    thinking of that.
        The way we will approach this is in the--oh, I am sorry. I
    will yield first of all to the Ranking Member for comments that
    I am sure he has for these bills.

     STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Grijalva. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and to our
    colleagues, welcome, and to the Members of the Subcommittee and
    to all the witnesses that have agreed to testify today.
        I am going to utilize this opening statement time to talk
    about the real focus of this morning's hearing, and that is the
    Grand Canyon. Other than the international mining industry,
    their lobbyists, I am puzzled as to whose benefit H.R. 3155,
    the so-called Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act, is really
    being put forward for.
        It can't be for the millions of annual visitors who come to
    the Grand Canyon for its pristine beauty, its unique natural
    qualities, as President Teddy Roosevelt had the foresight to
    protect this special place for future generations. Speaking
    before a group of Arizonans that assembled on that day, on this
    now visited site, celebrated as the crown jewel of our national
    parks, he told them, ``It is your own interest and the interest
    of all the country to keep this great wonder of nature as it is
    now.'' So obviously this legislation is not for that legacy.
        It can't be for the California-Nevada water utilities, both
    of which have supported a cautious approach toward mining in
    the Colorado River Basin, weighed favorably toward protection
    and not risky exploitation of resources relied on by millions
    of Americans for their drinking water. We are putting at risk
    water use for agriculture that provides foods for hundreds of
    millions of people across this country. So obviously it is not
    for them.
        It can't be for the thousands of people dependent on
    tourism in northern Arizona to feed their families. The Grand
    Canyon and the Colorado River are the lifeblood of northern
    Arizona's tourism industry. The Grand Canyon is a year-round
    source of employment and revenue for that region. So it is not
    for the Grand Canyon, and it can't be for the people that
    depend on that. And the people that do come to visit are not
    there to tour uranium mines.
        It can't be for the region's Native Americans, many of whom
    still live with the ravages of past uranium mining in the
    region. On October 30, The New York Times article reported on
    cleanup efforts at a site that is finally nearing completion
    after decades of indifference and neglect. This is one site,
    but there are hundreds of former sites yet to be addressed,
    leaving that cleanup cost to the American taxpayer.
        So it can't be for the Obama Administration that has
    painstakingly studied the impacts, the potential for harm and
    have chosen to recommend 1 million acres of Federal forest land
    be removed from hard rock mining for 20 years as allowed under
    Federal Land Use Management Regulations. It can't be for the
    millions of Arizonans and Americans not included 30 years ago
    in the agreement that led to the Arizona Wilderness Act of
    1984, who will be told that this legislation limits the
    protections around the canyon for the benefit of the
    international uranium mining industry and foreign competitors
    even though high-level staff involved in this agreement have
    confirmed and will again today that it was never the intent of
    the legislation to make the land around the Grand Canyon
    permanently available for uranium mining. The words mine,
    mining or uranium were never mentioned in the 1984 bill.
        So I am stumped as to why the Republican Majority would
    stand silently with foreign mining corporations pushing for
    blindly risking the crown jewel of our national park system in
    the Colorado River, lifeblood to hundreds of millions of
    people, usurping a national public process which obtained close
    to 300,000 comments overwhelmingly in favor of the withdrawal.
        This legislation is an attempt to intimidate the
    Administration, short-circuiting a national scientific and
    public review process all because they didn't get their way in
    terms of this withdrawal. This is nothing more than an attempt
    by the Majority to risk millions of tourism jobs for maybe a
    few hundred projected short-term jobs.
        This legislation is an insult to Arizonans and the American
    taxpayers, an assault on the tourism industry in northern
    Arizona and a snapshot of what is wrong with our political
    system. When money dictates public policy, the interests of the
    American people are tossed on the way seats of hard rock
    mining.
        The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are far too
    important to allow the short-term gains from mining to leave
    permanent scars on the crown jewel of our national parks. So,
    with that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome again and thank the
    witnesses and yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
            Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. I want
    to thank all of the witnesses that have agreed to testify before us
    today.
        H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070 and H.R. 2621 are all pieces of legislation
    that I firmly support, so I want to spend my five minutes on the real
    focus of this morning's hearing: The Grand Canyon.
        Other than the international uranium mining industry and their
    lobbyists, I am puzzled as to whose benefit H.R. 3155--the so-called
    Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act--is being put forward.
        It can't be for the millions of annual visitors who come to the
    Grand Canyon for its pristine beauty and unique natural qualities.
    President Teddy Roosevelt had the foresight to protect this special
    place for future generations. Speaking before a group of Arizonans
    assembled at what is now is the most visited site in a celebrated
    collection of National Parks, he told them that--and I quote: ``It is
    in your own interest and the interest of all the country to keep this
    great wonder of nature as it is now. It can't be for Teddy.''
        It can't be for the California and Nevada water utilities, both of
    which have supported a cautious approach toward mining in the Colorado
    River Basin and weighed favorably toward protection, not risky
    exploitation of a resource relied on by millions of Americans for their
    drinking water. We are putting at risk water used for agriculture that
    provides food for hundreds of millions of people across the country. It
    can't be for them.
        It can't be for thousands of people who depend on tourism in
    Northern Arizona to feed their families. The Grand Canyon and Colorado
    River rafting are the lifeblood of the Northern Arizona tourism
    industry. The Grand Canyon railroad out of Williams, Az takes tourists
    year round to the Grand Canyon, not uranium mines. It can't be for
    them.
        It can't be for the region's Native Americans, many of whom still
    live with the ravages of past uranium mining in the region. An Oct 30th
    New York Times article reported on clean-up efforts at a site that is
    finally nearing completion after decades of indifference and neglect.
    That is one site, but there are hundreds of former sites yet to be
    addressed, leaving the clean-up to the American taxpayer.
        It can't be for the Obama administration that has painstakingly
    studied the impacts, potential for harm, and have chosen to recommend
    that 1,000,000 acres of federal forest land be removed from hard rock
    mining for 20 yrs, as allowed under federal land use management
    regulations.
        It can't be for the millions of Arizonans and Americans not
    included in the agreement of 30 yrs ago that led to the Arizona
    Wilderness Act of 1984. We are being told that this legislation limits
    the protections around the canyon for the benefit of international
    uranium mining industry and foreign competitors, even though high level
    staff involved in the agreement have confirmed--and will again today--
    that it was never the intent of the legislation to make the land around
    the Grand Canyon permanently available for uranium mining. The words
    ``mine'', ``mining'', or ``uranium'' are never mentioned in the 1984
    bill.
        So I am stumped as to why the Republican majority would stand
    solidly with foreign mining corporations, pushing for blindly risking
    the crown jewel of our national parks system and the Colorado River,
    lifeblood to hundreds of millions of people, usurping a national public
    process, which obtained close to 300 thousand comments overwhelmingly
    in favor of the full withdraw.
        This legislation is an attempt at intimidating the administration,
    short circuiting a national scientific and public review process all
    because they did not get their way.
        This is nothing more than an apparent attempt by the Republican
    delegation to risk millions of tourism jobs for maybe a few hundred
    projected, short term jobs.
        This legislation is an insult to all Arizonans and the American
    taxpayers, an assault on the tourism industry in northern Arizona, and
    a snapshot of what is wrong with our political system. When money
    dictates public policy, the interests of the American people are tossed
    on the waste heaps of hard rock mining.
        The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River are far too important to
    allow the short term gains from mining to leave permanent scars on the
    crown jewel of our National Parks. Water relied on by 25 million
    Americans is much more important than the profits of foreign mining
    giants.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right. To the witnesses, this is
    how we will try to run this, and I am going to give a couple of
    you some options. Senator McCain, as the senior Member on the
    Senate on this side, we are going to ask you to go first.
    Senator Bennet, I am going to go through Senator McCain and
    Senator Hatch if he shows up on this particular bill. They are
    going to talk about the Arizona bill. Representative Tipton is
    going to talk about the issue in Colorado. I will give you your
    option because I realize I don't know what your schedule is. I
    know how busy the Senate is. Excuse me. I have something caught
    in my cheek right there. Just a minute.
        So I will give you the option. If you would like to go
    after Senator McCain and Senator Hatch and then leave us, feel
    free to do it. If you would like to wait until the other
    representatives who are not on the Committee have talked about
    the Arizona bill and then speak at the same time Tipton does on
    Colorado, I will give you that choice as well. So it will be up
    to you.
        Senator Bennet. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for one other
    option, which is if we run out of time, if you wouldn't mind my
    submitting the statement for the record, I would do that as
    well.
        Mr. Bishop. That is fine. That will be fine too.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you. And I just wanted to say how
    glad I am to see Congressman Lamborn and Congressman Tipton
    this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. We will be happy to do that.
        Senator Bennet. Great.
        Mr. Bishop. But we would rather hear your voice.
        Senator Bennet. Oh, that is fine.
        Mr. Bishop. With that, Senator McCain, if you are prepared,
    we would love to hear your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
                            STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And given the
    large number of witnesses and panels that you have, I will try
    to be uncharacteristically brief. And may I say that it is a
    pleasure to be back here, a committee on which I had the honor
    of serving for four years and enormous responsibilities that
    this Committee has to the present and future of this nation and
    the protection of our most treasured assets.
        I have a prepared statement I would like to have submitted
    for the record, Mr. Chairman, if you would. This is all about
    an issue that took place when I was a Member of this Committee.
    I worked closely with Congressman Udall. You will hear people
    who were not here that have a very different interpretation of
    the facts and events of the two-year period that we went
    through in putting together a landmark Arizona wilderness bill,
    which I was very happy to be part of.
        And by the way, you will hear from a member of the staff, a
    former staff member at the time who will disagree with my
    assessment of what took place. The fact is that staff member
    was not there at every meeting. There were Member-level
    meetings and discussions on this issue.
        Former Congressman Bob Stump, who as you know is a former
    chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a
    distinguished Member, was insistent, insistent that these lands
    that are now being proposed to be put under permanent
    wilderness status would be open to exploration, mining,
    multiple-use lands. That was the price of the agreement by
    Congressman Stump. And anybody who wants to characterize the
    legislation in a different way should look at the record at the
    time the Wilderness bill was passed and the statements that
    were made.
        Anyone, anyone who says that Bob Stump's insistence that
    this be multiple-use land as a price for his support for this
    wilderness bill is mischaracterizing the facts, and shame on
    them for doing so.
        So all I can tell you is that we came to an agreement after
    two years of negotiations and agreements for a landmark bill
    that preserved 3 million acres of our most beautiful State in
    permanent pristine status. The price for that was that the
    Arizona Strip be open for multiple use, all of it, all of it.
    And anyone who characterizes it as different were not there or
    are not telling the truth.
        The people of Arizona and the people of this country
    deserve to have this part of our State be exploited for mining.
    America needs it. America needs the kinds of materials. We need
    the jobs. Even though we have Members of Congress who want our
    State boycotted and cost us jobs, we want jobs in Arizona. We
    want people to come to Arizona and hire people. And we believe
    that this is important for our national security interests and
    for the financial interests and the job opportunities for many
    of my fellow citizens. And we encourage them to come to our
    State and establish their businesses and their work there.
        So again, this is an example, frankly, Mr. Chairman, of
    elections have consequences. I can guarantee you if the 2008
    elections had turned out differently we wouldn't be discussing
    this issue. We would be adhering to the provisions that were
    agreed to by the Arizona delegation at that time. I thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable John McCain, a U.S. Senator from the State
    of Arizona, on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
                                      2011

        Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for the opportunity to testify about
    the importance of safeguarding multiple use management policy in
    northern Arizona. The legislation introduced by myself and Congressman
    Trent Franks, along with a majority of the Arizona Congressional
    delegation, would prevent the Secretary of the Interior from
    implementing his proposed 1 million acre mining withdrawal in northern
    Arizona. I hold Secretary Salazar in high esteem but this withdrawal is
    fueled by an emotional public relations campaign designed by some of
    the same environmental groups whose longtime mission has been to kill
    mining and grazing jobs on the Arizona Strip as well as tourism jobs at
    the Grand Canyon.
        Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch and I have served our respective states
    for many years and the aspiration by the environmental community to
    halt mining in the Grand Canyon region is old news to us. It existed
    during the last uranium rebound in the late 1970s and early 1980s with
    thousands of mining claims staked in the same areas of the ``northern
    parcel'' of the proposed withdrawal area. The difference is that back
    then, the environmental community put their aspirations aside to
    constructively work with stakeholders to reach a historic agreement on
    wilderness designation in the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-
    406). While credit is due to my good friend, the late-Congressman Mo
    Udall, for shepherding the Act through Congress, Title III of the bill
    (also known as ``the Arizona Strip Wilderness Act'') was developed
    through negotiations led by the late-Congressman Bob Stump. The Act
    ultimately designated over 250,000 acres of wilderness on the Arizona
    Strip and released about 600,000 acres of federal land for multiple-use
    development.
        During negotiations on the 1984 Act, Congress struggled with how to
    legislatively ``release'' non-Wilderness lands from being locked-up as
    administrative or ``de facto'' Wilderness, but also allow for some
    flexibility in preserving these lands through responsible land
    management. Some argued for enacting so-called ``hard release
    language'' which proscriptively enforced a multiple-use mandate on non-
    Wilderness lands. Others wanted ``soft release language'' which
    continued restrictions on non-Wilderness lands so as to preserve their
    wilderness characteristics. What made the Arizona Wilderness Act the
    gold standard of stakeholder collaboration and bipartisan compromise is
    that it utilized so-called ``compromise release language'' and
    intentionally authorized the presence of ``non-wilderness uses as
    determined appropriate thought the [BLM] land management planning
    process.'' (House Report 98-643, Part 1, pages 34-35).
        Until now, that compromise allowed for uranium mining to coexist
    with the some of our most treasured natural resources. Unfortunately,
    several of the same environmental groups who once supported the
    compromise and singed-off on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon have
    come back to ask this Administration to toss out the existing land use
    plans and implement a massive and arbitrary withdrawal knowing full
    well that uranium mining is a principal activity and job creator on the
    Arizona Strip. There is no scientific evidence that modern-day uranium
    mining in the withdrawal area has violated drinking water quality
    standards in the Colorado River. The true goal of this withdrawal is to
    permanently restrict access to a nationally significant uranium
    resource, which is precisely what we sought to prevent under the 1984
    Wilderness Act. What the Secretary proposes is nothing other than de
    facto Wilderness.
        Mr. Chairman, if the decision is made to move forward with the
    proposed withdrawal, the Department of the Interior will be casting
    aside that historic compromise and ignoring the land management
    planning process that has resulted in the bulk of the withdrawal area
    being open to uranium mining. Future wilderness proposals will be
    deserving of even greater scrutiny once it becomes clear that
    negotiated agreements like those contained in the Arizona Wilderness
    Act are neither genuine nor enduring.
        I fully agree that the Grand Canyon deserves to be protected for
    the enjoyment of future generations. However, it is totally
    irresponsible to move forward with the proposed withdrawal as it lacks
    sufficient scientific justification and flies in the face of the
    legislative history behind the Arizona Wilderness Act. I urge the
    Committee to pass this bill.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Senator. Once again,
    Senator, if you would like to stay with us, you are welcome to.
    If you have other obligations, we understand that as well.
    Appreciate it.
        Senator Bennet, this is your time to make a decision. Do
    you want to go now, or do you want to wait?
        Senator Bennet. I would be happy to go now, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Feel free, please.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
                         THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and to the
    Ranking Member. I want to thank all of you for the opportunity
    to testify at today's hearing on the Chimney Rock National
    Monument Establishment Act. I have been pleased to work on
    similar legislation in the Senate over the last two Congresses,
    and I have enjoyed working with Congressman Tipton on this
    bipartisan effort.
        I also want to recognize Ricky Lightfoot, seated behind me,
    a distinguished archeologist who has worked extensively at
    Chimney Rock. Ricky is joining us today from beautiful Mancos,
    Colorado. And I am here to testify in support of H.R. 2621.
        Chimney Rock is located roughly 20 miles west of Pagosa
    Springs in the southwest part of Colorado. This 40,700-acre
    site is located on San Juan National Forest land, recognized as
    perhaps the most significant historical site managed by the
    entire Forest Service throughout the country. The twin spires
    of Chimney Rock depicted in the photo on the screens above
    attracted the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians to this
    area nearly 1,000 years ago.
        This unique culture had their main settlement in Chaco
    Canyon, New Mexico, and had a settlement at what is now Mesa
    Verde National Park near Cortez. I might say that all of these
    sites are in Congressman Tipton's district.
        The Chaco people established a remote outpost at the base
    of Chimney Rock called the Great House Pueblo. The Great House
    is situated just south of the twin spires and is now displayed
    on the screens above. Chimney Rock has incredible historical
    and cultural significance, yet the site lacks a designation
    equal to that stature. This discrepancy is why countless
    preservation groups have become involved with Chimney Rock.
    They came together in 2009 and asked me to carry legislation to
    designate Chimney Rock a national monument in the Senate, and I
    have now been pleased to work with Congressman Tipton on his
    companion bill in the House.
        Put simply, a national monument designation is warranted
    for Chimney Rock, and that new designation will drive economic
    development and job creation throughout the region. The measure
    was drafted with the help of the Forest Service, historical
    preservation organizations, Native American tribes and dozens
    of other local stakeholders.
        I would draw the Committee's attention to a number of the
    letters I brought with me today from several of the
    organizations involved in that robust stakeholder process. We
    have letters of support from a bipartisan group of Archuleta
    County commissioners who have extended their unanimous support
    for the bill; the Republican mayor of Pagosa Springs, Colorado,
    the town nearest to Chimney Rock; the Pagosa Springs Area
    Chamber of Commerce; and the Pagosa Springs Community
    Development Corporation.
        I would like to submit these letters sent to Congressman
    Tipton and me into the record to illustrate the broad level of
    local support for this popular legislation. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [NOTE: The letters submitted for the record on H.R. 2621
    have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Senator Bennet. My Chimney Rock Bill in the Senate, nearly
    identical to Congressman Tipton's legislation, was reported out
    of the Senate Energy Committee in a bipartisan voice vote. I am
    hopeful that the House Natural Resources Committee will see fit
    to lend similar support to Congressman Tipton's efforts as we
    move toward enacting this popular legislation into law.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member
    for allowing me the opportunity to testify today on this
    important topic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Bennet follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Michael F. Bennet, a U.S. Senator from the
        State of Colorado, on H.R. 2621: Chimney Rock National Monument
                               Establishment Act

        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva (Gra-HALL-va), I thank you
    for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on the Chimney Rock
    National Monument Establishment Act.
        I've been proud to work on similar legislation in the Senate over
    the last two Congresses. And I've enjoyed working with Congressman
    Tipton on this bipartisan effort.
        I also want to recognize Ricky Lightfoot--seated behind me--a
    distinguished archeologist who has worked extensively at Chimney Rock.
        Ricky is joining us today from beautiful Mancos, CO.
        I am here to testify in support of H.R. 2621, The Chimney Rock
    National Monument Establishment Act.
        Chimney Rock is located roughly 20 miles west of Pagosa Springs--in
    the southwest part of Colorado.
        This 4,700 acre site is located on San Juan National Forest land
    and is recognized as perhaps the most significant historical site
    managed by the entire Forest Service.
        The twin spires of Chimney Rock--depicted in the photo on the
    screens above--attracted the ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians to
    this area nearly a thousand years ago.
        This unique culture had their main settlement in Chaco Canyon, New
    Mexico, and had a settlement at what is now Mesa Verde National Park
    near Cortez.
        The Chaco People established a remote outpost at the base of
    Chimney Rock called The Great House Pueblo. The Great House is situated
    just south of the twin spires and is now displayed on the screens
    above.
        The House was built from six million stones, 5,000 logs and 25,000
    tons of earth and clay. All of these materials were arduously hauled
    1,000 feet up from the valley floor.
        We think they established this outpost to observe a rare lunar
    event. The so-called ``major lunar standstill,'' occurs once every 18.6
    years when the moon appears to rise in the exact same spot three nights
    in a row.
        The Chaco People built the Great House Pueblo to observe this
    spectacular celestial event. There are only two other places in the
    world where ancient people used stone structures to mark a lunar
    standstill. Stonehenge is one of them.
        Chimney Rock has incredible historical and cultural significance.
    Yet the site lacks a designation equal to that stature. This
    discrepancy is why countless preservation groups got involved with
    Chimney Rock.
        This constituency, coupled with a bipartisan group of local
    officials, Colorado counties, municipalities and tribes have joined in
    an effort to give Chimney Rock the proper designation.
        They came together in 2009 and asked me to carry legislation to
    designate Chimney Rock a National Monument in the Senate. And I've now
    been pleased to work with Congressman Tipton on this companion bill in
    the House.
        This legislation will provide much-needed protection, and much-
    deserved recognition, for the site.
        Passage of this bill will also provide increased tourism and
    economic development in southwest Colorado.
        Put simply, a National Monument designation is warranted for
    Chimney Rock and that new designation will drive economic development
    and job creation throughout the region.
        The measure was drafted with the help of the Forest Service,
    historical preservation organizations, Native American tribes and
    dozens of other local stakeholders.
        I would draw the Committee's attention to a number of letters I
    brought with me today from several of the organizations involved in
    that robust stakeholder process.
        Here I have letters of support from:
              A bipartisan group of Archuleta County Commissioners,
            who have extended their unanimous support for this bill.
              The Republican Mayor of Pagosa Springs, Colorado--the
            town nearest to Chimney Rock.
              The Pagosa Springs Area Chamber of Commerce.
              And the Pagosa Springs Community Development
            Corporation.
        I'd like to submit these letters, sent to Congressman Tipton and
    me, into the record to illustrate the broad level of local support for
    this popular legislation.
        My Chimney Rock bill in the Senate--nearly identical to Congressman
    Tipton's legislation--was reported out of the Senate Energy Committee
    in a bipartisan voice vote last Congress.
        I'm hopeful the House Natural Resources Committee will see fit to
    lend similar support to Congressman Tipton's measure as we move towards
    enacting this popular legislation into law.
        Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for allowing
    me the opportunity to testify today on this important topic.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. And as always, if you would
    like to stay over here on the true side of Capitol Hill, you
    are welcome to. If you have other obligations and need to go,
    we understand.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. With that, let me turn next to the sponsor of
    35, whatever the number is, Representative Franks from Arizona,
    and then we will hear from one of our former colleagues on this
    Committee, Representative Flake from Arizona. Representative
    Franks.

     STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Franks. Thank you. You just promoted me, Mr. Chairman,
    and I appreciate it. You called me Senator Franks.
        Mr. Bishop. I sincerely apologize. I will never do that to
    you again.
        Mr. Franks. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. I profusely apologize for doing
    that.
        Mr. Franks. I didn't come here to be insulted, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. Congressman Franks, please.
        Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you
    for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify on H.R.
    3155 this morning, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act
    of 2011. And if I could ask you, sir, I would like to see an
    ASU study here, the Western Business Roundtable letter and a
    report from Tetra Tech prepared for the American Clean Energy
    Resources Trust placed into the record----
        Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
        Mr. Franks.--because I will be referencing those in my
    testimony here.
        Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
        [NOTE: The letter and report submitted by Mr. Franks have
    been retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will stop the
    United States Department of the Interior from banning mining in
    a vast area of Arizona that represents the Nation's second
    largest domestic source of uranium ore. The Department of the
    Interior intends to withdraw as early as this month, as you
    stated earlier, 1 million acres of Arizona land with the goal
    of preventing uranium mining on that land for the next 20
    years.
        Studies by Dr. Charles Sanchez and Dr. John Chesley of the
    University of Arizona have shown no threat to the Colorado
    River by mining this uranium. According to the results, uranium
    mining ``in the main channel of the Colorado River are
    generally consistent with the normal weathering of uranium-
    containing geomedia within the watershed and rule against major
    contamination from uranium mines.''
        Regarding agricultural soils in the lower Colorado River
    region, the study concludes, ``No increase in the bio-available
    uranium after 35 years of irrigation and fertilization.''
    Regarding uranium exposure to food crops, the study concludes,
    ``Potential uranium exposure to vegetable and food crops
    produced in the lower Colorado River region are negligible
    relative to health risks.''
        Mr. Chairman, with all of this data and the total lack of
    any evidence from the Bureau of Land Management indicating the
    unsafe operation of uranium mines, the Obama Administration is
    still willing to make up to approximately 326 million pounds of
    the best uranium ore in the country off limits. And that is
    actually uranium, Mr. Chairman. The ore would be much more than
    that of course.
        This nonsensical effort by the Obama Administration is a
    step in precisely the wrong direction for the American economy,
    making the U.S. even more dependent on foreign powers and
    potentially creating a serious national security threat going
    forward.
        Mr. Chairman, Mohave County, a county in my district that
    will be directly impacted by Secretary Salazar's needless
    withdrawal of prime mining lands on the Arizona Strip, already
    has an unemployment rate of 10.6 percent. The rate is even
    higher in specific areas of the county: Butler, area of
    Kingman, 16.2 percent; the Golden Valley area, 21.3 percent;
    and Dolan Springs, 23.7 percent unemployment.
        The locking up of a million acres of mining in northern
    Arizona ignores the economic realities of the state and will do
    fiscal harm to the local area. An economic analysis performed
    by Tetra Tech detailing the benefits of the uranium mining
    industry in the northern Arizona uranium district concluded
    that there will be $29.4 billion in output over the 42-year
    lifespan of the project, including $2 billion in Federal and
    State corporate taxes and $40 million annually in payroll.
        Mr. Chairman, uranium mining would create more than 1,000
    jobs directly related to mining operations and many more jobs
    would be created as a result of the economic activity
    associated with the mining. Additionally, of America's existing
    104 operating nuclear reactors, 90 percent of them now import
    the uranium that they use from foreign countries, including
    Russia and Kazakhstan, as opposed in the 1970s when America was
    100 percent self-sufficient. This potentially creates a serious
    national security threat going forward.
        Mr. Chairman, in 1984, Congress passed the Arizona
    Wilderness Act to specifically recognize the uranium potential
    of 490,000 acres of BLM and 500,000 acres of Forest Service
    lands by releasing them from the wilderness study
    classification so they could be mined. The bill was a
    collaborative effort that included the mining and livestock
    industries, the National Parks Conservation Association and the
    Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club.
        Mr. Chairman, according to the United States Geological
    Survey, northern Arizona uranium reserves total about 326
    million pounds of uranium or enough to power the entire State
    of Arizona for 80 years. By prohibiting the exploitation of
    northern Arizona uranium reserves, the Obama Administration
    will potentially weaken America's long-term national security,
    our economic security and our ability to be energy self-
    sufficient.
        This legislation would stop the Obama Administration from
    eliminating our country's most significant source of uranium.
    And I want to thank you again, sir, for holding this hearing.
    It is my hope that the Members of the Subcommittee will
    appreciate the importance of moving this legislation forward.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Franks follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress
     from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining
                             Continuity Act of 2011

        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and
    allowing me to testify on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining
    Continuity Act of 2011.
        Mr. Chairman, this legislation will stop the U.S. Department of the
    Interior from banning mining in a vast area of Arizona that represents
    the nation's second largest domestic source of uranium ore.
        The Department of the Interior intends to withdraw, as early as
    this month, 1 MILLION acres of Arizona land with the goal of preventing
    uranium mining on that land for the next 20 years. Studies by Dr.
    Charles Sanchez and Dr. John Chesley of the University of Arizona have
    shown no threat to the Colorado River by mining this uranium. According
    to the results, uranium ``in the main channel of the Colorado River are
    generally consistent with the normal weathering of uranium containing
    geomedia within the watershed and rule against major contamination from
    uranium mines''. Regarding agriculture soils in the Lower Colorado
    River Region, the study concludes ``no increase in bioavailable uranium
    after 35 years of irrigation and fertilization.'' Regarding uranium
    exposure to food crops, the study concludes ``potential uranium
    exposure to vegetable and food crops produced in the Lower Colorado
    River Region are negligible relative to health risks''.
        Mr. Chairman, with all of this data and the total lack of any
    evidence from the Bureau of Land Management indicating the unsafe
    operation of the uranium mines, the Obama Administration is still
    willing to make up to approximately 326 million pounds of the best
    uranium in the country off-limits. This shameful effort by the Obama
    Administration is a step in precisely the wrong direction for the
    American economy, making the U.S. even more dependent on foreign powers
    and potentially creating a serious national security threat going
    forward.
        Mr. Chairman, Mohave County, a county in my District that will be
    directly impacted by Secretary Salazar's needless withdrawal of prime
    mining lands on the Arizona Strip, already has an unemployment rate of
    10.6%. The rate is even higher in specific areas of the county; Butler
    area of Kingman (16.2%), Golden Valley (21.3%), and Dolan Springs
    (23.7%). The locking up of a million acres of mining lands in Northern
    Arizona ignores the economic realities of the State and will do fiscal
    harm to the local area.
        An economic analysis performed by Tetra Tech detailing the benefits
    of the uranium mining industry in the North Arizona Uranium District
    concluded that there will be $29.4 billion in output over the 42-year
    lifespan of the project, including $2 billion in federal and state
    corporate taxes and $40 million annually in payroll.
        Mr. Chairman, uranium mining would create more than a thousand jobs
    directly related to mining operations, and many more jobs would be
    created as a result of the economic activity associated with the
    mining.
        As indicated by the Governor of Arizona, ``if instituted, this
    uranium mining ban would deal a blow to future economic growth near the
    Grand Canyon.''
        Additionally, of America's existing 104 operating nuclear reactors,
    90% now import the uranium they use from foreign countries, including
    Russia and Kazakhstan, as opposed to the 1970's, when America was 100%
    selfsufficient. This potentially creates a serious national security
    threat going forward.
        Mr. Chairman, in 1984, Congress passed the Arizona Wilderness Act
    that specifically recognized the uranium potential of 490,000 acres of
    BLM land and 500,000 acres of Forest Service lands by releasing them
    from wilderness study classification so that they could be mined. The
    bill was a collaborative effort that included the mining and livestock
    industries, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Wilderness
    Society, and the Sierra Club.
        To this day, uranium mining activities on these lands have a record
    of productive operation and successful reclamation without impacting
    the environment or our awe-inspiring National Parks. The nearest mine
    would be about 6 miles from the Grand Canyon National Park boundary and
    10 miles from the Canyon itself. Mr. Chairman, that is from where we
    are sitting now to Falls Church, Virginia.
        According to United States Geological Survey, northern Arizona
    uranium reserves total about 326 million pounds--or enough energy to
    power the entire state for Arizona for 80 years. By prohibiting
    exploitation of the northern Arizona uranium reserves, the Obama
    Administration will potentially weaken America's long-term national
    security, our economic security, and our ability to be energy
    selfsufficient. This legislation would stop the Obama Administration
    from eliminating our country's most significant source of uranium.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing today. It is
    my hope that the members of this subcommittee will appreciate the
    importance of moving this legislation forward. Thank you.
        NOTE: An attachment entitled ``Economic Impact of Uranium Mining on
    Coconino & Mohave Counties, Arizona'' dated September 2009 has been
    retained in the Committee's official files.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate that. I
    would like to welcome back Congressman Flake. And I am not
    going to say anything about titles with you.
        Mr. Flake. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Bishop. But you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Wait, let me say, Congressman Franks, if you
    would like to stay with us, if you would like to join us on the
    dais, we can ask unanimous consent for that. We would be happy
    to do that. If you need to leave for other business, we
    understand that as well.
        Mr. Franks. I am grateful, Mr. Chairman. I have a markup in
    Judiciary that I will have to leave it in your capable hands.
    Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. No one wants to stay here with me. I am getting
    a complex about this. Thank you. Now, Representative Flake,
    please.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                          THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be back
    here. I have enjoyed my stint for 10 years on the Resources
    Committee.
        I come in support of H.R. 3155. A lot has been said about
    this already, so I will just summarize. The Administration
    claims that it is undergoing a deliberative process, but it is
    crystal-clear that they plan to move as early as the end of the
    month with this unnecessary long-term withdrawal of lands in
    the Arizona Strip to new mining claims, with a decision
    anticipated at the end of the month.
        This regulatory overreach is based on specious
    environmental concerns, as was outlined by Congressman Franks.
    It violates a longstanding, negotiated legislative agreement,
    as was outlined by Senator McCain, who was here and
    participated in those negotiations. It conflicts with our
    energy security goals. That was also outlined by Congressman
    Franks. And it endangers desperately needed economic activity
    in the region.
        You will hear more from public officials who are affected
    and whose constituents and others are affected. Congressman
    Franks mentioned the high unemployment rate in some of these
    small towns, and that is an acute problem there that can be
    solved with this economic activity that has so many ancillary
    benefits.
        As many of you know, Chairman Simpson in the Appropriations
    Committee included a provision that would put a hold on the
    withdrawal of this million acres. Unfortunately that
    Appropriations bill is foundering. The end game for the
    appropriations process this year is a mystery, and so I am
    heartened by the action of this Committee to bring this bill or
    to move this bill forward. That is why we need freestanding
    legislation to do this because the appropriations process has
    simply broken down.
        I come from northern Arizona. My great, great grandfather
    settled in northern Arizona, so I have been there for five
    generations. Believe me, those of us who were raised in
    northern Arizona are sensitive to environmental concerns. If I
    did anything that would endanger the pristine wonder that is
    the Grand Canyon, I would be ridden out of town and out of the
    state on a rail by my own family and by others in northern
    Arizona.
        But the arguments that are going to be put forward by some
    that there are environmental dangers, and part of the problem
    stems from this area is called the Arizona Strip. It has been
    forever, the area between the Colorado River and the Utah line.
    And some people assume, well, that means strip mining or
    something like that. And you have some Members of Congress
    talking about some glow that will come from the Grand Canyon
    might be uranium glow, not the sunset and just outlandish,
    outlandish claims about what this really does.
        This type of mining is so-called breccia pipe mining. It is
    low impact. After a few years and after reclamation of a few
    years, the locals won't even know where the mine was. The
    impact on water use in the environment are minimal, and it does
    not affect--it is well beyond, outside the boundaries of the
    Grand Canyon National Park. And that is why this settlement was
    negotiated in the eighties to allow multiple use in these areas
    and still does protect and set aside more lands at that time to
    protect this pristine wonder that we have that is the Grand
    Canyon.
        So I thank the Chairman for bringing this bill forward, and
    I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Flake. And once again,
    if you wish to stay and join us, feel free to. If you have
    other obligations--yes, I got the drift, yes.
        Mr. Flake. I have other obligations, sorry.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Representative Runyan, we are happy
    to have you here as a Member of our full Committee but not
    necessarily this Subcommittee, and we appreciate your bill. If
    you would like to address the Gold Star Mothers--what is the
    official--you know the official title. If you would like to
    address that bill, you are so recognized.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JON RUNYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                        THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much, Chairman and Ranking
    Member Grijalva, for holding this hearing and allowing me to
    testify and also for inviting Judith Young to testify. I would
    personally like to thank Judith for her service as chairwoman
    of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Fund and for
    traveling from my district from Morristown, New Jersey, to
    testify today on the important work she does on behalf of the
    Gold Star Mothers and as a Gold Star Mother.
        H.R. 1980, the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of
    2011, authorizes the Gold Star Mothers Monument Foundation to
    build a Gold Star Mothers monument on Federal lands within the
    District of Columbia as a unit of the national park system.
    This legislation only authorizes the use of Federal lands in
    Washington, D.C., and does not authorize Federal funding. All
    funds for construction are to be raised by the Gold Star
    Mothers National Monument Foundation. Let me be clear. All
    funds must be raised by the Gold Star's National Monument
    Foundation. This will not cost the taxpayers a dime.
        During World War I, mothers of sons and daughters who
    served in the Armed Forces displayed flags bearing blue stars
    representing pride in their sons and daughters and their hope
    that they would return home safely. For more than 650,000 of
    these brave mothers, their hopes were shattered when their
    children never returned home.
        Afterwards, many of them began displaying flags bearing
    gold stars that represented the sacrifice that their sons and
    daughters made in the historic service to our country. Over the
    years, the gold star has come to represent a child who has been
    killed by serving in the Armed Services during either war or
    peace.
        In 1929, Congress passed a law authorizing the Federal
    Government to disperse funds for Gold Star Mothers and widows
    of those who were killed while serving in the Armed Services
    during World War I. The funds authorized travel to battlefields
    of Europe to visit the burial sites of their loved ones. On
    June 23, 1936, Congress passed a Senate resolution which
    established the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mothers
    Day.
        Mr. Chairman, our Gold Star Mothers have sacrificed so much
    for their country, and it is time we give them something back.
    This legislation deserves full consideration by this Committee
    and Congress, and I thank you for allowing me to testify and
    probably having the least controversial bill here in your
    hearing today. I yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Runyan follows:]

      Statement of The Honorable Jon Runyan, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 1980, ``The Gold Star Mothers
                        National Monument Act of 2011''

        Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for holding
    this hearing today, for allowing me to testify, and for inviting Judith
    Young to testify. I would also like to personally thank Ms. Judith
    Young, the Chairwoman of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Fund,
    for traveling from Moorestown, New Jersey to testify today and for the
    important work she does on behalf of the Gold Star Mothers.
        H.R. 1980, The Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of 2011,
    authorizes the Gold Star National Mothers Monument Foundation to build
    a Gold Star Mothers National Monument on federal lands within the
    District of Columbia as a unit of the National Parks System. This
    legislation only authorizes the use of federal lands in Washington,
    D.C., it does not authorize federal funding. All funds for construction
    are to be raised by the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation.
    Let me be clear, all funds must be raised by the Gold Star Mothers
    National Monument Foundation; this will not cost the taxpayer a single
    dime.
        During World War I, mothers of sons and daughters who served in the
    Armed Forces displayed flags bearing a blue star to represent pride in
    their sons or daughters and their hope that they would return home
    safely.
        For more than 650,000 of these brave mothers, that hope was
    shattered, and their children never returned home. Afterwards many of
    them began displaying flags bearing gold stars to represent the
    sacrifice that their sons and daughters made in heroic service to our
    country. Over the years the gold star has come to represent a child who
    was killed while serving in the Armed Forces, during either war or
    peacetime.
        In 1929 Congress passed a law authorizing the Federal Government to
    disburse funds for Gold Star Mothers and widows of those who were
    killed while serving in the Armed Forces during World War I. The funds
    authorized travel to the battlefields of Europe to visit the burial
    sites of their loved ones.
        On June 23, 1936, Congress passed a Senate resolution which
    established the last Sunday in September as Gold Star Mother's Day.
        Mr. Chairman, our Gold Star Mothers have sacrificed so much for
    their country, it is time that we give them something back. This
    legislation deserves full consideration by this Committee and Congress.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Well, maybe not. We will see about that one.
    But once again, thank you for being here. If you would like to
    stay and join us on the dais, feel free to do so. Once again,
    if you have other obligations, I understand that as well.
        Mr. Runyan. I got a little banged up in the congressional
    football game last night, so I am going to go see the
    orthopedic surgeon.
        Mr. Bishop. I don't even know how to respond to that one.
    All right. Whatever.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We have two bills whose sponsors are
    part of our Committee, Representative Tipton--I am sorry. I let
    the Senator from Colorado go first on this. I apologize to you
    for that, but you have to stay here anyway. So would you like
    to talk about the Chimney Rock bill this time?

     STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Tipton. I would, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I thank
    the Ranking Member as well for convening today's hearing,
    including my bill, H.R. 2621, to designate the Chimney Rock in
    southwestern Colorado as a national monument. I would like to
    thank Senator Bennet for taking the time to be here in support
    of the bill, and his contribution on the legislation in the
    Senate has been instrumental in getting the bill where it is
    today. I am proud to work with him on this bipartisan effort.
        I would also like to thank Ricky Lightfoot from my hometown
    in Cortez, Colorado for being here today to share his expertise
    on this treasured area, and I look forward to hearing his
    testimony.
        Chimney Rock is considered by the historic preservation
    community and the archeological community to be one of the most
    significant archeological sites in the Western United States.
    However, many Coloradans may never have heard of this historic
    treasure right in our own backyard. Once held sacred by the
    ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians who made the journey to
    this northernmost outpost of the Chacoan civilization, Chimney
    Rock is one of only three such known sites to exist.
        The area is known primarily as a gathering place by these
    early Native Americans to observe the rare and dramatic lunar
    standstill. Centuries ago, hundreds of early Native Americans
    called the area home, and archeologists have uncovered ancient
    farming areas, homes and other structures indicating that this
    was a major cultural center for early Americans.
        Despite the unique nature of this area, the Chimney Rock
    site of the San Juan National Forest is lacking a designation
    worthy of its historical and cultural significance. The area is
    currently under the management of the United States Forest
    Service, and it is covered under the USFS Organic Act, which
    has no provision to address the preservation and management of
    such a historic and culturally significant site as Chimney
    Rock.
        As a national monument, Chimney Rock will carefully be
    preserved and restored so that future generations will have the
    opportunity to be able to visit the awe-inspiring site,
    interpret its meaning and study the people that built these
    structures so long ago.
        This designation would increase attention and interest and
    generate new tourism opportunities for the Four Corners area,
    potentially generating badly needed revenue and expand
    potential new jobs for the Southwestern Colorado region that
    has been ravaged by double digit unemployment. Chimney Rock
    would remain open to many of the traditional uses for this
    area. This would ensure that local ranchers will be able to
    keep utilizing the land they depend on for grazing. Outdoorsmen
    will continue to be able to take advantage of the game
    opportunities in the area and will allow for the continued use
    of Chimney Rock by members of the Indian tribes for their
    traditional ceremonies.
        The national monument designation requires no additional
    Federal funds and therefore no increase in Federal spending.
    However, it does allow for private supporters to be able to
    work with the Forest Service to improve and maintain this
    valued area. This allows for the preservation of the Chimney
    Rock in a way that is fiscally responsible. This legislation is
    a great example of a community-based effort to establish one of
    its most valued areas as a national monument, taking into
    account all of the various interests affected by that
    designation and doing so in a way that does not increase costs
    to American taxpayers.
        I am proud to have the support of the Archuleta County
    commissioners and the Pagosa Springs Chamber of Commerce, among
    others, in making Chimney Rock a national monument. This would
    create a win/win situation for this remarkable historic
    cultural area, the State of Colorado and the communities,
    Native American tribes and future generations of visitors.
        Mr. Chairman, than you for allowing me to comment on this
    bill, and I would like to be able to submit for the record
    letters of support from the Chamber of Commerce and the other
    county commissioners out of Archuleta County.
        Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton on H.R. 2621
    follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Scott Tipton, a Representative in Congress
    from the State of Utah, on H.R. 2621, ``Chimney Rock National Monument
                          Establishment Act of 2011''

        Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening today's hearing and including
    my bill, H.R. 2621, to designate Chimney Rock in Southwestern Colorado
    as a National Monument. I want to thank Senator Bennet for being here
    today in support of the bill. His contribution on this legislation in
    the Senate has been instrumental in getting the bill where it is today
    and I'm proud to work with him on this bipartisan effort. I also want
    to thank Ricky Lightfoot from my hometown of Cortez, Colorado for being
    here to share his expertise on this treasured area and I look forward
    to hearing his testimony.
        Chimney Rock is considered by the historic preservation community
    and the archeological community to be one of the most significant
    archeological sites in the Western United States, however, many
    Coloradans may have never heard of the historic treasure right in our
    own backyard. Once held sacred by the ancestors of modern Pueblo
    Indians who made the journey to this northernmost outpost of the
    Chacoan Civilization, Chimney Rock is one of only three such sites
    known to exist.
        The area is known primarily as a gathering place by these early
    Native Americans to observe the rare and dramatic lunar standstill.
    Centuries ago, hundreds of early Native Americans called the area home
    and archeologists have uncovered ancient farming areas, homes and other
    structures indicating that this was a major cultural center for early
    Americans.
        Despite the unique nature of this area, the Chimney Rock site of
    the San Juan National Forest is lacking a designation worthy of its
    historical and cultural significance. The area is currently under the
    management of the U.S. Forest Service, and is covered under the USFS
    Organic Act, which has no provision to address the preservation and
    management of such a historic and cultural significant site as Chimney
    Rock. As a National Monument, Chimney Rock will be carefully preserved
    and restored so that future generations will have the opportunity to
    visit the awe-inspiring site, interpret its meaning, and study the
    people that built these structures so long ago.
        This designation would increase attention and interest and generate
    new tourism opportunities for the Four Corners area, potentially
    generating badly needed revenue and expand potential for new jobs in
    the Southwest Colorado region ravaged by double-digit unemployment.
    Chimney Rock would remain open to many of the traditional uses for this
    area. This would ensure that local ranchers will be able to keep
    utilizing the lands they depend on for grazing, outdoorsman will be
    able to continue to take advantage of the game opportunities in the
    area, and would allow for the continued use of Chimney Rock by members
    of the Indian tribes for traditional ceremonies.
        The national monument designation requires no additional federal
    funds, and therefore no increase in spending. However, it does allow
    for private supporters to work with the Forest Service to improve and
    maintain this valued area. This allows for the preservation of Chimney
    Rock in a way that is fiscally responsible.
        This legislation is a great example of a community based effort to
    establish one of its most valued areas as a national monument taking
    into account all of the various interests affected by that designation
    and doing so in a way that does not increase costs to American
    taxpayers.
        I'm proud to have the support of the Archuleta County
    Commissioners, and the Pagosa Springs Chamber of Commerce, among
    others. Making Chimney Rock a national monument would create a win-win
    situation for this remarkable historic, cultural area, the state of
    Colorado, the local communities, Native Indian tribes and future
    generations of visitors.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And now last but certainly not
    least, Representative Johnson, Member of our Committee. And you
    also have the World War II Memorial Prayer Act. You are
    recognized to introduce that if you would.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Grijalva, for holding this hearing today and for
    considering this legislation that I sponsored, H.R. 2070, the
    World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.
        You know, on June 6, 1944, America embarked upon a great
    campaign, a campaign to fight and resist tyranny and a campaign
    designed to protect the very survivability of our Nation and
    advance the cause of freedom and liberty for the rest of the
    world.
        On that day, President Roosevelt offered a prayer to our
    Nation and to the many men who were going to go into harm's way
    in what was going to be a very, very dangerous mission. This
    legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior to place
    a plaque at the World War II memorial or to inscribe onto the
    World War II memorial this prayer, which has been entitled
    ``Let our Hearts be Stout.''
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of the prayer
    for the record if there is no objection.
        [The prayer submitted for the record follows:]

    My Fellow Americans:
        Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at
    that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were
    crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to
    pass with success thus far.
        And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
        Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon
    a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion,
    and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
        Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness
    to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
        They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For
    the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come
    with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know
    that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will
    triumph.
        They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest--until
    the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's
    souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
        For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight
    not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to
    liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill
    among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their
    return to the haven of home.
        Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them,
    Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
        And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and
    brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever
    with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed
    faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
        Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of
    special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I
    ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we
    rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of
    prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
        Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the
    contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our
    armed forces.
        And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear
    sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever
    they may be.
        And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our
    sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the
    keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary
    events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment--let not these deter
    us in our unconquerable purpose.
        With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our
    enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances.
    Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into
    a world unity that will spell a sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the
    schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in
    freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
        Thy will be done, Almighty God.
        Amen.
    President Franklin D. Roosevelt--June 6, 1944
                                     ______

        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I believe that there are several areas
    within the memorial that would be suitable for the prayer's
    placement, but the Department of the Interior would have the
    discretion on final placement. Furthermore, my intention is
    that the cost for the plaque or the inscription would be paid
    for not by taxpayer dollars but by private donations from
    individuals at no cost to the American taxpayers.
        The Administration's witness, who is on the second panel,
    will testify against this legislation today by saying that it
    violates the Vietnam Memorial Visitor Center Act of 2003, and I
    wanted to take this opportunity to preempt their testimony. The
    legislation passed in 2003 stated that the reserve, commonly
    referred to as the National Mall, is a completed body of civic
    art and therefore should not be altered and therefore prohibits
    new commemorative displays on the National Mall.
        However, in the legislation passed in 2003, Congress
    allowed for a commemorative work to go forward by allowing a
    plaque to be placed on the Lincoln Memorial where Martin Luther
    King, Jr. gave his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech. And I am
    glad they did that.
        Furthermore, in 2009, Congress passed a provision in the
    2010 Interior spending bill that directed the Secretary of the
    Interior to place a plaque on the World War II Memorial
    honoring Senator Bob Dole for his work in getting the memorial
    built. And I am glad that they did that.
        I worked closely with the Congressional Research Service
    and legislative counsel while writing this legislation to make
    sure that the language in H.R. 2070 that is before us today is
    as close as possible to the 2009 provision that authorized the
    plaque to be placed honoring Senator Dole.
        I think it is disingenuous for the Administration to say
    that this legislation should not go forward, and if Congress
    and the American people decide that this plaque or inscription
    is as important as I think it is, then it should be placed on
    the memorial. More importantly, the question of whether the
    prayer is added to the memorial should be left up to the men
    and women to whom the memorial is dedicated to.
        The memorial was built to honor the 16 million who served
    in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II
    and the more than 400,000 who died during the war, and it seems
    to me that if the few remaining World War II veterans are
    supportive of the prayer being added, we as a country, as a
    Nation, should honor that request.
        The American Legion is supportive of the legislation, and I
    also have a letter of support from the Ohio Christian Alliance,
    and, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to have
    those included in the record.
        [The letters in support of H.R. 2070 follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Lucky for us, today this Committee
    will hear the testimony of Poppy Fowler on today's second
    panel. Poppy is 87 years young and bravely served our Nation
    during the Second World War in the Pacific Theater. He served
    as a rear gunner on an SB2C hell diver in the Naval Air Group
    15 and completed 35 missions during his three-plus years in the
    Navy.
        I had the pleasure of escorting Poppy a few weekends ago on
    an honor flight to Washington, D.C., to see the memorial for
    the first time, and I believe that he is a true American hero,
    and I look forward to his testimony today.
        During the honor flight, I also had the opportunity to
    speak to a number of World War II veterans about this
    legislation, and all were supportive of including the
    President's prayer on the memorial. I believe the President's
    prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our Nation. But
    more important, it gave comfort to the brave warriors who put
    their lives on the line as we fought against tyranny and
    oppression.
        Those words should be included among the tributes to the
    greatest generation, memorialized on the national mall, and I
    will continue to work with the Committee to see that the
    President's words are appropriately added to the memorial. And
    I am happy to answer any questions that other Committee Members
    may have. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Bill Johnson follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress
                             from the State of Ohio

        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Grijalva for holding this
    hearing today and for considering legislation that I sponsored, H.R.
    2070, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.
        This legislation would direct the Secretary of Interior to place a
    plaque at the World War II Memorial or to inscribe onto the World War
    II Memorial this prayer, which has been entitled ``Let Our Hearts Be
    Stout.''
        I would like to submit a copy of the prayer for the record if there
    is no objection from any of the Members of the Committee.
        I believe that there are several areas within the Memorial that
    would be suitable for the prayer's placement, but the Department of the
    Interior would have the discretion on final placement.
        Furthermore, my intention is that the cost for the plaque or
    inscription would be paid for by private donations from individuals, at
    no cost to the American taxpayers.
        The Administration's witness who is on the second panel will
    testify against this legislation by saying that it violates the Vietnam
    Memorial Visitor Center Act of 2003 and I wanted to take this
    opportunity to pre-empt their testimony.
        The legislation passed in 2003 stated that the Reserve, commonly
    referred to the National Mall, is a completed body of civic art and
    therefore should not be altered and therefore prohibits new
    commemorative displays on the National Mall.
        However, in the legislation passed in 2003, Congress allowed for a
    commemorative work to go forward by allowing a plaque to be placed on
    the Lincoln Memorial where Martin Luther King, Junior gave his famous
    `I have a dream speech.'
        Furthermore, in 2009 Congress passed a provision in the 2010
    Interior spending bill that directed the Secretary of Interior to place
    a plaque on the World War II Memorial honoring Senator Bob Dole for his
    work in getting the Memorial built.
        I worked closely with the Congressional Research Service and
    Legislative Counsel while writing this legislation to make sure that
    the language in H.R. 2070 is as close as possible to the 2009 provision
    that authorized the plaque to be placed honoring Senator Dole.
        I think it is disingenuous for the Administration to say that this
    legislation shouldn't go forward and if Congress and the American
    people decide that this plaque is as important as I think it is then it
    should be placed on the Memorial.
        More importantly the question of whether the prayer is added to the
    Memorial should be left up to the men and women who the Memorial is
    dedicated to.
        The Memorial was built to honor the 16 million who served in the
    armed forces of the U.S. during World War II and the more than 400,000
    who died during the war, and it seems to me that if the few remaining
    veterans are supportive of the prayer being added, we as a country
    should honor that request.
        The American Legion is supportive of the legislation and I would
    ask that their letter of support be included in the record.
        The Ohio Christian Alliance also has sent a letter of support that
    I also ask be submitted for the record (pause for Chairman Bishop to
    enter it in the record)
        Lucky for us, this Committee will hear the testimony of George
    `Poppy' Fowler on today's second panel. Poppy is 87 years young and
    bravely served our nation during the Second World War in the Pacific
    Theater. Poppy also was a charter member of the WWII Memorial Fund to
    help raise money for the construction of the Memorial.
        He served as a rear gunner on a SB2C Helldiver in the Naval Air
    Group 15 and completed 35 missions during his three plus years in the
    Navy.
        I had the pleasure of escorting Poppy a few weekends ago on an
    Honor Flight to Washington, D.C. to see the Memorial and I believe that
    he is a true American hero and I look forward to his testimony.
        During the honor flight trip I also had the opportunity to speak to
    a number of World War II veterans about this legislation and all were
    supportive of including FDR's prayer on the Memorial.
        I believe that President Roosevelt's prayer gave solace, comfort
    and strength to our nation as we fought against tyranny and oppression.
        Those words should be included among the tributes to the Greatest
    Generation memorialized on the National Mall and I will continue to
    work with the Committee to see that this plaque is added to Memorial.
        I am happy to answer any questions Committee Members may have and
    with that I yield back the balance of my time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all of those from the
    House and the Senate who have testified on these four bills. I
    am now going to call up the second panel. I would ask that
    Robert Abbey, who is the Director of the Bureau of Land
    Management; Mary Wagner, who is the Associate Chief of the U.S.
    Forest Service; Mr. George ``Poppy'' Fowler, World War II
    veteran; Ms. Judith Young, who is the Chair of the Gold Star
    Mothers National Memorial Foundation; and Mr. Ricky Lightfoot,
    who is the former President of the Crow Canyon Archeological
    Center, to join us at the table if they would.
        For those of you who may not have joined us before, some of
    you are old hats at this. Some of you are not. Your written
    statement will obviously be included in the record. At the same
    time, we are happy to hear your oral statement at this time. We
    ask you to maintain to five minutes. You will see the clock
    that is in front of you. When the light is green, it means the
    clock is running down. When the light goes yellow, you have one
    minute in which I hope you will sum up. And then when it comes
    on red, that is it. Yes, if you would do that, please.
        We will start first with Director Abbey and then go to
    Associate Chief Wagner. I will tell you both at this time this
    panel is talking only about the three bills, Chimney Rock, Gold
    Star Mothers and the World War II plaque. I will give you your
    option since I already kind of expanded the field in the first
    panel with the Members of Congress who were here. If you would
    like to give your entire testimony now on the fourth bill, the
    Arizona Strip one, as well, please feel free to do that, but
    the next panel will be talking specifically about that, and I
    would hope you would be able to stay for that. If you only want
    to talk about these three now, however you want to structure
    your testimony is fine with me. So, Director Abbey.

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
              MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to
    restrict my testimony at this point in time to the three bills
    that are on the agenda.
        Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee, thank you
    for the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to
    present the Department of the Interior's views on the two
    National Park Service bills on today's agenda. Peter Maye,
    Associate Regional Director for Lands, Resources and Planning
    for the National Capital Region of the National Park Service,
    is accompanying me and will be happy I am sure to answer any
    questions regarding these two bills.
        I would like to submit the Department's full statement on
    these two bills for the record and briefly summarize them. H.R.
    1980 would authorize the Gold Star Mothers National Monument
    Foundation to establish a monument in the District of Columbia.
    The Department cannot support H.R. 1980 because it does not
    conform to the Commemorative Works Act. This position is
    consistent with the findings of the National Capital Memorial
    Advisory Commission.
        H.R. 1980 is in conflict with the Commemorative Works Act
    in two key areas. First, the Act states that a military
    commemorative work may be authorized only to commemorate a war
    such as the Korean War or a branch of the Armed Forces, such as
    the Navy Memorial. Second, the Act permits consideration of
    memorials only if the last surviving member of that group being
    commemorated has been dead for 25 years.
        While the proposed commemoration is outside the scope of
    the Commemorative Works Act, other suitable options to honor
    the Gold Star Mothers could be explored. Should the Committee
    choose to advance this legislation, the Department would
    encourage consideration of language to provide direction
    regarding the disposition of unspent funds, and we would be
    happy to provide suggested language.
        H.R. 2070 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
    install in the area of the World War II Memorial a suitable
    plaque or an inscription of the words that President Franklin
    Delano Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the
    morning of D-Day. The Department cannot support H.R. 2070,
    which essentially proposes adding another new commemorative
    work as an addition to the existing World War II Memorial and
    as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act.
        We support the continued application of this law, which by
    prohibiting encroachment by new commemoration on an existing
    one respects the design of the completed work of civic art
    without alteration or addition of new elements. The
    Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new
    commemorative work shall be located so that it does not
    encroach upon an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the
    merit of this new commemoration. It is simply that altering the
    memorial in a way proposed by H.R. 2070 will dilute the elegant
    memorial's central message.
        The Department strongly believes that the World War II
    Memorial as designed accomplishes its legislative purpose to
    honor the members of the Armed Forces who served in World War
    II and to commemorate the participation of the United States in
    that conflict.

     Statement submitted for the record by the National Park Service, U.S.
     Department of the Interior, Concerning H.R. 1980, a Bill to Authorize
       the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation to Establish a
                 National Monument in the District of Columbia.

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
    committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
    H.R. 1980, a bill that would authorize the Gold Star Mothers National
    Monument Foundation to establish a national monument in the District of
    Columbia.
        The Department cannot support H.R. 1980 because it does not conform
    to the Commemorative Works Act. This position is consistent with the
    finding of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which
    reported its views to the House Committee on Natural Resources on
    August 17, 2011.
        This bill proposes to both establish a national monument to mothers
    of members of the Armed Forces who have died in the service to our
    country, and to designate the monument as a unit of the National Park
    System. H.R. 1980 also directs that the monument be established
    according to the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act of 1986.
        The Department appreciated the opportunity to discuss the proposal
    with the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation when it met
    with National Park Service staff and the National Capital Memorial
    Advisory Commission. Of course we believe that recognition of the role
    of mothers of members of the Armed Forces is important. We also believe
    that commemoration should be accomplished in a manner consistent with
    the Commemorative Works Act as enacted by Congress. We also note that
    the Gold Star program itself is a commemorative program. It is to
    recognize and honor those who have sacrificed their lives in service to
    our Country, as well as their mothers. Memorials are not always bricks
    and mortar. The Gold Star program is an excellent example, and it is a
    commemoration that has endured in various ways for almost a century.
        H.R. 1980 is in conflict with the Commemorative Works Act in two
    key areas. First, the Act states that a military commemorative work may
    be authorized only to commemorate a war or similar major military
    conflict, such as the Korean War, or a branch of the armed forces, such
    as the Navy Memorial. Secondly, the Act permits consideration of
    memorials only if the last surviving member of the group being
    commemorated has been dead for 25 years.
        While the proposed commemoration is outside the scope of the
    Commemorative Works Act, other suitable options to honor the Gold Star
    Mothers could be explored.
        The Department also notes that the legislation directs that the
    memorial be established as a unit of the National Park System.
    Ordinarily, the National Park Service does not recommend such
    designation without first conducting a Congressionally-authorized
    Special Resource Study to determine if the resource warrants
    designation as a national park.
        We further note that H.R. 1980 does not contain language providing
    for the disposition of unspent funds that may be privately raised for a
    memorial. The Department recommends legislative sponsors include such
    provisions in proposals to establish memorials regardless of the
    proposed location. Should the committee choose to advance this
    legislation in some form, the Department would encourage consideration
    of language to provide direction regarding unspent funds and we can
    assist the committee with suggested language.
        That concludes our prepared testimony on H.R. 1980, and we would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

     Statement submitted for the record by the National Park Service, U.S.
        Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2070, a Bill to Direct the
     Secretary of the Interior to Install in the Area of the World War II
     Memorial in the District of Columbia a Suitable Plaque or Inscription
      with the Words That President Franklin D. Roosevelt Prayed with the
                 Nation on June 6, 1944, the Morning of D-Day.

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
    committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
    H.R. 2070, a bill which directs the Secretary of the Interior to
    install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of
    Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that
    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6,
    1944, the morning of D-Day.
        The Department cannot support H.R. 2070, which essentially proposes
    adding another commemorative work to the existing World War II Memorial
    and as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act. We support the
    continued application of this law which, by prohibiting encroachment by
    a new commemoration on an existing one, respects the design of this
    completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new
    elements.
        The World War II Memorial was authorized on May 23, 1993, by Public
    Law 103-32. In 1994, Congress approved its placement in the area
    containing the National Mall in Public Law 103-422. Its location at the
    site of the Rainbow Pool was approved in 1995 by the National Park
    Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the
    Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning
    Commission (NCPC). In July 1997, the CFA and the NCPC reaffirmed prior
    approvals of the Rainbow Pool site in recognition of the significance
    of World War II as the single-most defining event of the 20th Century
    for Americans and the world. Even so, there were challenges to the
    establishment of this memorial. The design we see today was
    painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and
    spirited public debate.
        The Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new
    commemorative work shall be located so that it does not encroach upon
    an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new
    commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as
    proposed in H.R. 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's
    central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move,
    educate, and inspire its many visitors. The Department strongly
    believes that the World War II Memorial, as designed, accomplishes its
    legislated purpose to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served
    in World War II and to commemorate the participation of the United
    States in that conflict. It should not be altered in the manner
    suggested by H.R. 2070.
        The views of the Department are consistent with those of the
    National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which reviewed this
    proposal at its meeting on September 14, 2011, and with the views of
    the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) which was also
    represented at that same meeting. The ABMC, charged by the Congress in
    Public Law 103-32 to design and build the World War II Memorial,
    concurred that no additional elements should be inserted into this
    carefully designed Memorial.
        That concludes our prepared testimony on H.R. 2070, and we would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Wagner?

    STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
                    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Wagner. There we go. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am happy to be
    here today to offer the Administration's remarks on H.R. 2621,
    the Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act.
        Chimney Rock was designated as an archeological area and a
    national historic landmark in 1970. It lies within the San Juan
    National Forest and is surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian
    Reservation. The site remains archeologically and culturally
    significant to many descendant tribes. The purpose of the
    monument would be to preserve, protect and restore the
    nationally significant resources of Chimney Rock and adjacent
    land and provide for public interpretation and recreation
    consistent with the protection of the resources.
        Mr. Tipton and Mr. Bennet did a wonderful job describing
    those significant national resources. Those resources in
    addition to the strong bipartisan effort and strong community
    support for the monument establishment supports the merits of
    designating this area as a national monument, and the
    Department supports H.R. 2621.
        I would like to offer several just minor modifications that
    are detailed in my written testimony that would improve our
    ability to manage resources in the area. And in conclusion, the
    Forest Service looks forward to working with the Subcommittee
    to meet the intent of the bill. I look forward to answering any
    questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]

        Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Concerning, H.R. 2621, Chimney Rock National
                           Monument Establishment Act

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on
    H.R. 2621, the ``Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act''.
    While the Department supports H.R. 2621, I would like to offer
    modifications that would address some technical concerns with the bill
    and which would improve our ability to manage resources in the area.
        Designated as an Archaeological Area and National Historic Landmark
    in 1970, Chimney Rock lies on 4,100 acres of San Juan National Forest
    land surrounded by the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. Between A.D.
    900 and 1150, the ancestors of modern Pueblo Indians occupied the lands
    surrounding Chimney Rock, and the site remains archaeologically and
    culturally significant to many descendant tribes. At 7,600 feet,
    Chimney Rock is also the most northeasterly and highest Chacoan site
    known. Chacoan culture refers to the way of life of ancient ancestors
    of modern Pueblo Indians and continues to be important to the native
    people in the region.
        The Forest Service values archaeological and cultural resources and
    considers it part of the agency's mission to preserve and interpret
    them for the public. We believe the rich history, spectacular
    archaeological, cultural, scientific, watershed, and scenic resource
    values, as well as community support, merits the designation of the
    area as a National Monument.
        Section 3 of H.R. 2621 would establish the Chimney Rock National
    Monument in the State of Colorado by designating 4,726 acres
    surrounding the Chimney Rock Archaeological Area within the San Juan
    National Forest as a National Monument as depicted on the map titled
    ``Boundary Map, Chimney Rock National Monument'' dated January 5, 2010.
    The purpose of the monument would be to preserve, protect, and restore
    the nationally significant archaeological, cultural, historic,
    geologic, hydrologic, natural, educational and scenic resources of
    Chimney Rock and adjacent land; and to provide for public
    interpretation and recreation consistent with the protection of the
    resources.
        Section 4 of the bill addresses the administration of the proposed
    National Monument. It provides for continued use of the Monument by
    members of Indian tribes for traditional and cultural uses. The
    Secretary of Agriculture would also be authorized to allow uses of the
    Monument consistent with the purposes of its establishment. These uses
    include: vegetative management treatments including timber harvest and
    the use of prescribed fire only if the Secretary deems it necessary to
    address the risk of wildfire, insects, or diseases; scientific
    research; the use of mountain bikes and motorized vehicles;
    installation, construction and maintenance of a public utility right of
    way under certain circumstances; and grazing in existence on the date
    of enactment of the bill. We feel that the continued use of this area
    for hunting and other recreational use compatible with the designation
    should also be explicitly addressed in this section.
        Section 4(j) references the Department of Interior when designating
    a manager; this needs to be corrected to read ``Department of
    Agriculture''. Additionally, 4(i) would provide that signs, fixtures,
    alterations, or additions needed in connection with the designation or
    advertisement of the Monument may be paid for only with non-federal
    funds or amounts made available of such purposes in the previous
    appropriation acts. While we appreciate the concern with limiting the
    costs associated with designation of the Monument, this provision may
    undercut the ability of the Forest Service to meet the objectives of
    the bill.
        Section 5 would require the Forest Service to develop a management
    plan not later than 3 years after the date of enactment and in
    consultation with Indian Tribes with cultural or historic connections
    to the Monument. The management plan must identify the authorized uses
    for the Monument. In developing the management plan, the Secretary
    would provide an opportunity for comment to the public and such
    entities as State, Tribal government, local, and national organizations
    with an interest in the management and use of the Monument. The San
    Juan National Forest land management plan would have to be amended to
    incorporate the management plan for the Monument.
        Section 6 allows the Secretary to acquire land and any interest in
    land within or adjacent to the boundary of the National Monument by (1)
    purchase from willing sellers with donated or appropriated funds; (2)
    donation; or (3) exchange.
        Section 7 of the bill would withdraw all Federal land within the
    national monument, subject to valid and existing rights, from entry,
    appropriation, or disposal under the public laws; location, entry, and
    patent under the mining laws; and from operation of the mineral
    leasing, mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws except for
    issuance of gas pipeline rights-of-way within existing easements.
    Section 8 of the bill would stipulate that nothing in this Act affects
    anything related to reserved water rights, tribal rights, fish and
    wildlife jurisdiction, and adjacent uses.
        In conclusion Mr. Chairman, the Forest Service looks forward to
    working with you and the Subcommittee to carry out the intent of the
    bill. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will turn now to Ms. Young. The
    first bill that the Director talked about was the one of which
    you are concerned, the Gold Star Mothers act, so we will talk
    about that one. Then we will actually turn to Mr. Fowler, give
    you a chance to talk about the plaque. And then finally, Mr.
    Lightfoot, if you would talk about what the Associate Chief of
    the Forest Service just mentioned, I would appreciate that.
        So five minutes each. Ms. Young, you are on.

                 STATEMENT OF JUDITH C. YOUNG, CHAIR,
             GOLD STAR MOTHERS NATIONAL MONUMENT FOUNDATION

        Ms. Young. All right. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee----
        Mr. Bishop. I don't think your microphone is on.
        Ms. Young. All right, OK.
        Mr. Bishop. Perfect.
        Ms. Young. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee, good morning. I am Judith Young, Chairman of the
    National Monument Foundation, and I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today. I also want to thank the
    Committee for your work over the years to enhance the American
    experience through the national park system, our parks, our
    public lands and specifically our natural monuments.
        Through your Committee's legislative initiatives and
    dedicated work, you have permitted the American people, both
    young and old, to reflect, to remember and to honor the
    sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and their families
    through the magnificent memorials and monuments that are on the
    National Mall and the other locations throughout the great
    country of ours.
        Today I am privileged to speak to you in support of H.R.
    1980, the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of 2011. I
    want to personally thank Representative Jon Runyan for
    introducing this important legislation and the bill's 63
    cosponsors, including seven Members of the House Committee on
    Natural Resources.
        Throughout our history the fighting spirit of the American
    warrior has never been questioned. The men and women of our
    Armed Forces continue to display their valor in the finest
    traditions of the generations who have served since the
    Continental Army. We, the American people, continue to be
    blessed by their acts of bravery and selfless service.
        At the same time, the families of our military members also
    serve and sacrifice in their own personal way. The Gold Star
    tradition has been around for nearly a century as a reminder of
    their sacrifice. During World War I, flags were displayed in
    homes, businesses, schools and churches bearing the blue star,
    which represented each member who was serving. If the service
    member gave their life, then a gold star was replaced over the
    blue one.
        For this simple but powerful expression of love and
    devotion came the distinction of being a Gold Star Mother.
    These are the mothers who rocked the cradle of our military men
    and women. Being a Gold Star Mother is not a status that one
    pursues. Rather, it is a state of being that descends upon us
    as a result of having raised our children with the spirit and
    sense of duty for service to our country.
        With that knock on the door, that fateful day our lives are
    changed forever. But as unwelcome as the distinction of being a
    Gold Star Mother might be, we have chosen to transform our loss
    and our grief into service to others. We believe that we can
    honor the legacy of our sons and daughters by serving others.
        This brings me to the current legislation and our efforts
    to establish a national monument here in the National Capital
    region. The region is replete with monuments and memorials to
    the warrior and rightly so. But the sacrifices of families go
    largely unrecognized except perhaps a comment during a speech.
        The purpose of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument is
    to honor those mothers who know the grief of losing a son or
    daughter in the service of our country. It will also promote a
    bond of kinship and engage support for our veterans who have
    stepped forward and answered the call to duty and defense of
    our country. In large measure, by honoring the mothers, it will
    recognize and honor the sacrifices of each of the families.
        Over the years, Gold Star Mothers have collectively
    invested millions of volunteer hours in support of our warriors
    and their families and personal service at our Nation's
    veterans hospitals, to individual veterans in our local
    communities. In serving this way, the mothers have turned their
    loss into a positive force for others. Our executive director
    and sculptor of the monument, which is Andrew Chernak, is a
    Vietnam veteran, and he also is a Purple Heart recipient, he
    has said it perhaps the best. If you want to know quiet
    greatness, spend a little time in the presence of a Gold Star
    Mother.
        As I am sure the Members of this Committee fully understand
    and appreciate, the significance of a monument or a memorial is
    not only in the structure itself but also in its placement. To
    provide the greatest honor, monuments need to be placed where
    they can be easily accessed and seen by the greatest number of
    people. To do this otherwise would convey the impression,
    rightly or wrongly, that the purpose of this monument has less
    significance and standing.
        Although there are many locations, Arlington is the
    national resting place of warriors and a symbol of the national
    hometown cemeteries across the country where our sons and
    daughters have eternal rest. It is our hope and desire to see a
    place near the visitor's center at Arlington National Cemetery.
    Everyone laid to rest in Arlington had a mother who nurtured
    them.
        And I just want to say the mothers are not military. Their
    sons and daughters were, but the mothers themselves are not
    military. So the other gentleman that said that we should not
    be reserve because of the military, that doesn't hold true to
    us. And we are not asking to be on the Mall.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Young follows:]

                     Statement of Judith C. Young, Chair,
          Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation, on H.R. 1980

        Mister Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. I am
    Judith Young, the Chair of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument
    Foundation, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
        I also want to thank the Committee for your work over the years to
    enhance the ``American Experience'' through the National Park System,
    our forests and public lands, and specifically through our national
    monuments.
        Through your Committee's legislative initiatives and dedicated work
    you permit the American people (both old and young, alike) to reflect,
    to remember, and to honor the sacrifices of our men and women in
    uniform and their families through some of the magnificent memorials
    and monuments here on the National Mall, and many other locations
    throughout this great country of ours.
        Today I am privileged to be able to speak with you in support of
    H.R. 1980, The Gold Star Mothers National Monument Act of 2011. I want
    to personally thank Representative Jon Runyon for introducing this
    important legislation and the bill's 63 Co-Sponsors, including 7
    members of the House Committee on Natural Resources (Bordallo, Denham,
    Flores, Garamendi, Johnson, Lamborn, Pallone).
        Throughout our history, the fighting spirit of the American Warrior
    has never been questioned. The men and women of our Armed Forces
    continue to display their valor in the finest traditions of the
    generations who have served since the Continental Army. We, the
    American people, continue to be blessed by their acts of bravery and
    selfless service.
        At the same time, the families of our military members also serve
    and sacrifice in their own personal way.
        The Gold Star tradition has been around for nearly a century as a
    reminder of their sacrifices. During World War I, flags were displayed
    in homes, businesses, schools and churches bearing a blue star
    representing each member of the family who was serving in harm's way.
    If the service members gave their life, a gold star was stitched over
    the blue one. From this simple, but powerful, expression of love and
    devotion came the distinction of being a Gold Star Mother.
        Being a Gold Star Mother is not a status that one pursues. Rather,
    it is a state of being that descends upon us as a result of having
    raised our children with the spirit and sense of duty for ``service to
    country.'' With the knock on the door on that fateful day, our lives
    are forever changed. But as unwelcome as the distinction of being Gold
    Star Mother might be, we have chosen to transform our loss and grief
    into service to others. We believe that we can honor the legacy of our
    sons and daughters by serving others.
        That brings me to the current legislation and our efforts to
    establish a national monument here in the National Capitol Region. The
    region is replete with monuments and memorials to the Warrior (and
    rightly so), but the sacrifices of the families go largely
    unrecognized--except perhaps with a comment during a speech.
        The purpose of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument is to honor
    the Mothers who know the grief of losing a son or daughter in the
    service of our country. It will also promote a bond of kinship and
    engage support for our Veterans who have stepped forward and answered
    the call to duty in defense of our nation. In large measure, by
    honoring the mothers it will recognize and honor the sacrifices of each
    family.
        Over the years Gold Star Mothers have collectively invested
    millions of volunteer hours in support of our Warriors and their
    families, in personal service at our nation's Veterans hospitals, and
    to individual Veterans in their local communities. In serving this way,
    the Mothers have turned their loss into a positive force for others.
    Our Executive Director and the Sculptor of the monument, Andrew
    Chernack, has perhaps said it best: If you want to know quiet
    greatness, spend a little time in the presence of a Gold Star Mother.
        We believe it only fitting and proper that through H.R. 1980 a
    national monument be established and authorized for placement here in
    the National Capitol Region. Our hope and desire is to see it placed
    near the Visitor's Center at Arlington National Cemetery. Although
    there may be other locations, Arlington is the national resting place
    of warriors and is emblematic of other national and hometown cemeteries
    across the country where our sons and daughters have eternal rest.
    Everyone laid to rest in Arlington had a mother who nurtured them,
    worried about them and prayed for them. We therefore believe it fitting
    that a monument to Gold Star Mothers should be placed nearby.
        As I am sure the members of this Committee fully understand and
    appreciate, the significance of a monument or memorial is not only in
    the structure itself, but also in its placement. To provide the
    greatest honor, monuments need to be placed where they can be easily
    accessed and seen by the greatest number of people. To do otherwise
    will convey the impression--rightly or wrongly--that the purpose of the
    monument has less significance and standing than it otherwise would
    have if properly located.
        I want to reinforce the provision of H.R. 1980 regarding expenses.
    All costs associated with the Gold Star Mothers National Monument will
    be borne through private funds raised through work of the Gold Star
    Mothers National Monument Foundation. No Federal funds are being
    requested or expected. Our fund raising efforts are already underway.
        America's Gold Star Mothers proudly honor those who fought, those
    who died, and those who did not return from all prior wars and
    conflicts. It is only proper that we honor them with the Gold Star
    Mothers National Monument. I therefore urge your favorable
    consideration of H.R. 1980.
        Again, I thank you for privilege of being able to speak with you
    today.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your testimony.
    We will now turn to Mr. Fowler for your comments. First of all,
    we thank you sincerely for your service to this country. We are
    honored to have you here. We would like to hear from you for up
    to five minutes about the plaque issue, sir.

                 STATEMENT OF GEORGE ``POPPY'' FOWLER,
                          WORLD WAR II VETERAN

        Mr. Fowler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is relatively new
    to me. Gentlemen, in relation to H.R. 2070, my name is George
    A. Fowler of Coolville, Ohio. I have been asked to give
    testimony to a cause that recently came to my attention.
        On June 6, 1944, prior to D-Day, our President, Franklin
    Roosevelt, desired to have a national day of prayer for the
    upcoming undertaking. I feel with no doubt that it would be
    appropriate that this prayer be inscribed in some manner at the
    World War II Memorial.
        Those reading this prayer would be able to recall
    sacrifices made by our military, also those on the home front.
    This prayer came at a perilous time, yet it was answered in
    victory at a dear cost of lives. Today this prayer can pertain
    to any military action. Under present circumstances, it is also
    appropriate. I feel this prayer also pertained to other
    military operations at this time.
        On June 6, 1944, the Marianas campaign was underway. I had
    the privilege to participate as a radio gunner on the dive
    bomber from the carrier Essex in Air Group 15. It was only by
    the grace of God that I returned to my family. Also, those
    reading this prayer may look at our great Nation and ask what
    may I do to keep this freedom alive and also remembering the
    loved ones that were lost.
        May God bless all in making this decision. Thank you for
    your time. And, sir, I remain your servant.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fowler follows:]

     Statement of George `Poppy' Fowler, Veteran of World War II, on H.R.
                                      2070

        Gentlemen and women in relation to H.R. 2070.
        My name is George A. Fowler of Coolville, Ohio. I have been asked
    to give testimony to a cause that recently came to my attention.
        On June 6th, 1944, prior to D-Day, our President Franklin Roosevelt
    desired to have a national day of ` for the upcoming undertaking.
        I feel, with no doubt, that it would be appropriate that this
    prayer be inscribed in some manner at the World War II Memorial.
        Those reading this prayer will be able to recall the sacrifices
    made by our military, also those on the home front. This prayer came at
    a perilous time, yet it was answered in victory at a dear cost of
    lives.
        Today, this prayer can pertain to any military action. Under
    present circumstances, it is also appropriate.
        I feel this prayer also pertained to other military operations at
    that time.
        On June 6, 1944, the marvelous campaign was underway. I had the
    privilege to participate as a radio-gunner on the dive bomber from the
    carrier Essex - air group 15.It was only by the Grace of God that I
    returned to my family.
        Also, those reading this prayer may look at our great nation and
    ask what I may do to keep this freedom alive and also remembering loved
    ones.
        May God bless all in making this decision. Thank you for your time.
        I remain your servant.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your time and effort and
    testimony. Mr. Lightfoot, can I interrupt here for just a
    second? I apologize for this. But in our first panel, Senator
    Hatch, as I said, was supposed to be part of our first panel,
    and he was held up by speaking on the Senate Floor. And he has
    now arrived and joined us on the dais. With all due respect, if
    I could insert Senator Hatch here, and then we will hear your
    testimony, which is about the one bill that relates to the
    Forest Service in particular.
        Senator Hatch, we are happy to have you here, and we would
    recognize you now at this time for any comments you wish to
    make.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
                             STATE OF UTAH

        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking
    Member Grijalva, and Members of this important Committee. And I
    want to thank the panel for their courtesy.
        I thank you for the opportunity to share a few remarks on
    H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011,
    introduced by Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona. I have
    cosponsored a companion bill in the Senate, S. 1690, with
    Senator John McCain of Arizona, and I would like to recognize
    Supervisor Buster Johnson of Mohave County, Arizona, who will
    testify here today.
        Supervisor Johnson represents the unanimous views of the
    county commissioners from southern Utah who also strongly
    support this legislation. H.R. 3155 would have an impact on the
    Arizona Strip region, which sits directly south of the Utah-
    Arizona border and which is very important socially and
    economically to the communities and businesses in southern
    Utah.
        In short, economic activity in the Arizona Strip usually
    means jobs for southern Utahans. Mr. Chairman, the Northern
    Arizona Mining Continuity Act is simply an effort to restore an
    agreement that was forged leading up to the passage of the
    Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. There will be some who may
    attempt a logical dance to show that the Act did not in fact
    guarantee the right for future uranium mining in this area, and
    I can agree that no one involved in those negotiations believed
    any guarantees were established. But those of us who were
    negotiating the terms of the Arizona Wilderness Act have a
    clear understanding of the process that allowed it to become
    law.
        I submit for the record a letter sent by me and Senator
    Dennis DeConcini dated June 5, 2009, to Secretary of the
    Interior Ken Salazar.
        [The letter to the Secretary of the Interior follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Hatch. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator DeConcini
    was the Democratic Senator from Arizona at the time that the
    Arizona Wilderness Act was negotiated. Let me just read a
    portion of that letter signed by Senator DeConcini: ``This
    carefully crafted compromise provided new wilderness
    designations to ensure that the Grand Canyon watershed will be
    fully protected and allowed mining and grazing to continue in
    the remaining areas of the region. The agreement led to the
    passing of the Arizona Wilderness Act by large majorities in
    both the House and the Senate.''
        And the letter further states, ``We believe strongly that
    the recent calls for withdrawal of the area in last year's
    questionable House Natural Resources Committee emergency
    resolution violate the spirit of that 1983-84 agreement.''
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that a copy of this letter be made
    part of the record along with my statement, my full statement.
        Mr. Chairman, it is true that no party to those
    negotiations believed that the agreement trumped environmental
    laws or protections for the Grand Canyon. But Secretary
    Salazar's proposed withdrawal of these uranium resources is not
    about threats to the environment or to the Grand Canyon.
    Careful environmental studies by the Bureau of Land Management
    and by the Arizona Geological Survey make it clear that uranium
    mining in this area pose no real threat to the environment, to
    water quality or to the Grand Canyon. In fact, the August 2010
    mineral report by the BLM recognized that withdrawing these
    resources would have far-reaching economic implications for the
    region.
        Now I have heard some complain that different proponents of
    this legislation claim different numbers of job losses related
    to the Secretary's withdrawal. That is the result of different
    assumptions of how much mining activity would take place.
    However, there is no question that this withdrawal will lead to
    a loss of future jobs and economic activity in this depressed
    region of the country. The Secretary is withdrawing these lands
    because he believes that mining activity would be pursued on
    them.
        The proposed withdrawal of this area from mining would be
    the Interior Department's latest move to stifle jobs in rural
    America. It is an unfortunate and dangerous trend that the
    Obama Administration continues to aggressively shut down
    domestic energy production. I cannot remember a time that our
    Nation had a greater need than right now for the high-paying
    jobs, the hefty oil and mineral royalties that would be
    generated for the Federal treasury or the enhanced energy
    security that would come from greater domestic energy
    production.
        President Obama has too often steered our Nation in the
    wrong direction with regard to domestic energy jobs and energy
    security. This legislation will help to correct that course in
    relation to domestic uranium reserves. And as you know, Mr.
    Chairman, the United States is more than 80 percent dependent
    on foreign nations for our uranium needs.
        The legislation before this Committee would increase jobs,
    boost Federal royalties and increase our domestic energy
    security. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and all
    of the Members here, especially Ranking Member Grijalva, for
    holding this hearing today. And I hope this Committee will give
    favorable consideration to H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona
    Mining Continuity Act. And I apologize for interrupting the
    testimony here today, and I appreciate your great kindness in
    allowing me to go forward.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]

      Statement of The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the
    State of Utah, on H.R. 3155, Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
                                      2011

        Chairman Bishop, ranking member Grijalva, and members of this
    important committee, I thank you for the opportunity to share a few
    remarks on H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
    2011, introduced by Congressman Trent Franks, of Arizona. I have
    cosponsored a companion bill in the Senate, S. 1690, with Senator John
    McCain of Arizona.
        I would like to recognize Supervisor Buster Johnson of Mohave
    County, Arizona, who will testify here today. Supervisor Johnson
    represents the unanimous views of the county commissioners from
    southern Utah who also strongly support this legislation.
        H.R. 3155 would have an impact on the Arizona Strip region, which
    sits directly south of the Utah/Arizona border, and which is very
    important socially and economically to the communities and businesses
    in southern Utah. In short, economic activity in the Arizona Strip
    usually mean jobs for southern Utahns.
        Mr. Chairman, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act is simply
    an effort to restore an agreement that was forged leading up to the
    passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. There will be some who
    may attempt a logical dance to show that the Act did not, in fact,
    guarantee the right for future uranium mining in this area. And I can
    agree that no one involved in those negotiations believed any
    guarantees were established.
        But those of us who were negotiating the terms of the Arizona
    Wilderness Act have a clear understanding of the process that allowed
    it to become law. I submit for the record a letter sent by me and
    former Senator Dennis DeConcini dated June 5, 2009, to Secretary of the
    Interior Ken Salazar. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Senator DeConcini was
    the Democratic Senator from Arizona at the time that the Arizona
    Wilderness Act was negotiated.
        Let me read a portion of that letter signed by Senator DeConcini:
            ``This carefully crafted compromise provided new Wilderness
            designations to ensure that the Grand Canyon watershed was
            fully protected and allowed mining and grazing to continue in
            the remaining areas of the region. The agreement led to the
            passing of the Arizona Wilderness Act by large majorities in
            both the House and Senate.''
    And the letter further states:
            ``We believe strongly that the recent calls for a withdrawal of
            the area and last year's questionable House Natural Resources
            Committee Emergency Resolution violate the spirit of that 1983/
            84 agreement.''
        Mr. Chairman, it is true that no party to those negotiations
    believed that the agreement trumped environmental laws or protections
    for the Grand Canyon, but Secretary Salazar's proposed withdrawal of
    these uranium resources is not about threats to the environment or to
    the Grand Canyon. Careful environmental studies by the Bureau of Land
    Management and by the Arizona Geological Survey make it clear that
    uranium mining in this area pose no real threat to the environment, to
    water quality, or to the Grand Canyon. In fact, the August 2010 Mineral
    Report by the BLM recognized that withdrawing these resources would
    have far reaching economic implications for the region.
        I've heard some complain that different proponents of this
    legislation claim different numbers of job losses related to the
    Secretary's withdrawal. That is the result of different assumptions of
    how much mining activity would take place. However, there is no
    question that this withdrawal will lead to a loss of future jobs and
    economic activity in this depressed region of the country. The
    Secretary is withdrawing these lands, because he believes that mining
    activity would be pursued on them.
        The proposed withdrawal of this area from mining would be the
    Interior Department's latest move to stifle jobs in rural America. It
    is an unfortunate and dangerous trend that the Obama Administration
    continues to aggressively shut down domestic energy production.
        I cannot remember a time that our nation had a greater need than
    right now for the high paying jobs, the hefty oil and mineral royalties
    that would be generated for the federal treasury, or the enhanced
    energy security that would come from greater domestic energy
    production.
        President Obama has too often steered our nation in the wrong
    direction with regard to domestic energy jobs and energy security. This
    legislation will help to correct that course in relation to domestic
    uranium reserves. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the United States is more
    than 80 percent dependent on foreign nations for our uranium needs. The
    legislation before this committee would increase jobs, boost federal
    royalties, and increase our domestic energy security.
        Once, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing,
    today, and I hope this committee will give favorable consideration to
    H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your
    testimony. Once again, I will make you the same offer I made
    your colleagues, that you can stay here if you would like and
    participate with the rest of it. No one else took me up on that
    offer, and I am feeling really personal about this. But if you
    would like to go and have other appointments, I understand that
    as well.
        Senator Hatch. Well, we have so many problems over there, I
    think I had better get back.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. Amen. All right. With that, Mr. Lightfoot, I
    apologize once again for interrupting you. I appreciate your
    patience with that. We will now ask for your testimony on the
    Chimney Rock piece of legislation.

    STATEMENT OF RICKY LIGHTFOOT, TRUSTEE AND FORMER PRESIDENT AND
                 CEO, CROW CANYON ARCHEOLOGICAL CENTER

        Mr. Lightfoot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 2621,
    the Chimney Rock National Monument Establishment Act. I am here
    as a resident of southwestern Colorado, a representative of the
    professional archeological community and a trustee and former
    president and CEO of the Crow Canyon Archeological Center in
    Cortez, Colorado.
        Crow Canyon is a private, not-for-profit organization that
    employs 50 people and conducts archeological research and
    public education programs in the American Southwest in
    collaboration with American Indians. Chimney Rock is a visually
    striking land form in southwestern Colorado that rises 1,000
    feet above the surrounding flood plain to an elevation of 7,600
    feet.
        The Chimney Rock is nationally important because of a
    unique complex of archeological sites that display the
    architectural design and exquisite stone masonry styles of the
    Chacoan culture. The Chacoan culture flourished for over 300
    years between 850 and 1150 A.D. It was a complex of the
    ancestors of the modern Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and
    Arizona. The Chacoan culture represents the highest achievement
    of Pueblo culture in both architecture, political achievements,
    economy, widespread trade as far as the Valley of Mexico, the
    development of an elite leadership organization. It is a
    massive complex which is best represented and preserved today
    at the Chaco Canyon National Historical Park in northern New
    Mexico.
        Chaco Canyon was designated in 1987 as a UNESCO World
    Heritage Site, and the Chimney Rock site is a part of that
    cultural complex and deserves the same kind of recognition for
    its position as a part of the Chacoan culture. The Chimney
    Rock, as was previously stated, was recognized in 1970 when it
    was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
        The archeological sites at Chimney Rock are dominated by a
    Chacoan style great house that was built in the eleventh
    century to command a huge view of the surrounding landscape and
    to allow observations of rare astronomical phenomena. Every
    18.6 years, the moon, as seen from the Chacoan Great House,
    rises between two stone spires or chimneys during an event
    known as the Northern Lunar Standstill.
        Two major episodes of construction at the site have been
    tree-ring dated to A.D. 1076 and 1094, both of which were years
    in which this phenomenon occurred. The monument also includes
    many other small sites that are the residences of the local
    community that lived at Chimney Rock before and during the use
    of the Great House. Also, as previously stated, the present-day
    American Indian groups, many Indian groups in the American
    Southwest, look to Chimney Rock as an important part of their
    history and cultural heritage.
        Chimney Rock is already under Forest Service management,
    and under H.R. 2621, this would not change. No additional
    Federal appropriations would be required because of a well-
    established and successful public-private partnership between
    the Forest Service and a local nonprofit organization, the
    Chimney Rock Interpretive Association. This nonprofit has 100
    volunteers and five staff members who each year guide tours of
    approximately 11,000 visitors each year to visit the site as
    well as greeting and providing interpretive services to another
    4,000 visitors at a small visitor center located at the site.
        The Chimney Rock Interpretive Association charges a fee for
    the tours, and those fees go toward maintaining the site. The
    monument designation would not require additional funding, in
    part because the visitor's center is already in place and the
    interpretive association would continue to provide tours and
    interpretive services in collaboration with the Forest Service.
        Chimney Rock is a hidden jewel tucked away in the San Juan
    National Forest. Providing monument status is important for two
    reasons. First, the monument designation would give Chimney
    Rock the recognition it clearly deserves and ensure its
    protection in perpetuity. Second, establishing Chimney Rock as
    a monument would enhance economic development in southwestern
    Colorado. It has widespread local support. As Congressman
    Tipton stated, the Archuleta County Commission, the town of
    Pagosa Springs, the Pagosa Springs Chamber of Commerce, the
    Chimney Rock Interpretive Association and many other regional
    businesses, including Crow Canyon, are in support of the
    monument because we believe it would increase tourism and have
    a positive economic impact in the Four Corners region.
        H.R. 2621 also lists archeological research as one of the
    activities permitted in the new monument, and it is important
    that this provision stay a part of the bill so that research
    and interpretation of the archeological sites would continue
    for the benefit of the public. The archeological research is an
    important source of new information about the monument and
    supports the interpretive and educational programs.
        We also support the bill because it protects existing uses
    of the area that do not conflict with preservation of the
    sites, including grazing and access by American Indians for
    religious purposes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lightfoot follows:]

    Statement of Ricky R. Lightfoot, Trustee and Former President and CEO,
    Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, Cortez, Colorado, in Support of H.R.
                                      2621

        I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 2621, the Chimney Rock
    National Monument Establishment Act, which would designate Chimney Rock
    in southwestern Colorado as a national monument. I am a resident of the
    region, a representative of the professional archaeological community,
    and a trustee of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in Cortez,
    Colorado. Crow Canyon is a private, not-for-profit organization that
    employs 50 people and conducts archaeological research and public
    education programs in the American Southwest in collaboration with
    American Indians.
        Chimney Rock is a visually striking landform in the southern
    Colorado Rockies that rises 1,000 feet above the surrounding floodplain
    to an elevation of 7,600 feet. Chimney Rock is nationally important
    because of a unique archaeological site complex that exhibits the
    architectural design and exquisite stone masonry styles that are
    characteristic of the Chaco culture, an ancient society whose members
    were ancestors of modern Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona.
    Chaco culture flourished for three centuries, between A.D. 850 and
    1150, with its political and religious center located in north central
    New Mexico, a place preserved today as Chaco Canyon National Historical
    Park. The significance of these spectacular ruins at Chaco Canyon was
    recognized in 1987 when the park was designated a UNESCO World Heritage
    Site. Chimney Rock is located approximately 90 miles northeast of Chaco
    Canyon, and it served as an outpost in the Chaco regional settlement
    system. The national importance of Chimney Rock as a cultural site was
    recognized in 1970 when it was listed on the National Register of
    Historical Places.
        The archaeological sites at Chimney Rock are dominated by a Chaco-
    style ``great house'' built in the late eleventh century to command a
    huge view of the surrounding landscape, and specifically to allow
    observations of rare astronomical phenomena. The great house at Chimney
    Rock is at the highest elevation of any Chacoan great house, and it is
    positioned precisely to serve as a lunar observatory. Every 18.6 years,
    the moon, as seen from the Chacoan great house, rises between two stone
    spires, or chimneys, during an event known as the Northern Lunar
    Standstill. Two major episodes of construction at the site have been
    tree-ring dated to AD 1076 and 1094, both of which are years in which
    the Northern Lunar Standstill would have occurred. The Monument would
    also include a large number of smaller sites that are the residences of
    the local community that lived at Chimney Rock before and during the
    use of the great house. Present-day American Indian groups in the
    Southwest consider Chimney Rock to be an important part of their
    history and cultural heritage and especially many Pueblo Indian groups
    who trace their descent from the people who lived in the Four Corners
    area centuries ago.
        The importance of the Chimney Rock archaeological complex was
    recognized as early as the 1920s by the Colorado Historical Society,
    which carried out the first excavations there from 1920 to 1928. The
    University of Colorado collaborated with the Forest Service in the
    early 1970s to develop the site for visitor access. University of
    Colorado researchers have worked at Chimney Rock several times since
    then, including as recently as 2009.
        Chimney Rock is already under Forest Service management, and under
    the H.R. 2621 this would not change. No additional appropriations would
    be required because of a well-established and successful public-private
    partnership between the Forest Service and a local not-for-profit
    organization, the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association (CRIA). The
    Chimney Rock great house site has been open for public visitation since
    the 1970s, and since 1988 the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association has
    provided site tours and interpretive information at the site. Currently
    about 100 CRIA volunteers and 5 staff members lead two-hour walking
    tours for about 11,000 visitors a year and give interpretive
    information to another 4,000 people at a small visitors' center. The
    Chimney Rock Interpretive Association charges a fee for the tours, and
    those fees go into maintaining the site. Monument designation would not
    require any additional federal funding because visitor facilities are
    already in place, and the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association would
    continue to give tours and prepare educational materials for visitors
    in collaboration with the Forest Service.
        Chimney Rock is a hidden jewel tucked away in the San Juan National
    Forest National Forest. Providing national monument status is
    imperative at this time for two reasons. First, monument designation
    would give Chimney Rock the recognition it clearly deserves and ensure
    its protection in perpetuity. Second, establishing Chimney Rock as a
    monument would enhance economic development in southwestern Colorado.
    Monument designation has strong local support from the Archuleta County
    Commission, the Town of Pagosa Springs, the Pagosa Springs Chamber of
    Commerce, the Chimney Rock Interpretive Association, and countless
    other regional businesses and organizations such as Crow Canyon that
    would benefit from the increased tourism afforded by national monument
    status. Chimney Rock is related to other major archaeological
    attractions in southwestern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico,
    including Chaco Canyon National Historical Park, Aztec Ruins National
    Monument, and Mesa Verde National Park. These sites attract visitors
    from all over the nation and the world. With the added visibility that
    national monument status would bring, Chimney Rock would increase
    heritage tourism in Archuleta County and in the Four Corners region.
    That will translate into additional jobs in the private sector
    businesses in the region.
        H.R. 2621 lists archaeological research as one of the activities
    permitted in the new Monument, and it is important that this provision
    stay in the bill so that research and interpretation of the
    archaeological resources would continue for the benefit of the public.
    The bill does not request or require any additional federal funding for
    research, but states that well-designed research will be permitted.
    Archaeological research has been and will continue to be one of the
    sources of new information about the Monument that supports
    interpretive and educational programs.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We appreciate the panel. We ask you
    to stay there for questions potentially from those up here on
    the dais. I will go last obviously. Mr. Lamborn, I will
    recognize you for questions if you have any.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
    being here. And I want to thank the sponsors of these bills. I
    think these are all excellent pieces of legislation. And I
    particularly want to single out my friend and colleague from
    Colorado, Representative Tipton, for this Chimney Rock bill.
    And maybe I have a little bit of a vested interest. I represent
    another part of Colorado, and if people are coming to see some
    of the natural beauty of Colorado in another part of the state,
    which this will increase, then they are also going to come
    through my part of the state, Colorado Springs, and spend their
    tourism dollars there as well perhaps.
        But beyond that, this is just a good thing to do because
    Colorado has such amazing natural beauty, and this highlights a
    certain portion, and it will bring it to people's attention so
    they can enjoy the lovely creation that we have all been
    blessed with in this world, especially in our corner of the
    world in Colorado.
        So I want to thank the representative for bringing this
    legislation. And at this point, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
    further questions. I would like to yield to my colleague from
    Colorado if he wants to use the extra time. Otherwise, I will
    just yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tipton. Well, thank you, Congressman Lamborn. I
    appreciate that, and I think you speak to something that no
    matter where we come from, we recognize particularly in this
    economic climate we are all in this together, and we
    particularly have a great resource in the State of Colorado.
    And I would like to thank the panel for being here as well and
    would like to recognize my friend and a colleague from the
    standpoint that I had the privilege of being able to serve on
    the board for Crow Canyon Archeological Center, and in my
    mind's eye, I think it is probably the most advanced
    archeological research center in the United States. Ricky was
    CEO and president of that and I think elevated that to a very
    high level, and so your opinion particularly on this is
    important.
        Ricky, can you maybe--I don't particularly recall, but
    would it be reasonably accurate to say down at Mesa Verde
    National Park that we get three-quarters of a million visitors
    a year coming into that park?
        Mr. Lightfoot. That is right, about three-quarters of a
    million a year. I think the economic impact of the monument is
    in part because of the additional attention that it gets as a
    monument rather than a Forest Service archeological area, and
    also many of those dollars are through private organizations
    that are promoting tourism throughout the entire region. The
    grand circle concept of getting people to drive around and
    visit these national parks, national monuments and
    archeological treasures are really part of how the private
    industry takes advantage of these kinds of congressional
    actions.
        Mr. Tipton. Yes. Has it been your experience working in the
    archeological field, because I know through Crow Canyon you
    have day digs, a lot of school programs, that as we create an
    awareness that we actually enhance our ability to be able to
    preserve and to be able to grow the knowledge for the rest of
    the country, for our citizenry?
        Mr. Lightfoot. Well, certainly working with educating
    children in the local area, it improves the protection for
    those sites because the archeological treasures of the
    Southwest have always been vulnerable to vandalism. And one of
    the best ways to counteract that is not through law enforcement
    because there are just too many acres of land out there that
    can't be policed but through public education and getting
    people to appreciate the value of what they have by not
    destroying sites rather than seeing people take something away
    from the American public by looting sites.
        Mr. Tipton. You know, and if I missed it, I do apologize,
    but I thought it was pretty remarkable. Chimney Rock, one of
    three locations in the world that are used to be able to follow
    this lunar event that happens every 18.6 years as the moon
    traverses from its southernmost rising point to the
    northernmost rising point, what are those other locations? Is
    it Stonehenge, and is there one in Scotland? Is that accurate?
        Mr. Lightfoot. I am not sure what those other locations
    are, but I know that it is characteristic of the Chacoan
    culture to really position sites carefully with respect to
    solar and lunar observatories or to position sites or to create
    these kinds of observatories where rare lunar phenomena as well
    as the solstices and equinoxes are just a part of integration
    of how they chose to build their sites, the locations and the
    orientations and so forth. So it is very much a part of that
    culture that is often unrecognized or underappreciated to the
    extent to which they understood the movement of the
    astronomical bodies.
        Mr. Tipton. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
    quick clarification questions and a request. And I too want to
    say that the Chimney Rock designation from the comments that I
    have heard today is something that is very important and
    needed. I would just like to tell my colleagues because it is
    such a special place, as the gentleman just talked about, let
    us hope nobody stumbles onto some uranium in the process
    because it could jeopardize the whole thing.
        Ms. Young, if I may, and if you would provide us the
    courtesy if you feel like it, if you could provide us the name
    and the service branch for your family member so that that can
    be part of the record as well.
        Ms. Young. My son was a Marine. He was in reconnaissance.
    And his name was Sergeant Jeffrey Young. He was 22 years old.
    He was killed in the Marine barracks bombing on October 23,
    1983.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Wagner, two quick questions. H.R. 2621, the bill
    appears to include a mistaken reference to an employee of the
    Department of the Interior as manager of the monument. That
    needs to be a Forest Service designation, correct?
        Ms. Wagner. Right. That is one of the little technical
    modifications in the written testimony we are suggesting.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. And I am assuming the next technical
    point would be can you explain how the prohibition of Federal
    funds for signs, fixtures, alterations, additions that contain
    within the bill, is that going to impact the ability to manage
    that designation properly?
        Ms. Wagner. Yes. We think the flexibility to use the great
    partnerships, the public-private partnership that has been
    cultivated, is really going to be beneficial to the long-term
    management of the site. So we would favor the ability to use
    private resources, volunteers, as well as Federal resources to
    continue the stewardship of the monument.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. Appreciate it. Yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Grijalva.
        Representative Tipton, do you have five minutes of
    questions for your own?
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't use all of
    that. Ranking Member, I thank you for those questions and
    certainly appreciate your answers. You know, we do have a
    couple of tweaks that we will certainly be able to make as this
    bill advances, and I do appreciate that. And I guess I would
    just like to close again with a comment following up on Mr.
    Lightfoot's comments in regards to the uniqueness of this.
        Here in the United States we have a location that is
    probably only replicated, but in a different form across the
    oceans that was established by the Chacoan culture, a unique
    American treasure that is here that is well worthy of
    preservation.
        I know from my heart growing up down there as well, the
    love that we see locally and the commitment to be able to
    participate and to volunteer to be able to make this treasure
    protected and accessible and viewable is incredibly important.
    And a good piece of legislation, appreciate the comments from
    the committee and the support on that as well. So, with that,
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We are happy to have Representative
    Kildee here. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions?
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I have no
    questions at this time and would yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That is fine. Representative
    Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director
    Abbey, a lot of my questions are going to be directed to you
    obviously on my legislation. They are going to be quick because
    I have quite a few of them, and I want to make sure I get a
    chance to ask Mr. Fowler some questions as well.
        Are you aware that there are two examples of Congress
    overriding the 2003 law to allow for plaques to be placed on
    the National Mall on existing memorials?
        Mr. Abbey. I am not. And in Congressman----
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. You are not aware.
        Mr. Abbey. I am not. But if I could, Mr. Chairman, as
    Director of the Bureau of Land Management, I am not an expert
    on the Commemorative Works Act.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK.
        Mr. Abbey. But we do have an individual here that I would
    like to switch seats with so he could answer your questions,
    Peter Maye with the National Parks Service.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. That is fine.
        Mr. Abbey. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, I still have some questions for
    you, Mr. Abbey, so don't run off too far.
        Mr. Abbey. I will be back. I will be back.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So are you aware of the two instances?
        Mr. Maye. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. You are aware. What are the first
    three words of the preamble to the Constitution of the United
    States?
        Mr. Maye. We the people.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. We the people. So the Congress
    represents the voice of the American people, correct?
        Mr. Maye. That is right.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. So, if the Congress decides again
    to override that 2003 law to place a plaque at the World War II
    Memorial commemorating the President's D-Day prayer, do you
    think this Administration should oppose and prevent that
    commemorative from being added?
        Mr. Maye. We have not in the past. I don't see why we ever
    would.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. So you would support that if
    Congress passes it?
        Mr. Maye. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. We will press on.
        Mr. Maye. Right.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Do you think that the veterans'
    opinion on the memorial that was built to honor the 400,000-
    plus men who gave the ultimate sacrifice and the 14 million who
    served during the war be given priority in this issue?
        Mr. Maye. In our actions, we respond to what the Congress
    tells us to do in terms of commemoration.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. Well, that is very good. Mr.
    Abbey, do you know--I am relating back to your testimony. Do
    you know, what is the official motto of the United States?
    Either of you. Do either of you know what the official motto--
    Mr. Abbey, I would like to hear from you first.
        Mr. Abbey. In God We Trust.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. Then you might be aware
    that the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed a resolution just
    this past Tuesday that reaffirmed the belief that In God We
    Trust is our national motto. In your testimony, you said that
    adding the President's D-Day prayer, a prayer to the God in
    whom our Nation has acknowledged that we trust and whom the
    President acknowledged in whom we trusted, that gave solace and
    comfort to a Nation and to the men and women that were going to
    fight that critical battle on that day, you said that that
    would dilute the central message of the memorial. How so?
        Mr. Maye. The memorial was very carefully planned and
    required an extensive process.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I am aware of that. How will placing
    the President's prayer dilute the--what is the central message
    of the----
        Mr. Maye. It is to commemorate the servicemen who served in
    the war.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. That is right. That is right. And
    what better way to commemorate that than to recognize what the
    commander-in-chief said on that day? Do you have a personal
    opinion on that?
        Mr. Maye. I do not have a personal opinion on it. I know
    that the memorial is a response to the specific direction of
    the Congress and was developed very carefully, both
    programmatically and design-wise.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That has been waived twice, right?
        Mr. Maye. Yes, it has.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So why wouldn't the Department's
    response simply be that? If the Congress says do it, we have no
    problem with it. Why is there an opposition and these words of
    diluting the central message? How can putting the President of
    the United States' message to the American people and the world
    on D-Day dilute the message of the World War II memorial? I
    don't understand.
        Mr. Maye. The----
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I got it. Thank you. I appreciate
    that. OK. No response. You know, and let me say, gentlemen, I
    understand that you are simply testifying on behalf of the
    Department, that you do not oversee the National Mall for the
    Bureau of Land Management. I know that. I do, however, hope
    that I can work with the Secretary to continue this work
    because I think it is so very, very important and meaningful to
    the people who served.
        I hope to get some additional time, and with that, I will
    yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. We will welcome Mr. Gosar. I ask unanimous
    consent that he be allowed to sit on the dais and participate
    in our meetings today. Do you have questions on these
    particular bills?
        Dr. Gosar. I would like to yield my time to my colleague,
    Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Bishop. OK.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I thank my colleague for yielding.
        Mr. Fowler, is it OK if I call you Poppy?
        Mr. Fowler. Call me anything. I have been called many
    names.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Can you expand a little bit on your
    experiences during World War II and how your faith helped you
    get through the war?
        Mr. Fowler. Well, I had a chance one time to go to become a
    minister, but I turned it down to go to war. Also, at that
    particular time, my minister gave me a testament. I wish I had
    brought it. It is together with duct tape. Within it is many
    things. We all had God within us when we were aboard ship,
    regardless of where it was. Before we took off on flights every
    morning, we either had mass or had a Protestant minister to
    give us a prayer.
        God took us through. God will take this Nation through. It
    said Israel went against God so many times, but he come and he
    said, if you will be my people, I will be your God. It still
    stands today. Without that, this Nation could fail. It is
    prayer today, people, that is keeping this Nation where it is
    supposed to be. If we would all pray for peace, I think it
    would come.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you.
        Mr. Fowler. Not only that, but God played a most important
    part not only in my life but even those who even didn't know
    God.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I have heard it said that there are no
    atheists in foxholes.
        Mr. Fowler. No. And God said also, remember this, greater
    love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends. We
    left many, many people--we lost over 50 percent of our
    squadron, original squadron, at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean
    or on those islands. Many have not been found or returned even
    yet.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Poppy. Are you worried that
    future generations might see the World War II memorial and
    think that the faith of the men and women who served there
    might not have been important to them?
        Mr. Fowler. Well, Congressman Johnson, I saw when I was
    just recently over to the World War II Memorial, when we came
    back to Columbus, there were over 400 people there. Out of that
    400, I would say 100 of them were small children. Would they
    not know why we were there?
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Yes.
        Mr. Fowler. And so therefore, even at the memorial visit,
    there were many, many small children asking questions and
    different things and even congratulating what I had done. But I
    did not do it. We left the heroes at the bottom of that ocean.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So you are saying it would be
    important if I may interpret----
        Mr. Fowler. It was very important because it causes them to
    ask questions.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. It would be important for our young
    people to see the President's prayer to know the role that
    faith played in his decisions and those of the men that served.
        Mr. Fowler. Yes. Absolutely.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. Well, that is why I think the same
    way, and that is why I think this legislation is so important
    to honor the faith of the men, not only the men who fought but
    our President, who offered that prayer. I thank you for your
    heroic service. I am enjoying getting to know you more. I
    enjoyed our trip to the memorial a couple of weeks ago as part
    of the honor flight. I thank you for your testimony today. And,
    Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and Ranking Member Grijalva, for
    holding this important hearing on this legislation. Thank you
    very much.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate it. Do Members of the
    Committee have other questions? If not, I just have one for Mr.
    Lightfoot. I did not want to run you off of the panel there,
    but very quickly, if no single visitor ever came to see this,
    is there still value in preserving this area?
        Mr. Lightfoot. Well, I would hope that it will increase
    visitation. But, yes, I believe the site deserves protection
    just because of the important information that it contains.
        Mr. Bishop. Good. I appreciate that very much. I do want
    just for the record to note that there was uranium there. They
    mined it. That is why they left. It is gone.
        With that, I want to thank the panel for actually being
    here. I appreciate your testimony. Your written testimony is
    part of the record. Thank you for your time and your attendance
    here.
        We would like to call up the next panel. Mr. Abbey and Ms.
    Wagner, if you would like to stay, that would be kind of you as
    we deal with the next bill. We would also like to call up--who
    am I calling up here? I am slow. Mr. Abbey, Ms. Wagner. Oh, Mr.
    Buster Johnson, who is the Supervisor for Mohave County in
    Arizona; Dr. Karen Wenrich, the research geologist from the
    U.S. Geological Survey, who is retired from that; Mr. Mark
    Trautwein, who is the former staff consultant for the
    Environment, Energy, and Public Lands Committee with the U.S.
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
        If you would join us at the podium, I would be grateful.
    Our purpose in this panel is to discuss H.R. 3155. Once again,
    we are happy to have you here. As I explained to the second
    panel--I am sure you understand the drill. Your written
    testimony is part of the record. Right now, if there is
    anything else you want to add in addition to that written, that
    is fine as well. We would like to have your oral testimony
    here. Green light means the time is counting down. You have
    five minutes. Yellow light means you have one minute to
    conclude. Red light means we would like you to end at that
    time.
        So once again, thank you for being here as part of this
    testimony. Director Abbey, I appreciate the fact that you did
    not speak toward this bill in the prior panel, and so we would
    recognize first you and then Ms. Wagner to talk about this
    particular bill. And notice that when you go by my rules you
    actually get more time to speak to us. Thank you.
        Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. So, Director Abbey, if you would go first.

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
              MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
    the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to present the
    Administration's views on H.R. 3155. This bill would prohibit
    the Secretary of the Interior from exercising his authority
    under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to withdraw
    lands in the Grand Canyon watershed from location and entry
    under the 1872 Mining Law.
        The Administration opposes H.R. 3155. We urge the Committee
    to allow the comprehensive environmental review process, which
    was begun more than two years ago, to continue to a final
    decision. This process includes broad participation by 11
    Federal, State, tribal and county cooperators. Interested
    stakeholders in the public have sent in nearly 380,000 comment
    letters.
        We want to emphasize that a final decision on the proposed
    withdrawal has not yet been made and will not be made until
    sometime after the 30-day waiting period. I am accompanied by
    Mary Wagner, Associate Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, who
    can answer questions on management of Forest Service lands.
        The Grand Canyon has long been recognized as one of the
    Nation's most treasured landscapes. It has been a national park
    since 1919, and its cultural significance goes back thousands
    of years. It is a sacred place of origin to many Native
    Americans.
        Likewise, the Grand Canyon is a cornerstone of the region's
    economy. Over 5 million people a year visit the lands in and
    around Grand Canyon. Hunting, fishing, tourism and other
    outdoor recreation generate billions of dollars in economic
    activity. Millions of people living in seven States in the
    United States and in Mexico depend upon the Colorado River for
    water for drinking, irrigation and industrial use as well as
    for hydropower. And of course mineral resources, particularly
    high-grade uranium, are found in this area.
        There are few places in the country where the resource
    management challenges are more difficult or the stakes greater
    than the area surrounding the Grand Canyon. Underground
    aquifers and watersheds extend far beyond the boundaries of the
    national park. Land and water use management decisions affect
    the entire area.
        Science, caution and an eye to future generations must
    guide the management of the Grand Canyon and surrounding lands.
    This is why in July 2009 Secretary Salazar announced a proposed
    withdrawal of these lands from new mining claims for 20 years.
    All other existing uses of these lands continue unaffected. The
    Secretary's action prompted the Bureau of Land Management,
    along with the Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the
    National Parks Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
    11 other State, tribal and Federal cooperating agencies to
    start a comprehensive effort to analyze the potential impacts
    of the proposed withdrawal.
        We included a 2010 USGS report in this comprehensive
    effort. The report acknowledged uncertainty as data is sparse
    but concluded that more thorough investigation is required to
    better understand groundwater flow paths, travel times and
    contribution from mining. A draft of this comprehensive
    environmental analysis was released in February 2011 for public
    review and comments.
        Based on scientific analysis done thus far, the public
    comments received and the incomplete or unavailable information
    about impacts of chemical and radiation hazards on fish and
    wildlife, springs and waterways, the Secretary selected the
    full 1 million-acre mining withdrawal as the preferred
    alternative. A final decision on a course of action will not be
    made until the Secretary signs a record of decision.
        The Administration opposes H.R. 3155 because it cuts short
    the thorough and deliberative process in which the public and a
    wide variety of stakeholders have engaged since the Secretary's
    July 2009 announcement. As part of a comprehensive and
    responsible energy policy, we will continue to authorize
    development of uranium in northern Arizona, Wyoming and other
    places across this country. Even with a full withdrawal, we
    estimate the development of up to 11 mines in the area over the
    next 20 years, including the four mines that are currently
    authorized.
        The Grand Canyon took thousands of years to create, and the
    process of making important decisions about its future should
    not be cut short.
        Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]
        [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Abbey and Ms. Wagner
    on H.R. 3155 follows:]

         Joint Testimony of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land
    Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, and Mary Wagner, Associate
     Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3155,
                 Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011

        Good morning. Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior
    and the Department of Agriculture to testify on H.R. 3155, the Northern
    Arizona Mining Continuity Act, which would prohibit the Secretary of
    the Interior from exercising his authority under the Federal Land
    Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to withdraw lands in the Grand Canyon
    watershed from location and entry under the 1872 Mining Law. The
    Administration opposes H.R. 3155 and urges the Committee to allow the
    comprehensive environmental review process defined in law, begun more
    than 2 years ago, to continue to a final decision. This is a process
    that has not been undertaken by Federal agencies alone, but rather has
    involved the commitment and work of numerous federal, state, tribal,
    and county cooperators, the time of interested stakeholders who
    attended numerous tribal and public meetings, and the care and effort
    of the public, who have sent nearly 380,000 comment letters during this
    review. We want to emphasize that a final decision on the proposed
    withdrawal has not yet been made, but will be sometime after the
    current 30-day waiting period.
    Background
        Crafted by the immense power of the Colorado River, the Grand
    Canyon and the greater ecosystem that surrounds it have long been
    recognized as one of the Nation's most treasured landscapes. It is an
    iconic symbol of our country's majesty. While the Grand Canyon has been
    a National Park since 1919, its cultural significance goes back
    thousands of years. The Grand Canyon and its environs are known as home
    or a sacred place of origin to many Native Americans, including the
    Havasupai, Hualapai, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Southern Paiute, and others.
        Likewise, the Grand Canyon is a cornerstone of the region's
    economy. Hunting, fishing, tourism, and other outdoor recreation
    generate billions of dollars in economic activity in the Grand Canyon
    area. Far beyond the majestic views of the canyon, millions of people
    living in seven states in the U.S. and in Mexico depend upon the
    Colorado River for water for drinking, irrigation, and industrial use,
    as well as for hydropower. Multiple dams provide for a significant
    portion of the electrical power needs of much of the rural Rocky
    Mountain and Desert Southwest. And, of course, mineral resources,
    particularly high-grade uranium, are found in this area. The National
    Forest System lands in the area are located in the Kaibab National
    Forest, including lands on the Tusayan Ranger District and on the North
    Kaibab Ranger District. These lands are set aside for public recreation
    and a habitat for birds and animals. The Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service take very seriously their
    responsibility to manage these public lands and its unique resources.
        There are few places in the country where the resource management
    challenges are more difficult or the stakes greater than in the area
    surrounding the Grand Canyon. For example, underground aquifers and
    watersheds extend far beyond the boundaries of the park, and as a
    result of this interconnection, land and water use management decisions
    being made throughout this desert region affect the overall ecosystem.
    Lands in this area are managed by many different entities, including
    the National Park Service, the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, the Kaibab
    Band of Paiute Indians, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the
    Navajo Nation, the State of Arizona, and numerous private landowners.
    Analyzing Potential Impacts
        Science, caution, and an eye to future generations must guide the
    management of the Grand Canyon and surrounding lands. It is for these
    reasons that in July 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
    announced a proposed withdrawal of these lands from location and entry
    under the 1872 Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, for 20
    years. During the segregation period, all other existing uses of the
    lands in question are permissible--with the exception of the location
    of new mining claims. Since the announcement, the BLM along with the
    Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service, the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 11 other cooperating agencies have
    undertaken a comprehensive effort to analyze the potential impacts of
    the proposed withdrawal and a number of alternatives in accordance with
    the National Environmental Policy Act. As noted above, this process has
    involved a tremendous amount of public engagement, including the
    commitment and effort of the cooperating agencies, which included state
    agencies, counties, and tribes. Nearly 380,000 public comment letters
    have been received and 41 meetings with seven tribes and six public
    meetings have been held. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    was released on February 18, 2011, followed by a public comment period
    that was extended until May 4, 2011. Four alternatives were analyzed
    that included:
              No withdrawal (which would allow new mining claims to
            be filed).
              Withdrawal of approximately 300,000 acres for 20
            years.
              Withdrawal of 650,000 acres for 20 years.
              Withdrawal of approximately 1 million acres for 20
            years.
        The USGS is playing a substantial role in the NEPA process, and its
    2010 report was included in the Draft EIS. As part of its evaluation,
    the USGS analyzed soil and sediment samples at six sites that
    experienced various levels of uranium mining in the Kanab Creek area
    north of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed
    sites, approved mined sites where operations have been temporarily
    suspended, and exploratory drill sites that were drilled but not mined.
    Uranium and arsenic were two elements consistently detected in the
    areas disturbed by mining in values above natural background levels.
        Samples from 15 springs and five wells in the region contained
    dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency maximum allowed contaminant for drinking water. The
    springs and wells sampled are close by or in direct contact with
    mineralized orebodies, and the concentrations detected are related to
    natural processes, mining, or both. The USGS also looked at surface
    water in the region. The report found that floods, flash floods, and
    debris flows caused by winter storms and intense summer thunderstorms
    occur in the region and can transport substantial volumes of trace
    elements and radionuclides. The USGS report notes that fractures,
    faults, sinkholes, and breccia pipes occur throughout the area and are
    potential pathways for downward migration of surface water and ground
    water.
        The USGS report acknowledges uncertainty as data is sparse in this
    region and often limited. The timing and location of water quality
    information in the area is important because the potential effects of
    breccia-pipe uranium mining may be localized and appear rapidly or may
    be more dispersed during longer time scales. The data evaluated for
    1,014 water samples from 428 sites indicate that about 70 sites have
    exceeded the primary or secondary maximum contaminant levels for
    certain major ions and trace elements, such as arsenic, iron, lead,
    manganese, radium, sulfate, and uranium. The USGS concluded that a more
    thorough investigation is required to better understand groundwater
    flow paths, travel times, and contributions from mining.
        Based on the analysis that has been done, the public comments
    received, and the incomplete or unavailable information about impacts
    of chemical and radiation hazards on fish and wildlife, springs and
    waterways, the Secretary selected the full one million-acre mining
    withdrawal as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. This was done
    in consultation with the BLM, the National Park Service, the USGS, and
    the U.S. Forest Service.
        On October 27, 2011 the BLM published the Final Environmental
    Impact Statement. A final decision on a course of action will not be
    made until the Secretary signs a Record of Decision.
    H.R. 3155
        H.R. 3155 would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from
    extending, renewing, or issuing a notice of segregation or withdrawal
    of the public lands and Forest Service lands described in Public Land
    Order (PLO) 7773 without the express authorization of Congress. In PLO
    7773 the Secretary exercised the emergency withdrawal authority to
    withdraw the subject lands until January 2012 to allow sufficient time
    for a final decision to be made on the proposed withdrawal. H.R. 3155
    would also void any such notice of segregation or withdrawal of the
    described lands. The Administration does not support H.R. 3155 because
    it cuts short the thorough and deliberative process in which the public
    and a wide variety of stakeholders have engaged.
        H.R. 3155 is also built on an inaccurate characterization of the
    environmental analysis conducted for the proposed withdrawal. For
    example, the bill states that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    (DEIS) ``determined that no conclusive evidence from well and spring
    sampling data that modern-day breccia-pipe uranium operations in the
    northern portion of the Grand Canyon region has impacted the chemical
    quality of groundwater in the regional-aquifer.'' In fact, the DEIS
    instead states that ``incomplete and unavailable information adds to
    uncertainty of analysis'' and cites the potential risks listed above.
    Moving Forward
        Uranium, like oil and gas, solar, wind, geothermal, and other
    energy sources, remains a vital component of a responsible and
    comprehensive energy strategy. We will continue to authorize
    development of uranium in northern Arizona, Wyoming, and other places
    across the country. In addition, even if the Secretary ultimately
    selects the preferred alternative as the final decision on the proposed
    withdrawal, new operations can be authorized on valid existing mining
    claims in the proposed withdrawal area. The analysis in the DEIS shows
    that, even with a full withdrawal, development of up to 11 mines in the
    area over the next 20 years, including the four mines currently
    authorized, is reasonably foreseeable.
        Finally, it should be noted that a withdrawal, if determined to be
    appropriate, would not be permanent and would not stop uranium
    development or roads, or other activities typically prohibited in
    wilderness areas. Again, as stated above, all other existing uses of
    the lands in question are permissible--with the exception of the
    location of new mining claims
    Conclusion
        The Grand Canyon is a unique treasure that draws tourists from all
    over the world. It is a powerful and inspiring landscape, that
    overwhelms our senses through its immense size--277 river miles long,
    up to 18 miles wide, and a mile deep. It took many millennia to create,
    and the process of making important decisions about its future should
    not be cut short. The Administration takes very seriously its
    stewardship of this iconic landscape, the quality of the region's water
    and the myriad of resources on behalf of the American public.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3155. We
    would be glad to answer your questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Wagner, do you have additional
    testimony for this particular bill?
        Ms. Wagner. I will just offer that the Bureau of Land
    Management and the Forest Service collaborated on offering
    joint testimony, which has just been delivered by Director
    Abbey. Director Abbey's remarks reflect the Administration
    position on the bill, and I am here to answer any questions
    specific to the Forest Service.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We would like to recognize
    Supervisor Johnson from Mohave County, Arizona, for your
    testimony, please.

               STATEMENT OF BUSTER JOHNSON, SUPERVISOR,
                         MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, Committee Members. My name is Buster Johnson. I am
    the Chair of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors in Arizona.
    I am here representing the Board of Supervisors and the
    200,000-plus people in our county.
        I also co-chair the Arizona-Utah Economic Coalition
    comprised of Mohave County, Arizona; Washington, Kane, San
    Juan, Garfield Counties in Utah; along with the town of
    Fredonia, which is in Yavapai County, Arizona, and am
    representing their interests as well. Our unemployment rate is
    currently 11 percent. My brothers in the Navajo Nation are at a
    staggering 52 percent.
        I have six resolutions from five Navajo Nation chapters and
    one Navajo township. The resolutions ask for consultation with
    the Federal Government regarding jobs for their people. Mohave
    County has a history of diverse economic opportunities ranging
    from livestock, grazing, to tourism and significantly mining.
    We respect and take a responsibility for protecting the Grand
    Canyon National Park.
        This mining will not take place in the park or anywhere
    close to the Grand Canyon. As you can see from the attached
    slide, the park currently generates over 4 million visitors and
    range from 2 million in 1970 to a high of over 4-1/2 million in
    1993. Tourism generates some $650 million annually in economic
    activity. Most of that activity is on the south rim. And as the
    slide shows, with activity in Mohave County growing
    tremendously in the last 10 years, most of the accompanying
    jobs are low-wage and seasonal jobs, which is consistent with
    the tourist industry.
        So, Mr. Chairman, Mohave County, while it benefits somewhat
    from this activity, would starve if it were dependent upon the
    tourism as a primary source of income. Our county is made up of
    hardworking, middle class Americans who rely on mining and
    service industries connected with the State, Federal and
    private lands on which we live.
        Since 1980, we have had over 260 percent growth rate.
    Fifty-five percent of our population over 25 have a high school
    education or less. Of our 19 industry sectors, mining is the
    third highest in average wage of $51,485 annually. Now compare
    that with tourism, which has the second lowest wage for all
    industries, and you get an average difference of nearly
    $36,000, right at a 70 percent loss of income.
        Our medium household income is a little less than $40,000
    and about twice the average income of a tourism job. You can
    raise a family, buy a house and pay taxes in the mining
    industry. In the tourism industry, you can rent an apartment,
    get a second job and look to the government for assistance.
        As the Federal Government controls 91.7 percent of land in
    the area, with only 5 percent in private hands, without your
    cooperation, there is no economy and no future. I believe we
    have a slide to show that.
        As you can see from the next slide, tourism and visitation
    to the park, the arguments that tourism and mining are mutually
    exclusive activities are simply not substantiated by the facts.
    In 1987, at the time of the Grand Canyon National Park's most
    dramatic visitation growth, the highest level of breccia pipe
    mining also occurred.
        Rather than seeing a drop in visitation, tourism growth
    actually tracked mining and actually increased based on the
    actual facts. Saying that the Grand Canyon will suffer because
    of mines is a bogus straw man. Tourism growth has not suffered
    because of mining and actually does better when mining is in
    full swing.
        The mining that is going to be brought into Mohave County
    and southern Utah means over 1,000 jobs and $29 billion to our
    economy. As a county supervisor for the past 15 years, my goal
    has always been to create a vibrant economy so that our
    children will be able to stay in Mohave County and raise their
    families. What this impending withdrawal will do is rip apart
    one of our economic opportunities to the detriment of the
    people I represent.
        Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. I would like the Ranking
    Member of the Subcommittee to explain to us why he believes we
    cannot protect the Grand Canyon and allow mining to occur at
    the same time. My declaration that these activities are
    compatible is not just wishful thinking. It is historically
    factual.
        The opponents of mining have chosen to ignore the fact that
    mining with environmentally sound reclamation was conducted
    from the early 1980s and that the price of uranium collapsed in
    1993. No mining at all occurred from 1993 to 2010, and the
    Denison Mine, which is now operating, is following and often
    exceeding all environmental and safety laws and has received
    awards for their safety from our Federal Government.
        At the same time, President Obama's Interior Department is
    hellbent on closing off opportunities for some of these safe
    and sound mining activities across northern Arizona. It makes
    utterly no sense, and the Ranking Member and the Secretary of
    the Interior both know it. The fact is that as soon as
    Secretary Salazar ordered these lands to be segregated in July
    2009, corporate investment and exploration flows, and the
    result was immediate.
        The withdrawal is a reckless policy, and responsibility for
    it rests with Ranking Member Grijalva and his co-conspirators,
    the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the fact that
    those who are actually elected to represent the people who live
    in this part of Arizona and Utah are willing to stand in
    support of their people, their families, their jobs. I am
    referring to Representative Franks and Gosar, Flake, along with
    our Senators Kyl and McCain. And I would be happy to answer any
    questions, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

      Statement of Buster Johnson, Commissioner, Mohave County, Arizona,
          on H.R. 3155: Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011

        The Secretary of Interior, Kenneth Salazar plans to deprive the
    people of this nation of 42 percent of all domestic source of uranium
    critical to the national defense.
        He plans to do this by withdrawing from multiple use the over 1
    MILLION ACRES in the Arizona Strip and Kaibab National Forest in
    northern Arizona from multiple use, so that he can end uranium mining
    in the area.
        In laying forth this plan, he is acting as a rogue representative
    of bureaucratic government--operating against the will of Congress,
    directions from the President, and in violation of federal law.
        His actions are those of an appointed official who believes that he
    is free of the law's restraints; he believes, obviously, that he is
    above the law that governs the rest of our American society.
        The members of the Arizona Utah Local Economic Coalition call upon
    the Congress to put a stop to the outlaw proposal by the Secretary. The
    members formed the Coalition when it became clear that the Secretary
    felt himself free to disregard the law.
        His renegade, unilateral plan to withdraw from uranium mining over
    1 MILLION ACRES in the Arizona Strip District of the Bureau of Land
    Management is:
            (1)  harmful to the United States;
            (2)  contrary to Congress' exercise of its Constitutional
            authority to manage public lands;
            (3)  in violation of Presidential Executive Orders,
            (4)  contradictory to an energy plan led by a fellow cabinet
            member;
            (5)  in violation of federal statutes and regulations;
            (6)  economically and socially destructive to the citizens of
            northern Arizona and southern Utah;
            (7)  totally deceitful to citizens of the United States; and
            contradicted by sound science and economic and social evidence.
        His plan defies the will of Congress. In the 1984 Arizona and Utah
    Wilderness Acts, Congress designated the land as multiple use so that
    Uranium mining could continue.
        Article IV, Section 3, clause 2, provides that: ``The Congress
    shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
    Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
    United States''
        When Congress acted to designate the Arizona Strip as multiple use
    so that mining could continue, it adopted into law an agreement made
    between ranchers, the uranium industry and environmentalist
    organizations. In exchange for designation of wilderness areas in Utah
    and Arizona, the environmentalists and the Departments of Interior and
    Agriculture, through President Reagan's Secretary of Interior William
    Clark, Secretary of Agriculture John Block and Chief of the Forest
    Service Max Peterson, agreed to leave the Arizona Strip open for
    uranium mining. The Sierra Club, which now actively urges shut down of
    uranium mining, agreed to the land use settlement by Congress.
        Now, 27 years later, the Sierra Club, the ranking member of this
    Committee and Secretary Salazar have set out to unravel the agreement
    that has allowed uranium mining to continue while land managers and
    federal and state environmental quality agencies have assured that no
    environmental harm has been done.
        This Congress has urged local governments and citizens to
    compromise, to collaborate in order to resolve land use issues.
    Congress passed the Owyhee Public Lands Management Act of 2009 which
    embodied a historic agreement by ranchers and environmentalists that
    resolved decades of bitter contention over use of the public lands.
        If the Secretary is allowed to flaunt the will of Congress, as he
    now proposes to do, every local government, every land owner--rancher,
    farmer, miner--will avoid collaborative efforts with organizations that
    lie in wait to undo agreements.
        His plan defies the orders of his superior, President Obama. In two
    Executive Orders issued this calendar year of 2011 the President
    ordered the Secretary and other cabinet members to avoid adverse
    impacts on jobs and economic stability.
        In Executive Order 13563, the President in January, 2011, directed
    that the Secretary and all other Department heads assure that the
    regulatory system was ``promoting economic growth, innovation,
    competitiveness and job creation.'' The Secretary's maverick proposal
    to withdraw the land from uranium mining terminates any possibility for
    economic growth in all of northern Arizona and southern Utah. Evidence
    received by the Coalition during a public hearing on September 7, 2011,
    proved that over 1,000 new jobs will be eliminated, over $40 MILLION in
    annual payroll will be lost, $2 BILLION in federal and state corporate
    income taxes will never be paid, and over $175 MILLION in taxes and
    fees will be lost to local governments.
        The result of the Secretary's proposal will be the exact opposite
    of what the President ordered.
        In Executive Order 13575, the President in June, 2011, directed
    that Secretary Salazar and all cabinet members ``coordinate and
    increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural
    stakeholders including. . .local governments...regarding the needs of
    rural America.'' Every member of the Coalition knows that the Secretary
    did not coordinate his proposal with them as the elected governing
    bodies of the local governments affected by the proposal. Evidence
    produced at the September 7, 2011 hearing made it clear that the
    Secretary's proposal is contrary to the economic and social needs of
    rural northern Arizona and southern Utah.
        The arrogance of Secretary Salazar may be unparalleled in modern
    history; it is hard to believe that a member of the President's own
    cabinet would set out to deliberately violate the orders of the
    President. But, believe it or not, the Secretary acts in defiance of
    the President, the Congress and the people--in order to serve anti-
    mining environmental interests.
        His plan defies the energy policy of the nation, declared by his
    superior, President Obama, and led by his fellow Cabinet member
    Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The energy goal is to develop
    clean energy, including nuclear energy. The land Secretary Salazar has
    chosen to withdraw from uranium mining supplied 42 percent of our
    nation's domestic uranium.
        Congress has set an energy policy that calls for expanding nuclear
    generation of electricity. The Secretary's proposal is counter-
    productive to that policy. As an executive appointee he is creating a
    severe road block to implementation of Congressional policy set by the
    Energy Policy Act of 2005.
        In line with its pursuit of vigorous development of nuclear energy,
    Congress directed a study by the Congressional Budget Office as to the
    future needs for nuclear generation.
        In its study ``Nuclear Power Roles in Generating Electricity'', May
    2008, the CBO said that the Act ``provides incentives for building
    additional capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil
    fuel technologies and an advanced generation of nuclear reactor designs
    that intended to decrease costs and improve safety.''
        The CBO study points out that by the end of ``the next decade
    [2020] demand for electricity in the United States is expected to
    increase by about 20 percent, according to the Energy Information
    Administration. That projected increase--coupled with concerns about
    the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment--has
    encouraged policymakers to reassess the role that nuclear power might
    play both in expanding the capacity to generate electricity and in
    limiting the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the combustion of
    fossil fuels.''
        The study concludes that ``prospects that new nuclear power plants
    will be planned and financed in the next decade are greater than at any
    time since the 1970s...''
        In March of this year, Secretary Chu testified to the House
    Subcommittee on Appropriations on Energy and Water Development that the
    nation ``must rely on a diverse set of energy sources including
    renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear
    power. We look forward to a continued dialogue with Congress on moving
    that agenda forward.''
        So, while Secretary Chu wants to work with Congress to further
    nuclear power, Secretary Salazar defies Congress by proposing to over-
    ride the designation of land for uranium mining that will make it far
    more expensive and difficult to develop nuclear energy.
        His plan defies sound public policy. At a time when the President
    urges freedom from reliance on foreign sources of fuel, the Secretary
    increases the reliance on foreign nations, including Russia, for
    uranium critical to the already existent reactors in this country.
        In his state of the Union address, President Obama urged the need
    to become more independent of foreign nations for supply of energy.
    Secretary Salazar's proposal increases our dependence on foreign
    uranium--with Russia being one of the major nations on which we would
    be dependent.
        Congress too has expressed the danger of relying on foreign nations
    for production of minerals critical to our energy, defense and
    production interests. Just five months ago, twenty two bipartisan
    members of the United States House of Representatives introduced H.R.
    2011, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Policy Act of 2011
    which the House press release said ``as part of the American Energy
    Initiative. . .will help strengthen and improve our national mineral
    policy by requiring a government wide survey of American mineral
    resources, demands and factors impacting mineral development. . .''
        Warning of the danger resulting from the fact that the nation
    imports a majority of minerals needed for renewable energy projects,
    the House announcement pointed out that H.R. 2011 ``directs the
    Secretary of the Interior to coordinate a government wide assessment of
    the Nation's mineral resources and availability to meet current and
    future strategic and critical mineral needs.''
        Yet, at a time when this House has pending a Bill directing him to
    address the dangers of the imbalance of import-export of necessary
    minerals, Secretary Salazar proposes to drastically increase our
    reliance on foreign uranium.
        Section 4 of the Bill requires the Secretary to submit a report
    within six months of passage that includes an assessment ``of the non-
    fossil-fuel mineral potential of lands under the jurisdiction of the
    Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service and an identification
    of all such lands that have been withdrawn, segregated and otherwise
    restricted from mineral exploration and development.''
        Representative Gosar of Arizona and Representative Bishop of Utah
    who have spoken in support of retaining the Arizona Strip in multiple
    use, are co-sponsors of H.R. 2011.
        Just one week ago today, Representative Harris of Maryland told a
    joint hearing by the House subcommittees on Energy and Environment and
    Investigations and Oversight that ``nuclear energy is an integral
    component of America's energy portfolio. One hundred and four currently
    operating commercial nuclear reactors deliver a clean, affordable and
    reliable energy source that supplies 20 percent of America's
    electricity.''
        How in good conscience, and in the name of sound public policy, can
    a member of the cabinet propose to eliminate mining of uranium in an
    area rich with deposits of high quality, inexpensive, usable uranium
    that makes up 42 percent of our domestic supply?
        The members of the Coalition are counting on the Congress to
    prevent implementation of the Secretary's rogue actions that are
    contrary to the will of Congress, the directions from the President,
    and inconsistent with national policy.
        His plan ignores the facts and endangers the economic stability and
    social cohesiveness of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
        The Secretary claims that his proposal will not eliminate domestic
    jobs and will not harm the local economy for the citizens within the
    territory governed by members of the Coalition.
        The Secretary claims that tourism jobs are the backbone of the
    economy of northern Arizona and southern Utah. He is dead wrong, and he
    knows it.
        The Secretary knows the facts. No one in his position could be so
    naive as to believe what he says. The data is clear and is evident for
    anyone to see. His agent, the Arizona Strip District Manager sat during
    the September 7, 2011 hearing and heard evidence that belies the
    Secretary's statements. We know the Manager well; he is a professional
    and a man of his word. He said that he would make sure that the
    decision makers heard what he heard at the hearing. We take him at his
    word.
        We know that the Secretary was furnished all the information that
    was produced as testimony and documentary evidence at the hearing.
        The economic evidence came from economic development managers of
    each of the members of the Coalition. To a person they testified that
    tourism jobs are among the lowest paid jobs in the states of Arizona
    and Utah. The Coalition heard evidence that mining jobs are at worst,
    the second highest salaries in the states, and that they are the best
    jobs available for high school graduates who make up the majority of
    workers in the area impacted.
        The Coalition heard evidence of the economic blight that has
    occurred since mining jobs dried up when prices went down several years
    ago, and evidence that tourism did not replace, did not even begin to
    replace, the mining incomes as a resource upon which the communities
    could rely. One witness testified that the type of visa issued to and
    for tourism, or hospitality, workers caused a drain on the economy
    rather than a boost. The reason is that the tourism workers do not buy
    and own property that is the source of property taxes, and they do not
    spend their money in the local area.
        The Coalition heard evidence that as families move away when mining
    jobs dry up, the social cohesiveness of the communities dissolves. The
    communities rely on family members to serve as volunteer emergency
    services technicians, teachers aides, coaches, firefighters, search and
    rescue workers, parent-teacher workers, service club members, and other
    public outreach positions that local governments in the area cannot
    afford to hire.
        The Secretary knows that the economy and the social cohesiveness of
    the area will be harmed virtually beyond repair if mining is
    foreclosed.
        The only reasonable hope for any economic and social resurgence in
    the areas that once were plush with mining incomes is that mining be
    available when the prices prompt vigorous operations. But, with the
    specter of withdrawal hanging over the land, there will be no such
    operations of even existing mines.
        The Secretary and his employees urge that the withdrawal will not
    affect existing mining or present mining claims. But that is
    disingenuous as this Committee knows. No company will risk exploration
    and implementation costs when there is the specter hanging in the air
    that all mining may be shut down once the withdrawal has taken place.
        We know, as you do, that once the bureaucracy shuts down or locks
    down public land, there never is a relaxation of those regulations and
    restrictions. Rather, the restrictions expand beyond what the
    government committed at the time of lock-down. We know, as you do, that
    our experience with the Grand Escalante Monument in our area
    demonstrates that fact. When the Monument was designated, the
    government committed that there would be no change in livestock
    grazing, hunting and recreation use. Quite the contrary, grazing has
    been drastically reduced, hunting has been severely reduced to the
    point of virtual elimination, and motorized recreation is non-existent.
        The Coalition heard the following testimony as to the economic harm
    that will result, in spite of what the Secretary says:
            1.  Justin Fischer is in a good position to observe the changes
            and adverse impacts that occur with the restriction of land use
            on federal lands by the government. He pointed out first that
            Garfield County is not one time mentioned in the DEIS analysis.
            He has studied the transition of communities from the natural
            resource production economy of the 70s to the current day.
            Wages in Garfield County have gone down to the point at which
            they are either the lowest or next to lowest, average wise, in
            the State of Utah. It has the highest unemployment, its school
            populations have nose-dived, and all of these conditions have
            resulted from federal land use changes through wilderness and
            monument lock-downs. He pointed out further that the only
            reason that employment is as high as it is rests with the use
            of H2B Visas used by foreign nationals coming in to the County
            to hold tourism jobs. Most of the money earned by such workers
            is not spent in the County. H1B Visas that allow technical
            workers to come into the Country are rare. The NEPA study does
            not even consider this aspect of the job market in Garfield
            County. He testified that the EIS focuses on the bottleneck of
            having only one mill operating in Blanding; it did not even
            consider, perhaps the writers did not even know of, the
            potential for output by the mill in Kickapoo in Garfield
            County. The Coalition finds that the EIS analysis is completely
            flawed and deficient when it ignores an entire County that is
            impacted heavily by the withdrawal, and ignores a mill that
            exists in the County, contending that production is
            bottlenecked because there is only one mill available.
            2.  Bremner also pointed out that there is no consideration in
            the DEIS analysis given to the fact that mining jobs are the
            highest paying jobs that high school graduates can get in the
            area, and that most of the available workers are high school
            graduates. The town of Escalante is surrounded by monuments and
            wilderness, and it should be the most plush community in the
            land if there were truth to the myth that tourism dollars do
            effectively fill the economic void resulting from natural
            resource production termination. But, instead school
            populations are down because families have departed because
            there are no jobs. The socio-economic study in the DEIS does
            not even refer to the bonding of citizens in rural communities
            like Garfield County and its towns, or to the social structure
            that is decimated by the removal of families from that bonding
            cohesiveness.
            3.  Commissioner Leland Pollock of Garfield County testified as
            to the importance of mining and mining jobs to local
            communities and their citizens. When coal mining was allowed,
            Garfield County's economy boomed. When the Federal Government
            took away the coal industry, local officials were told that
            tourism would replace the economic support previously given by
            the coal industry. That did not obviously happen. 300 million
            tons of some of the cleanest coal available anywhere in the
            world are locked down by Federal Regulations in the County, and
            the County has an unemployment rate of 17 percent. The evidence
            as to the coal mining impact on the economy is relevant to the
            issue now before the Coalition because it shows the pattern of
            federal control being expanded over all economic resources
            throughout the area covered by the members of the Coalition.
            Commissioner Pollock pointed out that next, the timber industry
            was taken from Garfield County. The reasons given of course
            were that the loggers were ruining the forests, but without
            logging the forests are sick, infested by Bark Beetles and
            subject to devastating forest fires that have destroyed many
            elements of the natural environment including wildlife and
            natural scenery. So, the policy of shutting down logging
            backfired on the natural environment in Garfield County,
            leaving the forests in deplorable condition. All the adverse
            impacts from coal and timber shut downs are coming again
            through the withdrawal of mining which will impact jobs now and
            in the future.
        His plan violates the Federal Land Policy Management Act, NEPA, and
    federal regulations issued by the Bureau of Land Management and the
    Council on Environmental Quality
            1.  FLPMA requires in 43 U.S.C. 1712 that the Secretary
            coordinate all federal plans, policies and management decisions
            with local government. The withdrawal provisions of FLPMA, 43
            U.S.C. 1714 do not exempt the withdrawal decisions from the
            coordination mandate, and the provisions of 1714 make it clear
            that coordination is required prior to the act of withdrawal.
            For example, Section 1714 requires that after making a
            withdrawal, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress that
            contains all of the following regarding local governments:
                    ``. . .the Secretary shall furnish to the committees
                    [of Congress]:

                    ``(2) an inventory and evaluation of the current
                    natural resource uses and values of the site and
                    adjacent public and nonpublic land and how it appears
                    they will be affected by the proposed use, including
                    particularly aspects of use that might cause
                    degradation of the environment, and also the economic
                    impact of the change in use on individuals, local
                    communities, and the Nation;

                    . . .

                    (7)  a statement of the consultation which has been or
                    will be had with other Federal departments and
                    agencies, with regional, State, and local government
                    bodies, and with other appropriate individuals and
                    groups;

                    . . .

                    (8)  a statement indicating the effect of the proposed
                    uses, if any, on State and local government interests
                    and the regional economy;

            2.  The Secretary did not consult with or coordinate with the
            local governments that are members of the Coalition as to
            issuance of the Order of Segregation or the proposed
            withdrawal. In fact, when given an invitation to meet with the
            members of the Coalition prior to the first meeting of the
            Coalition, he sent the District Manager but neither came
            himself nor sent the Arizona State Director.
            3.  The Secretary failed to provide early notice to the members
            of the Coalition or, to the knowledge of Coalition members, any
            other local government in southern Utah or Northern Arizona.
            The members of the Coalition were afforded no opportunity
            whatsoever to participate with ``meaningful'' involvement in
            the ``development'' of the decisions to Segregate or to notify
            the proposal to withdraw.
            4.  In simple terms the Secretary violated the terms of FLPMA.
    His plan is deceitful in that claims that it is based upon concerns for
    environmental harm that might occur as a result of uranium mining.
        For the reasons set forth in the Findings and Conclusions issued by
    the Coalition at the conclusion of its public hearing, it is clear that
    the Secretary is deceiving or attempting to deceive the public by
    claiming there is concern about environmental harm that might be done
    by uranium mining. Even his own land managers in the District admit
    that there is no environmental harm being caused by mining.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Dr. Wenrich, a retired member of the
    USGS, we appreciate you being here. We also appreciate the
    honor you helped with this country in being part of the group
    that won the Nobel Prize. So thank you for being here. We are
    ready to have your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF KAREN WENRICH, RESEARCH GEOLOGIST, U.S. GEOLOGICAL
                            SURVEY, RETIRED

        Dr. Wenrich. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
    Grijalva.
        Mr. Bishop. Can I ask you to pull that closer to you?
        Dr. Wenrich. OK. My testimony is based on data from many of
    the 160 publications which I authored and co-authored as an
    employee of the U.S. Geological Survey and the International
    Atomic Energy Agency. I will also talk about a vital geological
    component of the district that has not been addressed in the
    withdrawal. That is value added by rare earth elements and
    other strategic metals that are in the deposits.
        First, it is imperative to address the staggering
    geological importance of northern Arizona uranium. According to
    USGS studies, the proposed withdrawal area contains an
    estimated uranium endowment in excess of 326 million pounds,
    which is 40 percent of the U.S. uranium resources. Despite such
    conclusive government-authored statements, both the draft
    environmental impact statement and the recently released final
    EIS have failed to recognize the significance of this enormous
    uranium district of polymetallic deposits.
        Through bureaucratic sleight of hand, these two documents
    have erroneously and dramatically minimized the significance of
    the resource, both the size of the endowment and its impact on
    domestic energy production. Additionally, the EIS totally fails
    to address the vast resource of an additional 40 energy
    strategic metals that are rich in this vast valuable mineral
    deposit.
        All of the northern Arizona withdrawal parcel lies within a
    corridor 45 miles wide and 110 miles long that essentially
    contains all of the known uranium deposits. It is almost as
    though the government located the area with the most mining
    claims and divined it to be worthy of withdrawal. As a former
    U.S. Geological Survey employee, it is my recollection that the
    objective of the withdrawals was to select an area to preserve
    that minimized the loss of mineral wealth to our Nation, not to
    maximize it.
        This corridor to be withdrawn is in the heart of
    essentially the total resource of the northern Arizona breccia
    pipe uranium district, and therefore any withdrawal
    alternatives B, C, or D would destroy future development of
    this world class resource and the United States' major uranium
    reserves, with the byproduct rare earth elements and base
    metals that could fulfill our goal of uranium independence as a
    major step in our road to energy independence.
        The Secretary says that a 20-year withdrawal is in order
    because we need to evaluate the impacts of a handful of
    additional mines that are currently exempt from the withdrawal.
    However, we just finalized an EIS that evaluated eight mines
    that were mined in the 1980s, and wasn't that enough of a
    handful already? Why is it necessary? Is it because the
    Secretary didn't find the results he wanted because there was
    no contamination deemed to have been caused by these mines?
        First of all, the Secretary's EIS shows no environmental
    impacts that cannot be readily mitigated. Second, the
    Department of the Interior's EIS fails to honestly recognize
    the many environmental attributes of breccia pipe mining. This
    is the kind of clean mining any serious pro-environmental
    advocate should be promoting that can be held up to countries
    throughout the world as a model to emulate in the goal to
    clean, safe and environmentally friendly mining.
        Third, the Secretary chooses to ignore the research work
    that has already been done both inside the Department of the
    Interior, USGS results, and the preliminary findings of the
    University of Arizona that much of the uranium in the Colorado
    River is naturally occurring, a key indication that the
    industrial activity does not harm the water quality for
    drinking water and agricultural activities that depend on the
    river for water.
        The fact that environmental groups engaged in fearmongering
    with downstream water users in Las Vegas and southern
    California does not make the case for prohibiting breccia pipe
    uranium mining. That such fears are scientifically ungrounded
    is demonstrated by research by the Arizona Geological Survey in
    their calculations of the non-effect of a hypothetical truck
    spill on the drinking water quality of the Colorado River.
        Four, knowing that no breccia pipe uranium tailings are
    produced or left onsite in northern Arizona and deliberately
    trying to confuse the Moab tailings issue next to the Colorado
    River with breccia pipe mining is grossly misleading. There is
    no relationship between the Moab tailings and breccia pipe
    mining and no tailings will be left onsite in the breccia
    pipes.
        Similar to the way the BLM has downplayed the significance
    of uranium resources, it has vastly overstated the
    environmental harm caused by past and potential uranium
    development. A case in point is the danger to the region's
    watershed, particularly the Colorado River, caused by rare and
    inconsequential oil spills.
        In response to concerns about the contamination of the vast
    and enormously valuable water resource, John Spencer of the
    Arizona Geological Survey and I calculated just how much damage
    could be done by such a hypothetical oil spill, calculations
    that a high school student could do and certainly the BLM and
    other Department of the Interior agencies should have done.
        These calculations are presented as a published report by
    the Arizona Geological Survey and conclude that although the
    Colorado River water and the Grand Canyon contains 4 ppb,
    approximately 60 metric tons of dissolved uranium derived by
    natural weathering of rock over the Colorado River drainage
    basin are carried annually by the Colorado River through the
    Grand Canyon.
        We considered a hypothetical worst-case accident which a
    truck hauling 30 metric tons of 1 percent uranium was
    overturned by a flash flood in Kanab Creek and its entire load
    is washed 60 kilometers down Kanab Creek into the Colorado
    River, where it is pulverized and dissolved over one year to
    become part of the dissolved uranium content of the river.
        This addition of 660 pounds of uranium over one year would
    increase uranium in the Colorado River water from 4 ppb to 4.02
    ppb. Given that the EPA maximum level for uranium in drinking
    water is 30 ppb, this increase would not only be trivial but
    undetectable against much larger natural radiation and river
    water content.
        Mr. Bishop. Dr. Wenrich, can I ask you to quickly sum up
    there.
        Dr. Wenrich. Sure. I just want to conclude that when
    calculations are done, if six mines are produced as according
    to the EIS, there would be a value added of $17 million to the
    $475 million from the uranium mining, and that 17 million would
    be from rare earth element mining and another 10 million from
    additional metals, strategic base metals. And this is a
    savings, an economic savings of our foreign debt. Retaining our
    own sources of energy and strategic metals is critical to our
    economic and security survival.
        And by the wave of the executive wand, these huge metal
    resources will be stricken from the United States' strategic
    metals stockpile just when our jobless rate is huge and China's
    strong arm is reaching globally to control the world's
    strategic metals.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wenrich follows:]

          Statement of Karen Wenrich, PhD, CPG, Concerning H.R. 3155,
                 Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011

        Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for giving
    me the opportunity to voice my support of H.R. 3155, the Northern
    Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011. The northern Arizona proposed
    withdrawal is a subject of great importance to me, as well as to the
    uranium mining industry, the nuclear energy industry, the residents of
    Arizona and southern Utah who are eager to work, and to all who operate
    on our nation's public lands. I will focus my comments today primarily
    on the geologic and economic significance of northern Arizona uranium
    ore deposits and the previous successes of the regulatory system in
    monitoring and protecting the environment from any harm by mining. I
    will refer to some of the numerous studies which I authored and co-
    authored as an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey, the
    International Atomic Energy Agency, and as a certified professional
    consulting geologist. Additionally, I will be referring to reports
    produced by experts in the uranium industry who have spent most of
    their careers in the northern Arizona uranium district with years of
    hands on experience mining and protecting the environment. I will also
    present a new vital geological component of the district that has not
    been publically disclosed to-date.
    Significance of Northern Arizona Uranium
        First, it is imperative to address the staggering geological
    importance of northern Arizona uranium. According to two USGS studies
    (Otton, et.al. 2010 and Finch, Wenrich, et.al. 1987--Attachment D), the
    proposed withdrawal area contains an estimated uranium endowment in
    excess of 326 million lbs, and has ``the potential of becoming the
    second most important uranium-producing region in the United States''.
    Despite such conclusive government-authored statements, both the Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement and the recently released Final EIS have
    failed to recognize the significance of this enormous district of
    uranium and polymetallic ore deposits. Through bureaucratic slight of
    hand, these two documents have erroneously and dramatically minimized
    the significance of the resource--both the size of the endowment and
    its impact on domestic energy production. But numbers don't lie.
    According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 326 million lbs of
    uranium present in this district is the equivalent to enough electric
    power for the 8 million people of New York City for 57 years.
    Additionally, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) totally fails to
    address the vast resource of an additional 40 energy strategic metals
    that are rich in this vast valuable mineral district. As Gene Spiering,
    V.P. of Exploration, Quaterra Resources, explains the reason for the
    EIS's gross understatement of the uranium resource:
            The major error. . .is the assumption that mineralized uranium
            breccia pipes are uniformly distributed throughout the region
            and that the potential loss of uranium is directly proportional
            to the number of acres withdrawn, not which lands are
            withdrawn. Exploration has demonstrated that nearly all the
            known mineralized pipes and all of the economically viable
            uranium deposits in northern Arizona have been found in a N-S
            trending mineralized ``corridor'' that is approximately 45
            miles wide by 110 miles long. (Spiering, et.al. 2010,
            Exploration and discovery of blind breccias pipes: the
            potential significance to the uranium endowment of the Arizona
            Strip District, Northern Arizona--Presentation to SME Annual
            Meeting-Phoenix, AZ.) (Attachment B)
        The 800 to 1,000 breccia pipes drilled outside of this corridor
    have been barren of ore. All of the northern Arizona withdrawal parcel
    lies within this uranium-rich corridor because the government simply
    located the area with the most mining claims and divined it to be
    worthy of withdrawal. As a former U.S. Geological Survey employee it is
    my recollection that the objective of wilderness and other land
    withdrawals was to select an area to preserve as wilderness that
    minimized the loss of mineral wealth to our nation, not to maximize it.
    The corridor to be withdrawn is the heart and essentially the total
    resource of the northern Arizona breccia pipe uranium district, and
    therefore, any withdrawal (Alternatives ``B'', ``C'' or ``D'') would
    restrict indefinitely future development of this world-class resource
    and the United States' major uranium reserves that could significantly
    fulfill our domestic uranium needs as a major step in our road to
    energy independence.
        Why are northern Arizona breccia pipe uranium mines so desirable?
    The Secretary says that a 20-year withdrawal is in order because we
    need to evaluate the impacts of the handful of additional mines that
    are currently exempt from the withdrawal. Yet the Secretary has not
    laid out a process in his EIS that would give hope to the nation's
    electricity consumers that this fuel for electricity would ever be
    available in the future. It is the Secretary's clear intention with
    this EIS not to impose just a ``temporary'' 20-year ban, but, in fact,
    to forever close off access to this fuel supply. (1) First of all, the
    Secretary's EIS shows no environmental impacts that cannot be readily
    mitigated. (2) Secondly, the Department of the Interior's EIS fails to
    honestly recognize the many environmental attributes of breccia pipe
    uranium mining. This is the kind of clean mining any serious pro-
    environmental advocates should be promoting that can be displayed to
    countries through the world as a model to emulate in the goal to clean,
    safe, and environmentally friendly mining. (3) Thirdly, the secretary
    chooses to ignore the research work that has already been done, both
    inside the Department of the Interior's USGS results and the
    preliminary findings by the University of Arizona in its ongoing study
    which according to the Environmental Working Group shows ``. . .that
    much of the uranium in the (Colorado)River is naturally occurring, a
    key indication that the industrial activity does not harm the water
    quality for drinking water and agricultural activity that depends on
    the River for water.'' (February 23, 2009, Environmental Working Group,
    ``Study May Hamper Fears over Uranium Mines Effects on Colorado
    River'') (attachment C) The fact that environmental groups engaged in
    fear mongering with downstream water users in Las Vegas and southern
    California does not make the case for prohibiting breccia pipe uranium
    mining. That such fears are scientifically ungrounded is demonstrated
    by research by the Arizona Geological Survey in their calculations of
    the non-effect of a hypothetical ore-truck spill on the drinking water
    quality of the Colorado River (attachment A). (4) Fourthly, knowing
    that no breccia pipe uranium tailings are produced or left on site in
    northern Arizona and deliberately trying to confuse the Moab, Utah mill
    tailings issue next to the Colorado River with breccia pipe mining is
    grossly misleading. There is no relationship between the Moab mill
    tailings and breccia pipe uranium mining. (5) Finally, recognizing the
    weakness of his environmental arguments, in football terms, the
    Secretary called an ``audible'' between the Draft EIS and Final EIS and
    switched the ``emergency'' away from the environment (the original
    justification for the withdrawal) to ostensible social and cultural
    reasons in a crass attempt to use Native Americans and the injustices
    the Federal government committed against them in the 1950s under a
    totally different set of circumstances. At that time the issue was
    national defense and the Soviet threat. Today's environmental laws
    imposed upon industry safeguard the public against any such social,
    cultural or environmental impacts. It's a shame those same laws were
    not in effect in the 1950s to protect the public against its own
    government. Of the three legs the Secretary chose to build his stools
    foundation, none of them stand as a reason to deny this source of fuel
    to the nation's electricity consumers.
        The Secretary says that a 20-year withdrawal is in order because we
    need to evaluate the impacts of the handful of additional mines that
    are currently exempt from the withdrawal. Yet the Secretary has not
    laid out a process in his EIS that would give hope to the nation's
    electricity consumers that this fuel for electricity would ever be
    available in the future. It is the Secretary's clear intention with
    this EIS not to impose just a ``temporary'' 20-year ban, but, in fact,
    to forever close off access to this important energy supply. Our
    economy needs the jobs and energy self-sufficiency today, not 20 years
    down the road.
    Inciting Fear through Emotional Hysteria
        Similar to the way the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
    downplayed the significance of the uranium resources, it has vastly
    overstated the environmental harm caused by past and potential uranium
    development. A case in point is the ``danger'' to the region's
    watershed--particularly the Colorado River--caused by rare and
    inconsequential ore spills. In response to concerns about contamination
    of the vast and enormously valuable water resource, Jon Spencer of the
    Arizona Geological Survey and I calculated just how much damage could
    be done by such a hypothetical ore spill--calculations that a high
    school student could do and certainly the BLM and other Department of
    Interior agencies should have done. These calculations are presented as
    a published report by the Arizona Geological Survey (attachment A) and
    conclude the following:
        ``Colorado River water in the Grand Canyon region contains about 4
    mg/l (micrograms per liter) of uranium (equivalent to 4 parts per
    billion by mass), with approximately 15 cubic km annual discharge.
    Thus, approximately 60 metric tons of dissolved uranium, derived by
    natural weathering of rock over the Colorado River drainage basin, are
    carried annually by the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. We
    considered a hypothetical, worst-case accident in which a truck hauling
    thirty metric tons (66,000 lbs) of 1%-uranium ore is overturned by a
    flash flood in Kanab Creek and its entire load is washed 60 km down
    Kanab Creek into the Colorado River where it is pulverized and
    dissolved over one-year to become part of the dissolved uranium content
    of the river (such a scenario is extremely unlikely, if not
    impossible). This addition of 300 kilograms (660 lbs) of uranium over
    one year would increase uranium in Colorado River water from 4.00 ppb
    to 4.02 ppb. Given that the EPA maximum contaminant level for uranium
    in drinking water is 30 ppb, this increase would be trivial.
    Furthermore, it would be undetectable against much larger natural
    variation in river-water uranium content.'' (cited from Spencer &
    Wenrich, 2011), Breccia Pipe uranium Mining in the Grand Canyon Region
    and Implications for Uranium levels in Colorado River Water, Arizona
    Geological Survey Open-File Report OFR-11-04, Version 1.0, 13 p.--
    Attachment A.)
        Anyone in a decision-making role over the withdrawal of the
    northern Arizona lands should review the new PBS documentary that was
    just televised called ``Radioactive Wolves of Chernobyl''. Chernobyl
    was unquestionably the world's worst nuclear disaster with radioactive
    emissions equivalent to 400 Hiroshima bombs and understandably created
    worldwide emotional concern. Yet, even here perhaps things are not
    quite as bad as expected. Because there are no people within 1100
    square miles around the reactor, a lush wilderness has been
    regenerated. The wolves, beavers, eagles, falcon, bison, and moose are
    thriving. Radiation levels in the animals are high, but still after 25
    years there are no signs of mutations in any of the creatures with the
    possible exception of door mice living right at the site of the nuclear
    accident. The abundant eagles are a sign that the eco-system is in
    robust health. This is a good example of how the emotional hype has
    portrayed this disaster as a barren wasteland that could never recover.
    Northern Arizona contains natural uranium that cannot even remotely be
    compared to Chernobyl--yet, one would think from the emotional hysteria
    that people expect Chernobyl-style contamination. The worst that can
    happen is what is happening naturally in the Grand Canyon today--
    millions of tons of high-grade uranium are eroding naturally into the
    Colorado River and it's tributaries. If anything, mining will help
    remove this natural river water ``contaminant''.
    An Attempt to Dismiss Scientific Facts by Invoking a Smoke Screen
        Accusations of conflict of interest have been asserted for my
    ownership and sales agreement of 61 mining claims that I have held on
    the Arizona Strip since 2009. The research on which this report is
    based was begun in 1978 and 95% of it was completed by 2002. I
    challenge anyone to find errors in this testimony, specifically any
    that could even remotely be impacted from my claim ownership during the
    past two years. For Mr. Grijalva to attempt to dismiss 30 years of
    solid scientific data from a renowned, certified researcher in this
    urnaium district for a recent agreement that is 6 months old is nothing
    more than smoke and mirrors and is not in the very spirit from which he
    insists this withdrawal is based--to save a natural resource for the
    American people by presenting all available data. Minerals are also a
    natural resource and just as the American tourist should have the
    opportunity to view the beauties of northern Arizona so should the
    American consumer have the opportunity to benefit their lifestyle from
    mining of the minerals from northern Arizona. Previous mining of this
    wealth from 1980-1990 has proven that the two goals are not mutually
    exclusive and can successfully coexist.
        Furthermore if there is any conflict of interest, it is with
    ranking member Representative Grijalva who sits on the board of
    directors for the Center for Biodiversity, one of the organizations
    that has been the driving force for this land withdrawal. Because of
    this conflict of interest Mr. Grijalva should be excusing himself from
    any committee deliberations on this withdrawal or any lobbying of the
    executive branch of government to complete this withdrawal.
    Value Added to the Breccia Pipe Ore with the Recovery of Energy
            Strategic Rare Earth Metals
        This unique Arizona polymetallic-rich uranium, breccia-pipe
    district is known for its large reserves of high-grade uranium that
    have been estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to comprise over 40%
    of the U.S. domestic uranium resources, and the highest-grade in the
    U.S. Up until the past 5 years the price of most metals had been
    sufficiently depressed so that little was done to explore or study the
    presence of the polymetallic ores, rich in the district's uranium
    deposits. In just 3 years since 2008, the price of most rare earth
    elements (REE) has increased over 10-fold. This is true of all Energy
    Critical Elements, including Co and Cu, also heavily enriched in the
    breccia pipe ore. These important metals commonly comprise over 1% of
    the ore.
        Rare earth elements (REE) are significantly enriched in the breccia
    pipe ores. However, last month REE research completed in Nancy, France
    by Wenrich, Lach and Cuney by Laser Mass Spectroscopy and the Electron
    Microprobe proved that within the breccia pipes these energy strategic
    and critical metals are enriched in the actual uraninite crystal, the
    ore mineral found in the breccia pipes. This is significant because it
    facilitates the economic removal of these strategic energy metals. The
    current supply of REE will not be able to keep up with the new and ever
    growing global demand. This potential shortage could seriously impact
    U.S. renewable energy sources, communications, and defense industries,
    leaving the US, currently with no operating REE mines, and very
    vulnerable to control by REE-rich China. These strategic, multi-use
    elements are known to occur only in very few economic deposits around
    the world. With over 97% of the world's supply presently produced by
    China, and with the Chinese demand soon matching, if not eclipsing, its
    own internal supply, the U.S. could soon be left in the cold. Currently
    China has export taxes on REE of 15-20% and has put restrictions on the
    amount exported. We are already feeling the pinch in the skyrocketing
    price of terbium (a heavy REE)-needy compact fluorescent bulbs, bulbs
    that new government restrictions are requiring the average American to
    replace their incandescent bulbs with. Forecasts now predict a critical
    shortage of REE for the rest of the world outside of China by as early
    as 2012. In 2008 China produced 97% of the worlds REE, India 2.2%,
    Brazil 0.5% and Malaysia 0.3%.
        REE are indispensable in a wide variety of clean energy
    technologies. They are used in the advanced nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)
    batteries, which are found in most modern hybrid cars. Powerful
    neodymium (Nd, a light REE) magnets enable the new generation of wind
    turbines, electric and hybrid electric cars (Prius), and generators.
    REE phosphors illuminate compact fluorescent light bulbs (Tb), and
    elements such as cerium (Ce) and neodymium (Nd) have been used for
    decades as coloring agents in synthetic gemstones and glass, and Ce has
    been used as a polishing compound for over a half century. In the
    defense sector REE are required for military electronics,
    communications and surveillance equipment, and missile guidance
    systems. Tomahawk cruise missiles use REE magnets in tail control fins;
    and samarium (Sm)-cobalt(Co) magnets are used for flight control
    surfaces on missiles, Sidewinders, Phoenix, etc. Cerium has been used
    to treat water, particularly arsenic-rich waters. In essence, it can be
    safely said that with the past decade of advanced technology U.S.
    energy and national security are heavily dependant on REE.
        The U.S. has these REE at their fingertips in the Arizona breccia
    pipe province. To recover the REE from the breccia pipes would not
    require new techniques to be developed. Removal of the REE from the
    uraninite has previous precedence. REE were extracted as a by-product
    of uranium mining in Canada during 1966-1970 and 1973-1977. ``For a
    short period of time heavy REE were extracted from the rafinate fluids
    that emanated from the chemical processing of uraninite at Blind River,
    Ontario'' (Mariano and others, 2010). ``At Elliot Lake an yttrium
    concentrate [including REE] was obtained from the residual ion-exchange
    solutions after leaching uranium ores with sulfuric acid. . .The
    filtered and dried product graded 60-70% REO including 30-35%
    Y2O3.'' (Lucas and Ritcey, 1975, cited in
    Henderson, 1984, p.441).
        The analyses of the REE in the breccia pipe uraninites have shown
    that they are rich in some of the rarer and more expensive of the REE,
    such as dysprosium, europium, neodymium and terbium. For example, below
    is a graph of neodymium, essential to the super strong magnets needed
    in wind turbines, versus uranium for over 60 bulk rock breccia pipe
    analyses. The actual Nd in the uraninite lattice is significantly
    higher than that shown in the graph. The correlation between neodymium
    and uranium is evident from the trend of this graph, which follows from
    the concentration of neodymium, as well as all of the REE. in the
    uraninite crystal structure.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Summary
        The northern Arizona EIS assumes that 6 mines producing 1800-2400
    tons of uranium ore/day could be operating. Assuming an average grade
    of 0.65% U3O8 this district would produce
    approximately 9.5 million lbs of U3O8 per year.
    Uraninite studied by Wenrich, Lach, and Cuney in France showed the
    total REE content of the uraninite to be 0.43%. Therefore, 40,850 lbs
    of REE could be produced from the 9.5 million pounds of
    U3O8.. Yttrium, commonly considered to be a REE
    since it is associated with them, makes up another 0.25% bringing the
    total REE to 0.68%. The REE by-products would have a value added of $15
    million dollars based on today's REE prices and the individual element
    concentrations in the uraninite. Another $1.8 million from yttrium
    brings the total to $16.8 million annually. Finding domestic sources of
    REE would be an enormous boost to our economy--this is $16.8 million
    that will remain in our country rather than increasing our foreign
    debt. Additionally, the amount of copper, cobalt, nickel, silver, lead
    and zinc that constitute over 1% of the ore can, and will, also be
    mined as by-product metals at today's prices. They will add another
    approximate $10 million dollars to the economic savings of our foreign
    debt. Retaining American jobs to mine and process domestic sources of
    energy strategic metals is critical to our economic and security
    survival.
        By the wave of the executive wand these huge metal resources will
    be stricken from the United States strategic metal stock pile just when
    our jobless rate is huge and China's strong arm is reaching globally to
    control the world's strategic metals. We won't have to worry about
    invaders marching into our country with guns, they won't need to, we
    will be conquered by loss of our economic strength and our inability to
    produce our domestic mineral wealth. How can we turn our back on
    domestic uranium to fuel our 20% energy source in nuclear power? At the
    same time we will be denying the American consumer rare-earth elements
    needed for wind turbines, solar panels and our new energy efficient
    compact fluorescent light bulbs, batteries and critical military
    components.
        This submitted testimony presents to the Committee sound historical
    and scientific data that underscores the importance of energy resources
    in these Arizona breccia pipe deposits that contain natural, metal-
    bearing ore deposits that have a safe record of production to meet
    domestic energy needs. These ore deposits are now also recognized to
    contain an important and essential source of energy critical elements
    (REE, copper and cobalt) for the continued progression of American
    diversification of industry, employment opportunities, national
    security, and elevated living standard for its citizens today and its
    children tomorrow. These deposits should be available to be developed
    to the fullest and safe extent for the American consumer.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate
    your testimony. Mr. Trautwein.

         STATEMENT OF MARK TRAUTWEIN, FORMER STAFF CONSULTANT,
       ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND PUBLIC LANDS, U.S. COMMITTEE ON
                      INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

        Mr. Trautwein. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
    to be back where I was privileged to work for more than 15
    years as the full Interior Committee's staff consultant on
    Environment, Energy, and Public Lands for Chairman Mo Udall and
    Chairman George Miller. It is in that capacity that I appear
    today, representing only myself and no organization. And, Mr.
    Chairman, I note with pleasure that while a lot of things have
    changed around here since I left that the House's attitude
    about the Senate remains the same, and that is a good thing to
    note.
        I am here to address assertions that Secretary Salazar's
    withdrawal order on the Arizona Strip is incompatible with the
    Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. I am intimately familiar with
    that law because Chairman Udall designated me as the lead
    staffer responsible for all aspects of that legislation. Mr.
    Chairman, there is no basis for the claim that the Arizona
    Wilderness Act contains a promise that uranium mining would
    proceed unfettered indefinitely on lands not designated
    wilderness and that the Secretary's order breaks that promise.
        The Arizona Wilderness Act was essentially a statewide
    Forest Service wilderness bill. However, on the strip, BLM was
    years from completing its wilderness review, and extensive
    wilderness study areas with inter-wilderness protections of
    indefinite duration were an obstacle to a company anxious to
    develop certain valuable mineral deposits.
        Title 3 of the Act short-circuited the BLM process and
    settled this issue. Those lands not designated in wilderness
    were simply relieved of their interim wilderness protection,
    restoring them to general multiple use management. Both the
    statute and the committee report make clear that on BLM lands,
    that is all the so-called release provision does, remove
    interim protections that preserve the land's suitability for
    wilderness designation. The Secretary has acted well within
    this realm.
        A few salient facts to highlight. The lands covered in the
    Secretary's withdrawal order are mostly not the same lands that
    are released in 1984. Many of them were incorporated into the
    two national monuments established a decade later and
    permanently withdrawn from new mineral entry, the same thing
    the Secretary has done, only temporarily. Other released lands
    are not covered by the Secretary's order. Those that are
    constitute a decided minority of the lands released in 1984,
    and Congress never reviewed for anything the majority of lands
    covered in the order.
        For those lands, the Secretary's withdrawal order does not
    amount to a de facto wilderness declaration. Wilderness is
    permanent. The Secretary's order is temporary. Wilderness
    affects many potential activities. The Secretary's order covers
    only one thing, new mining claims under the 1872 Mining Law,
    and leaves intact existing mining claims, and there are
    thousands, so that claimants can develop their rights.
        There is no rational basis for saying that the Secretary's
    order stops mining or for calling it de facto wilderness. In
    the case of the strip lands, the 1984 wilderness review never
    assessed the impact of uranium mining on the hydrology of the
    Grand Canyon ecosystem. This was completely beyond the scope of
    wilderness review. To argue now that a 27-year-old wilderness
    statute precludes the Secretary from assessing that impact and
    taking even limited action on non-wilderness lands by
    mislabeling it as de facto wilderness is perverse.
        Even if the Secretary were proposing wilderness, it
    wouldn't be contrary to the Arizona Wilderness Act because by
    design, it fully contemplates that lands on the strip and
    elsewhere will be subject to periodic wilderness review. On
    Forest Service lands, this is explicit. The agency would
    conduct new wilderness reviews with every forest plan revision.
    The Committee report discusses this in excruciating detail.
        On BLM lands, the expectation is implicit in the
    affirmation of the land management process. In any case, the
    Act and Committee report are clear that the only thing Title 3
    ended was the immediate wilderness issue before Congress in
    1984, namely the conflict between interim wilderness
    protections of indefinite duration and two contemporary uranium
    mining concerns.
        Release and its meaning were debated in great detail
    throughout the 1980s, and Chairman Udall was adamant in
    opposing successfully the many versions of no-more amendments,
    that this was it for wilderness, that lands released must be
    developed and so on. It is frustrating to hear this argument
    disinterred when it was decisively defeated long ago.
        Even if we focus strictly on lands the statute and the
    Committee said in effect would now be managed for multiple use,
    the Secretary has acted fully within the meaning of that term.
    Multiple use doesn't mean singular use or any use or every use.
    It means the managing agency considers many competing uses and
    attempts to balance its often conflicting mandates. It can't
    permit all uses everywhere all the time. It has to make choices
    in a dynamic way on the basis of new facts and goals over time.
        So when the committee report says lands are released to the
    land management process, it expects the Secretary to use its
    discretion to make these choices and seek this balance. That is
    very much what the Secretary has done here. And while it is
    perfectly legitimate to argue the merits of his action, in no
    way has he violated either the Arizona Wilderness Act or
    congressional intent expressed in the Committee report.
        Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think it is not only wrong
    to read the Act as a limitation on the Secretary's power to
    manage new lands in new ways based on new evidence to meet new
    challenges decades after its passage, it is dangerous. Thank
    you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Trautwein follows:]

     Statement of Mark Trautwein, Former Staff Consultant on Environment,
     Energy and Public Lands, U.S. House Committee on Interior and Insular
     Affairs, on H.R. 3155, The Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
                                      2011

        Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to be back where I was
    privileged to work for more than 15 years. From 1979 until 1991, I had
    the honor of serving Mo Udall and, from 1991 to 1995, George Miller, as
    the full committee's staffer responsible for its jurisdiction over
    public lands, wilderness and national parks.
        I am here today, representing myself only, to address certain
    assertions made in an October 12 letter signed by 12 Members of the
    House and Senate in which they argue that Secretary Salazar's mineral
    withdrawal order on the Arizona Strip breaks a promise made in Arizona
    Wilderness Act of 1984. The legislative history, it is argued,
    establishes that the Act was a final disposition of all land status on
    the Strip and that uranium mining issues would proceed forever without
    restriction outside designated wilderness. I am intimately familiar
    with that Act because Chairman Udall made me responsible for managing
    it, including gathering information, negotiating with all interested
    parties, and drafting bill and committee report language. I strongly
    disagree with the October 12 letter's broken promise theory and know of
    nothing implicit or explicit in the Arizona Wilderness Act, Mr. Udall's
    sponsorship of it, or the events leading to its passage, to support it.
    I have no useful expertise on any threat posed by uranium mining to the
    Grand Canyon ecosystem and offer no opinion on it. However, I am
    confident that the actions of Secretary Salazar are entirely consistent
    with both the letter of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 and
    Congressional intent behind it.
        Mr. Chairman, the 1984 Arizona Wilderness Act was essentially a
    Forest Service RARE II wilderness bill. On the other hand, BLM was
    still in the middle of its wilderness review process. It had created
    WSA's on the Strip and elsewhere in Arizona that had interim
    protections of indefinite duration and was years away from
    recommendations on which lands to designate as wilderness and which to
    release from those protections. This was a problem for a particular
    mining company--Energy Fuels Nuclear--that believed it had discovered
    valuable uranium deposits called Brescia pipes inside some of those
    WSAs and was anxious to develop them. So the company initiated
    negotiations with environmental and other interest groups for an
    agreement to short-circuit the BLM process and go directly to Congress
    with a stakeholder settlement. Eventually, that agreement became Title
    III of the Arizona Wilderness Act.
        Neither the history nor the provisions of Arizona Wilderness Act
    support the idea that these events settled issues addressed by
    Secretary Salazar's order. On the contrary, the two are entirely
    different in scope and purpose. The Arizona Wilderness Act is a
    wilderness act. It considered whether certain lands met the conditions
    set forth in the 1964 Wilderness Act for inclusion in the wilderness
    system. The withdrawal order addresses the hydrology of the Grand
    Canyon ecosystem and the impact of one particular activity, uranium
    mining, on water quality. Watershed issues were never considered or
    addressed anywhere in the process leading to passage of the Arizona
    Wilderness Act and are beyond the scope of wilderness review.
        In addition, the 1984 law and the withdrawal order do not even
    cover the same inventory of lands. The Arizona Wilderness Act
    considered only those lands in BLM and Forest Service wilderness study
    areas. It never examined at all vast tracts affected by the order
    because those lands did not meet the criteria required to receive
    interim protection while they were studied for their wilderness
    suitability. And the plain facts are that land status on the Arizona
    Strip already has changed, and profoundly so, since passage of the
    Arizona Wilderness Act and in ways that affect mining. ACEC's have been
    designated and two large national monuments proclaimed, and implicitly
    if not explicitly ratified by Congress, all without any objections that
    Congressional intent of 1984 had been abused.
        In fact, many of the lands released in 1984 were incorporated into
    the Vermillion Cliffs and Grand Canyon-Parashant monuments in 2000 and
    2001 and consequently withdrawn from new mineral entry. Other released
    lands are not covered by the Salazar order. While it is true that some
    released lands are included, the majority are not. Most of the lands
    that are covered in the order were never reviewed at all by Congress
    for anything, not even for wilderness, in 1984.
        Even if Secretary Salazar were proposing to designate more
    wilderness, which he is not, his order would not violate the alleged
    promise of the Arizona Wilderness Act. That act, by its own language,
    is not the final disposition even of the wilderness question on the
    Strip, much less land use questions of entirely different scope and
    impact. The statute's release language clearly requires the Forest
    Service to reconsider in subsequent planning cycles, supposedly every
    ten years, the wilderness suitability of all lands not already
    designated. This is no accident. Release language was an extremely
    contentious issue throughout the wilderness debates of the 1980s.
    Opponents argued persistently that lands not designated wilderness
    should be barred from future wilderness consideration. Some went even
    further with proposals that amounted to a Congressional directive that
    multiple use lands are free of any conservation protections or that no
    more wilderness ever be designated. Mr. Udall was the prime opponent of
    this argument and he defeated every `no more'-type amendment he ever
    confronted. The bill as enacted adopted his position--that released
    lands should be eligible for reconsideration as wilderness--as did all
    other RARE II wilderness bills.
        BLM lands are not subject to the same statutory cyclical planning
    process as Forest Service lands. Therefore, they did not require any
    comparable release language. Had it been necessary, however, Mr. Udall
    obviously would have taken the same position, that future reviews of
    land status are necessary and proper and that no Act of Congress,
    either implicitly or explicitly, ought to foreclose the possibility
    that future citizens, future agencies and future Congresses might
    propose additional protections on these lands. To see the defeated
    argument of so many years ago returning as if it had won is
    discouraging to say the least, especially when it has been stretched to
    argue against an action that is not wilderness, that addresses lands
    not even considered in the formulation of the Arizona Wilderness Act
    and protects those lands to an entirely different object and in an
    entirely different way.
        It is true, of course, that lands released from wilderness study
    areas by the Act lost their interim protections, to be managed for
    multiple use under applicable law. It is also true that the committee
    report accompanying the Arizona Wilderness Act contains language
    generally laying out the desires of the interested parties and
    specifically describing how uranium mining might proceed with respect
    to lands outside BLM's Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness and the Forest
    Service's Kanab Creek Wilderness. But the language makes it clear that
    even on those two sites and certainly elsewhere on all released lands,
    potential development was subject to the agency's full complement of
    land management tools and requirements. Those tools would include the
    ones Secretary Salazar has deployed. The report language cited by the
    October 12 letter provides no evidence at all that a promise has been
    made and broken.
        To release lands back to multiple use, as the Arizona Wilderness
    Act did, only meant that exploration and development could take place
    as determined by the relevant agencies acting in accordance with
    applicable law, not that it must. The Secretary's order is entirely
    consistent with that position as his authority to withdraw lands
    temporarily from new mineral entry is a recognized part of his land
    management options. Even if Secretary Salazar were proposing wilderness
    on lands already considered by the Arizona Wilderness Act, he would not
    be violating either its language or its spirit. He is not, and both the
    Act and its legislative history belie the notion that it was intended
    to be some kind of barrier against potential new protections, freezing
    lands use decisions made in 1984 for all time, despite new facts and
    new evidence or new values.
        I am utterly confident that this is exactly what Mr. Udall would
    have hoped would happen, that the Arizona Wilderness Act would be the
    catalyst for continuing concern and attention to protection of the
    Grand Canyon ecosystem, not less.
        If there is a promise implicit in the Arizona Wilderness Act that
    Mr. Udall's work would be the final word on the Arizona Strip not to be
    rewritten by those who came after him, I am quite certain Mr. Udall did
    not share it. In fact, I can think of no idea more contrary to Mo's
    most fundamental beliefs about the work he cared about so deeply.
        Mo was proud of his legacy as the greatest conservation legislator
    in American history. Thanks to his leadership, the national park
    system, the national wildlife refuge system, and the national
    wilderness preservation system were all more than doubled in size. The
    Alaska Lands Act was the single greatest stroke of conservation in the
    history of man. At every step of assembling that legacy, Mo's work was
    informed by what he often referred to as his `love of the land'. He
    believed it was the duty of every generation to exercise its own love
    of the land to meet future challenges he could never anticipate. The
    suggestion that he would have thought that any citizen or group of
    citizens, the Secretary of the Interior or the Congress of the United
    States was precluded by some deal or some judgment he had made a
    generation earlier from taking new action to express that love, on the
    basis of new information and new evidence in an entirely different
    context, is just utterly antithetical to everything he believed.
        Mo was Jeffersonian in his belief that every generation has the
    right and the duty to create its own world. He saw conservation as a
    dynamic process across time, an ongoing story to be written and
    rewritten every generation. He often talked about how as a younger man
    the mountains that ring Tucson were distant things, and that the city
    limits didn't even reach a ring of parks and wilderness areas that
    nearly surround it. But in his lifetime, Tucson had grown up to and
    beyond those mountains. The natural areas that used to be so distant
    are now islands in an urban sea. For him, it was evidence that you
    could never be visionary enough when it came to the land and you could
    never deny any generation its opportunity and its responsibility to
    take care of it.
        I don't know what Mo would have thought about the impact of uranium
    mining on the hydrology of the Grand Canyon ecosystem nor do I have a
    worthwhile opinion on that question. But I do know the charge Mo would
    have given me. He would have wanted to know two things--is there
    credible evidence of a problem that requires action, and is the
    solution proposed reasonable and effective. In the matter before you
    today those are the questions members of this subcommittee and this
    Congress, in the House and the Senate, should address.
        Mo's legacy is and always will be an enduring one. But Mo did not
    legislate on stone tablets. And he did not protect lands to prevent
    others from loving the land but to inspire them to carry on the great
    work. In the end, that is his true legacy, and if his work is to be
    invoked, let that be the cause it serves.
        Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify on this
    important matter.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Now beginning our questioning process for this
    panel. I know there is going to be multiple requests for
    rounds, so Mr. Grijalva, go ahead. Have at it. We will come
    back to you a couple of times I believe.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and let me thank the
    witnesses for being here today. In a partial I think for the
    record response, earlier we heard the issue of national
    security and to be able to produce our own uranium so that we
    don't import as much as we are importing now and that would
    enhance our national security.
        It should be noted, a Russian company within that 1 million
    acres that is being talked about controls 642 claims. And
    Members of the House, including Representative Bachus, Peter
    King, Mr. McKeon, Ros-Lehtinen, all wrote to the Obama
    Administration concerned about that, and to quote them, ``We
    remain concerned that Iran could receive uranium supplies
    through direct or secondary proliferation.'' The House Members
    wrote in opposition to those claims, about the claims from a
    Russian company that bought out an American company. National
    security.
        The issue of who is representing who in the area, you know,
    Coconino Board of Supervisors is on record supporting the
    withdrawal, the City of Flagstaff. The Navajo Nation in 2005
    not only banned uranium mining on their land but banned all
    processing on their land, on Navajo Nation land.
        So, in this debate about what to do with this withdrawal,
    the opposition is not isolated to one or two people I would
    add, and those 300,000-plus comments in the withdrawal, the
    vast majority of them favorable. While it is not a popularity
    contest, one should not claim purity of opinion because they
    represent an area that happens to support opening those areas
    up.
        Central Arizona project is opposed to it. Metropolitan
    Water District of Southern California, Southern Nevada Water
    Authority. And so let us not narrow the scope of the
    opposition. It is wide and it is deep.
        Mr. Abbey, is it correct that even with the full million
    acre withdrawal, uranium mining on existing valid claims will
    still be permitted?
        Mr. Abbey. That is true.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. And even with the withdrawal, mining will
    be permitted on over 1.2 million acres of the Arizona Strip, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Abbey. Those acres would still be available for mining,
    yes.
        Mr. Grijalva. And the U.S. Geological Survey said this
    withdrawal, the million acres, would affect approximately 12
    percent of available uranium in Arizona. That is correct as
    well?
        Mr. Abbey. I don't know that, Congressman.
        Mr. Grijalva. And, Mr. Trautwein, thank you for your
    testimony again reemphasizing the point, but was the Arizona
    Wilderness Act of 1984 a wilderness act or a mining act?
        Mr. Trautwein. It was a wilderness act. It obviously
    considered some concerns of interest to the mining industry.
    But the purpose of the act was to designate wilderness and
    resolve issues regarding interim wilderness protections.
        Mr. Grijalva. And the 1984 Wilderness Act doesn't contain
    any language that discusses mining at all with regard to the
    Arizona Strip.
        Mr. Trautwein. The Act itself does not discuss mining per
    se, no.
        Mr. Grijalva. And so is it your understanding that when
    enacted, the 1984 Act, that was going to be the final word on
    future mining in the Arizona Strip?
        Mr. Trautwein. Not at all. As I said in my testimony, we
    were resolving a particular issue unique to that time of an
    immature BLM wilderness review process on the strip that was an
    obstacle to uranium mining by one particular company I might
    add at that time. It was fully expected that the Act itself and
    the Committee report make clear that these lands that were not
    designated as wilderness--and again, this is a minority of the
    lands that are being withdrawn by the Secretary, and a majority
    of the lands that were released have since been withdrawn for
    mineral entry.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Johnson, do you have questions?
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Abbey?
        Mr. Abbey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Last week the Secretary announced that
    you will now be the head of a merged BLM and OSM. I have a few
    questions around that merger. First, can you tell me when and
    how you first learned of the Secretary's plans to merge the two
    agencies?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, first, Congressman Johnson, I am not the
    head of the OSM or the Bureau of Land Management merger.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Are you going to be the head of the
    resulting agency?
        Mr. Abbey. Not necessarily.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But you are aware of it.
        Mr. Abbey. I am aware of the proposal to consolidate the
    Office of Surface Mining with the Bureau of Land Management.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. Are you aware, have any
    assessments or analysis been conducted in the past that
    evaluated the impacts of merging all or part of OSM statutory
    responsibilities with BLM or what is now ONRR?
        Mr. Abbey. We have underway right now steps to do just
    that, to assess the consequences of moving forward in a
    consolidated fashion so that we can share some of our
    similarities between the Office of Surface Mining and the
    Bureau of Land Management as well as the respect--the SMCRA,
    the authorities of SMCRA, which requires----
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. So are you saying that the
    announcement was to consider merging? Because what I have heard
    is that an announcement has been made that the two agencies
    will be merged. What you are testifying to now sounds more like
    you are evaluating the implications of that and how it complies
    with existing law. Which is it?
        Mr. Abbey. The secretarial order announced a consolidation
    of the Office of Surface Management with the Bureau of Land
    Management.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. How can we merge or how
    can the Secretary merge the regulatory functions of OSM with
    the coal-leasing functions of BLM into a single agency when
    SMCRA, as you just mentioned it, specifically prohibits this?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, the consolidation is part of the
    Department's ongoing efforts to make government work better by
    increasing efficiencies and all that.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. I understand that.
        Mr. Abbey. You understand that.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But to do that requires congressional
    approval because there are existing laws on the books, right?
        Mr. Abbey. The proposed consolidation will honor the intent
    and requirements of SMCRA.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. No. You told me it wasn't a proposed
    merger. You told me that the Secretary had announced the merger
    of the two departments. So is it proposed or is it announced?
        Mr. Abbey. It is an announced consolidation of the two
    bureaus.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. So it is not a proposal. The
    Secretary has decided to merge these two agencies, correct?
        Mr. Abbey. That is true.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. Well, so then it is a
    violation of SMCRA, would you not agree?
        Mr. Abbey. I do not.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. You do not?
        Mr. Abbey. I do not.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. You pick and choose which laws we
    comply with and which ones we don't? You want me to read it to
    you?
        Mr. Abbey. The consolidation has not occurred yet,
    Congressman Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. But you said it is going to.
        Mr. Abbey. At the conclusion of assessment and reviews and
    consultation.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Has the Solicitor issued an opinion or
    anything in writing in support of the Secretary's order?
        Mr. Abbey. The Office of the Solicitor has been involved in
    these discussions.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Has he issued a report?
        Mr. Abbey. They have not issued a formal opinion.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. OK. All right. You know, to be
    brutally honest, Mr. Abbey, I am confused because not more than
    just a few minutes ago you testified on behalf of the Secretary
    that you would deny placing a commemorative on the World War II
    memorial because there is existing law that prohibits that. Yet
    we have on the books an existing law that says that these two
    agencies, that the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation
    cannot assume the responsibilities of another agency that has
    authority over coal mining and minerals and such.
        I am confused. The Department is citing a 1950s era law to
    justify the action and ignoring the 1970s law that I believe
    prohibits the merging. How do you justify that?
        Mr. Abbey. My testimony previously was based upon our
    feeling that your bill was inconsistent with the Commemorative
    Works Act.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That is not my question. How do you
    justify violating the 1970s law that superseded the 1950s law
    that said that these two agencies can't be merged? How do you
    justify that?
        Mr. Abbey. Our actions will not violate that law. The
    actions that we take----
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. If you merge the two agencies, it will
    without congressional relief from that law.
        Mr. Abbey. Under the consolidation, the Office of Surface
    Mining will continue to have a--it will be a separate entity
    within the Bureau of Land Management responsible for
    implementing SMCRA.
        Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, that is not what the law says.
    That is not what the law says. You know, if you are a simple,
    two-wheel wagon rut mule farm boy like me, I can tell you I am
    confused, and I guarantee you the American people are confused
    as well.
        Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but if we have a chance
    for a second round, I have some additional.
        Mr. Bishop. There will be a chance for a second round. The
    gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. The proposed action of withdrawal is not yet
    complete. The decision, the final decisions, have not been
    made. Yet this legislation would terminate the process and keep
    these areas open, presumably for some national security
    reasons, that is, we need the uranium. Is that why? The
    advocate, the author of the bill is not here, but I presume
    that must be why he wants to do it. Or maybe it is for the jobs
    that could occur if there were unlimited opportunities for
    exploration.
        I understand that there are 11 claims that exist that are
    not yet in production. Is that correct, Mr. Abbey?
        Mr. Abbey. We project that even with a full withdrawal if
    that is the Secretary's decision that there would likely be up
    to 11 mines developed.
        Mr. Garamendi. And those must be based upon some existing
    claims.
        Mr. Abbey. They would be based upon valid, existing rights
    of the existing claims.
        Mr. Garamendi. So presumably there is some significant
    opportunity since there are only four mines in existence now to
    more than double the number of mines that are in the area,
    almost triple them. Also, it is not testimony that has been
    received, but I will assert, having studied this matter for
    some time, that there is ample uranium fuel available today to
    really power the entire world for about 1,000 years if we were
    to utilize the full recycling of existing uranium stocks.
        The uranium that would be mined here would be used in low
    light-water reactors that consume about 3 percent of the power,
    the energy in uranium. With the AREVA or the reprocessing
    system, you can consume another 3 percent, leaving something
    like 94 percent of the power of the energy in uranium behind to
    be disposed of in places like Yucca Mountain, which are
    controversial.
        The U.S. Government between 1960 and 1994 developed a
    recycling mechanism that would consume 90 percent of that
    energy. It was set aside even though it had proved itself to be
    viable with some 30 years of operation in what is known as an
    integral fast reactor and a pyroprocessing system. If the
    United States were to pursue what it has spent some 12 to $15
    billion perfecting, we could consume the existing used nuclear
    material, which is now called waste, and not need to mine
    another ounce of uranium.
        We have chosen not to do that for reasons that are obscure
    and incorrect, but if we would do it, we would not need to
    mine. So this is not a national security issue at all. This is
    an issue of choices that have been made. Now, if you want to
    promote some mining opportunities and some jobs, then go ahead
    and do this and see what the result would be. Additional
    contamination, additional problems that have already existed.
    There is a reason why the Navajo Nation has decided not to
    allow any more exploration in mining on the Navajo Reservation,
    because they have found it to create health hazards as well as
    contamination problems.
        So I would suggest that the argument that is being made
    that the Nation needs this material for the nuclear energy
    industry is incorrect. In fact, we have more than enough if we
    chose to recycle what we already have. And I would suggest we
    ought to do that and not do more mining in these particular
    areas that are potentially withdrawn when the Secretary comes
    to make his final decision.
        I have a question for the witness that was previously with
    the USGS. Are you now employed, or are you just retired? This
    would be Professor--rather Dr. Karen Wenrich.
        Dr. Wenrich. I am a private consultant. I did work after
    the USGS for the International Atomic Energy Agency for three
    years as their senior uranium geologist, but I am a private
    consultant right now.
        Mr. Garamendi. And who employs you now?
        Dr. Wenrich. I was doing some consulting work for some of
    the people putting together the EIS because they were basing it
    on a lot of my publications.
        Mr. Garamendi. OK. So you are employed by those who are
    advocating this piece of legislation.
        Dr. Wenrich. Not just them. I also have been employed by
    the BLM actually. I was hired to teach a class.
        Mr. Garamendi. But you are employed by those who are
    advocating the legislation?
        Dr. Wenrich. I work for whoever would like to pay me to do
    some uranium research and answer their questions.
        Mr. Garamendi. I am afraid I am out of time, but thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Representative Gosar, do you have questions?
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. Director Abbey, I know my colleague
    preceded me kind of going about this same discussion. In
    Secretary Salazar's October 19 letter to me, the Secretary
    states that even with a full withdrawal, development of up to
    11 mines in the area over the next 20 years is reasonably
    foreseeable, including the four mines that are currently under
    approved operating plans. A Bureau of Land Management press
    release announces the release of the final draft environmental
    statement, the FEIS, a similar claim that has as many as 11
    uranium mines that could be operational over the next 20 years
    under the preferred alternative, including the four mines
    currently approved.
        I would like to expand on this. The Secretary's preferred
    decision withdraws over a million acres subject to valid
    existing rights. Can you define how the agency defines valid
    existing rights? Because a lot of different language has been
    used over the past two years on what specifically is not
    subject to withdrawal, and I know that all of us are concerned
    about the ever-changing landscape by the Federal Government.
    Can you give me a definition?
        Mr. Abbey. Well, valid existing rights is based upon rights
    that are possessed under the 1872 Mining Law that exists for a
    subject mining claim. What this means is if there is a
    discovery, a verification of discovery at the time of the
    withdrawal and the existence of a valuable mineral deposit,
    then that right will be honored.
        Dr. Gosar. So at what timeframe does something have to be
    defined as a valid existing right?
        Mr. Abbey. It would have to be a discovery, and that
    discovery would have to have the existence of a valuable
    mineral deposit at the time of the withdrawal. Now a validity
    exam would not be performed until we received a mining plan of
    operation from a proponent. At that point in time, we would
    move forward with the validity examination.
        Dr. Gosar. So that would be at the final decision?
        Mr. Abbey. It would result in a final decision, whether or
    not there was valid existing rights.
        Dr. Gosar. But that could be determined at that final
    decision.
        Mr. Abbey. Once a determination was made, that would be a
    final decision.
        Dr. Gosar. But are we talking--at the release of the final
    environmental impact study--two years ago, when the temporary
    withdrawal was first announced--so all of these would follow
    through?
        Mr. Abbey. The existing mines? We have over 3,000 mining
    claims.
        Dr. Gosar. Oh, I understand. I am more worried about----
        Mr. Abbey. About a million acres.
        Dr. Gosar. I am worried about this aspect because it seems
    like we are forever changing the mantra of how we define that.
    So it is not subject to the final discussion or the final
    claim. It is just about the discovery of that mining ore, that
    ore, and coming to a final decision.
        Mr. Abbey. At the point in time that we conducted a
    validity exam, we would look at those two criteria: was there a
    discovery at the time of the withdrawal and whether or not it
    was an economic recovery or discovery.
        Dr. Gosar. So out of these 11 sites the Department claims
    could come to fruition are deemed valid existing rights by the
    Department today? Would all 11 be deemed that?
        Mr. Abbey. No. No. This is just a projection.
        Dr. Gosar. Just a projection. Where does the Department get
    this 11 number?
        Mr. Abbey. It would be based upon historic mining, it would
    be based upon our knowledge of various claims. It would be
    based upon information that has been shared with us by the
    companies themselves. But we have not conducted a formal
    validity exam of any proposal that are likely to come forth.
        Dr. Gosar. Are you aware of the FEIS proposal that there
    were 30 proposed mine sites?
        Mr. Abbey. We are aware in the EIS that if there is not a
    full withdrawal that we project up to 30 mines would be
    developed.
        Dr. Gosar. So now we are moving this number again. The BLM
    has regulations addressing when to require a valid existing
    rights determination for lands that have been segregated or
    withdrawn on, 43 C.F.R. 3809-100, right?
        Mr. Abbey. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar. Specifically, the law states that th BLM can
    allow exploratory operations in order to collect information
    from a mineral exploration point if such a report was not
    completed before the withdrawal goes into effect, but a claim
    was put in. Why wouldn't all 30 of these potential mines be
    subject to the special provisions under Federal code?
        Mr. Abbey. Because we have not conducted a valid existing
    right determination of any of those claims. What we have
    projected in the final EIS or even in the draft EIS is that if
    there is no withdrawal that there would likely be up to 30
    mines to be developed in this area. That is not based upon a
    recognition of valid, existing rights. That is based upon what
    we project to occur in the next 20 years. They could be based
    upon new mining claims being filed out there.
        Dr. Gosar. But isn't it existing based upon what we defined
    in the determination that these are existing mining claims? The
    30, not 11, the 30.
        Mr. Abbey. Well, what we do know, Congressman, is that
    there are over 3,000 mining claims today in this area.
        Dr. Gosar. But in this area that we are talking about and
    which this bill is talking about, there are 30 claims, not 11.
        Mr. Abbey. In this area that the bill is talking about,
    there are over 3,000 mining claims.
        Dr. Gosar. What we are talking about in regards to this
    determination is 30, not 11, in this withdrawal.
        Mr. Abbey. What we are talking about in our analysis is
    that we project based upon valid existing rights that there
    would likely be 11 mines developed even with a full withdrawal.
        Dr. Gosar. Thirty potential though.
        Mr. Abbey. The 30 represents the likelihood of 30 mines
    being developed if the withdrawal was not in effect.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. There will be time for additional
    questions here from everybody. Let me take my chance to do a
    few here. Supervisor Johnson, if I could deign to ask questions
    from somebody else here, what have the local BLM officials said
    about this proposed withdrawal?
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, we were told at one of our
    meetings of the Arizona-Utah Coalition by Scott Florence--he is
    the Arizona Strip district manager--that the regular resource
    planning process basically wasn't followed. What that means is
    at the lower level, when they see a problem or they have a
    concern, they work it from the bottom up.
        This came from Secretary Salazar from the top down. So I am
    not aware that Secretary Salazar has ever set foot on our land,
    so it must have come as a vision.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. So there was some disconnect between what
    those on the ground are saying with what those here in
    Washington are saying in this, right?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. Your slides were very interesting. What is the
    conclusion that you made from the slides about tourism in the
    Grand Canyon when mining was its peak in the eighties?
        Mr. Johnson. That they both grew at the same time. When
    mining was at its peak, the tourism was at its peak. They go
    hand in hand.
        Mr. Bishop. So these horrible mines are not driving people
    away out of fear of glowing in the dark from the Grand Canyon.
        Mr. Johnson. No, not at all. And I think they actually
    enhance it because we have more people there who actually can
    go to the Grand Canyon and enjoy it.
        Mr. Bishop. They are apparently not driving away your
    constituency either at the same time?
        Mr. Johnson. No, no. The only thing driving away our
    constituency is lack of jobs, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Dr. Wenrich, you did a couple of hypothetical
    surveys, i.e., as to a truck accident. And I appreciate your
    comments that this stuff is not going to be kept onsite, so
    obviously some of the considerations that were being made in
    the EIS are making assumptions that are not practical in
    reality. But you said that when you found there would be no
    significant increase in uranium in the Colorado River if a
    couple of truckloads were to actually be dumped in the river,
    how many truckloads of ore would it take to see an elevation in
    contamination that goes above EPA's safe standards?
        Dr. Wenrich. Well, the EPA safe standard is 30 parts per
    billion. To get the level up to 32 parts per billion, it would
    take 8,000 trucks each hauling 66,000 pounds of ore.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. I am sure we can find that many drunk truck
    drivers to actually accomplish that for you. Director Abbey in
    his statement said that the EPA standards found levels of
    uranium in 15 springs and five wells in his EIS that are higher
    than the EPA standard. First of all, is that a logical
    justification, and is that a justification for closing uranium
    mining?
        Dr. Wenrich. Well, first of all, he said that they were
    from natural sources or from mines, and I don't know of any
    more than one that could even possibly be related to mines.
    Most of them are from the natural uranium erosion in the Grand
    Canyon. And I am actually quite terrified that we would mix
    mining with natural erosion. I am not sure I understand why we
    would penalize the mining industry because of natural erosion.
    In fact, you could even make the statement that the mining
    industry would remove some of the uranium that is getting into
    the system naturally.
        Mr. Bishop. The uranium mines could be presented. Is there
    enough rainfall that takes place on the strip to assume that it
    could actually erode down to that area and run it into the
    Colorado River or the Grand Canyon?
        Dr. Wenrich. Well, if a mining company was sloppy with
    their ore piles, it could be a problem, but they haven't been.
    There was one very, very minor mishap, but the ore didn't go
    anywhere, and it was all picked back up within a few feet. That
    was a flash flood. For the most part, the groundwater table is
    down 2,000 feet, and the ore is well above that. And there has
    been really no evidence of any contamination into the water
    system. There have been all kinds of studies done subsequent to
    the mining, and the mines that were done in the 1980s and early
    1990s, you can't even find where the mines used to be.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That seems consistent with the
    testimony we have had at other hearings on this particular
    issue at the same time.
        Mr. Trautwein, I am troubled by your testimony. While it is
    technically correct, it is technically correct in a way that
    gives me some kind of concern or heartburn at the same time.
    For example, when in your written testimony you say that the
    designation of the two large national monuments proclaimed and
    implicitly if not explicitly ratified by Congress, all without
    any objection, that the congressional intent of 1984 had been
    abused. That is technically correct.
        It is also an inaccurate statement at the same time because
    that is not necessarily what people were saying about it at the
    time. It is true that the Act itself did not have some of the
    prohibitions you mentioned or talk about them. But the report
    did and the agreement did. I find it troubling when Senator
    McCain, former Senator DeConcini, Senator Hatch all come here
    and have a different opinion of what was happening at the time
    than you have given and so does the BLM district director who
    was there at the time.
        In his statements, after some 27 years, it seems that those
    negotiations and agreements have been forgotten. A withdrawal
    from the mining entry is in direct conflict with the good-faith
    efforts put forth by the stakeholders and a mockery of the
    stakeholders' negotiation process.
        Now what you said is technically accurate, but this is the
    spirit of what happened at that particular time. Now, Mr.
    Abbey, this is one of the things for which we have difficulty.
    If you recall in the 30 seconds that I am going to lose because
    I can't say this and then ask you a question, so I am going to
    quit and come back to you in the next round. Be ready for me.
        Mr. Grijalva, do you have other questions?
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Trautwein, in the proposed withdrawal that the
    Administration put forth designating the area as wilderness, is
    there a difference between wilderness and a simple withdrawal
    from mining? Because I think we are getting----
        Mr. Trautwein. Well, they are totally not the same thing.
    As I said, wilderness covers many, many activities. The
    withdrawal order covers this single activity. To call this a
    wilderness, a de facto wilderness, is tantamount to saying that
    anytime the Secretary or the agency chose to close a road for
    public safety reasons or declined to open a road, anytime it
    declined to issue an oil and gas or coal lease, anytime it
    refused to site a solar power plant or a wind farm on multiple
    use lands that he was turning those lands into de facto
    wilderness when they are not comparable at all.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Director Abbey?
        Mr. Abbey. Yes.
        Mr. Grijalva. My understanding, 300,000-plus public
    comments were submitted to the draft environmental impact
    statement that your agency prepared. Are you able to tell the
    Committee what percent of the comments were in favor of the
    full million acre, or are we at that point yet?
        Mr. Abbey. Yes. Well over 90 percent of the comments we
    received were favorable of the entire withdrawal.
        Mr. Grijalva. And in terms of the amount of public
    comments, how would you categorize them compared to other
    processes that----
        Mr. Abbey. A little higher than most, even though many of
    our issues today are becoming more and more controversial. The
    fact is that we received close to 380,000 submissions during
    scoping as well as the public review process. It is not just
    the numbers that we received. It was the substance of the
    responses that we received and the data and the information
    that they provided and the passion that they had relative to
    protecting these areas.
        Mr. Grijalva. And if you could briefly describe the nature
    of the comments that you received from tribal governments,
    native peoples during your consultations.
        Mr. Abbey. Well, the tribes who did comment, and there were
    many, were unwavering in their support for the full withdrawal
    right from the beginning. When the issue was first surfaced
    during scoping, the tribes that participated, and we had
    actually two tribes serve as cooperating agencies as part of
    the planning process, but all of the tribes were very
    supportive of a full withdrawal to protect their heritage and
    to protect the areas that they most value.
        Mr. Grijalva. And let me thank you and your agency for the
    government-to-government consultations you have had with the
    various tribal governments. It is a practice that I would hope
    more agencies undertook here. But I appreciate that. I know the
    tribal government does as well.
        Ms. Wenrich, let me ask you a couple questions. Do you
    stand to benefit personally if the Department's proposed
    withdrawal is terminated? In other words, would you benefit
    financially if the bill you are testifying on were enacted and
    became law?
        Dr. Wenrich. Just like everybody in northern Arizona, I
    stand to benefit from having a job. But if you are thinking
    that that is going to affect my testimony, I might point out to
    you that I am a research scientist with a Ph.D. I have done
    almost all of this research prior to this.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. But I am asking if--well, Mr. Chairman,
    let me just submit for the record copies of a Securities and
    Exchange Commission filing by American Energy Fields,
    Incorporated that states that the witness will receive at least
    $225,000 for selling 61 uranium claims that she currently owns
    in northern Arizona once, once the withdrawal is terminated. Is
    that SEC filing correct, Ms. Wenrich?
        Dr. Wenrich. I think you need to give me the courtesy of
    explaining the fact----
        Mr. Grijalva. The courtesy is all yours.
        Dr. Wenrich.--that everything that I have done in this
    research was prior to me owning those claims that I started two
    years ago. All research is based on previous work that was done
    long prior to this when I was a government scientist and when I
    worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a
    scientist, I believe in giving all the facts, and I challenge
    you to find where my facts are erroneous. So I think whatever
    my career opportunities are, it is irrelevant to what I am
    presenting here.
        Mr. Grijalva. The question, is the filing correct or not?
        Dr. Wenrich. I just said it was correct.
        Mr. Grijalva. It was?
        Dr. Wenrich. Yes, it is correct.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Out of time, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Gosar.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I would like to officially--I know
    that before I got here, we had a statement presented by Mr.
    Grijalva that is incorrect. I want to submit for the record a
    letter from the CAP Board dated May 3, 2011. It officially
    talks about the CAP water has not officially taken any stance
    on regards to Mr. Franks' bill. But in their letter they submit
    that clearly states that they are not opposed but just
    encourage compliance with environmental law.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. I will allow for the separate filing.
        [The letter from the CAP Board follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Abbey, let us go back here to our previous
    discussion.
        Mr. Abbey. Please. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar. OK? If the withdrawal is finalized to date,
    right now----
        Mr. Abbey. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar.--how many claims are defined as to have valid
    existing rights?
        Mr. Abbey. I could not give you that answer because we have
    not conducted validity exams.
        Dr. Gosar. So then, you know, in regards to if this
    withdrawal is necessary, wouldn't all of this analysis be done,
    all compliance with Federal land development be done with or
    without the withdrawal?
        Mr. Abbey. The number of mines that would exist under a
    withdrawal versus without a withdrawal would be different.
        Dr. Gosar. But according to this, as of today, it should be
    30 based upon what is defined in this law, what we have cited
    earlier on 3809-100. There should be 30. If I am reading this
    right, it should be 30 as defined.
        Mr. Abbey. No. Congressman, again, we are not in the
    position of telling you exactly how many valid existing rights
    exist within the 3,300 mining claims that are out there today.
        Dr. Gosar. So let me ask you this. At what point can the
    agency deem these invalid in your administration or any other
    administration in the future? Are we talking about 20 years
    from now? Can they no longer utilize the special provisions to
    this?
        Mr. Abbey. No. What we would normally do is wait until we
    receive a specific proposal before conducting a validity exam.
    Now this is the Bureau of Land Management. We would wait for a
    mining plan of operation to come forward, and at that point in
    time, if the area was withdrawn, we would conduct a validity
    exam.
        Dr. Gosar. OK. Ms. Wagner, isn't most of the problems with
    the Native Americans actually indicated by the government's
    role in uranium mining?
        Ms. Wagner. To me or to Ms. Wenrich?
        Dr. Gosar. Wait a minute. I am sorry. Isn't the Native
    Americans' problem with uranium mining predominantly based upon
    what has happened--I mean Karen, I am sorry--problems with
    government mining of uranium?
        Dr. Wenrich. Yes, that is correct. Unfortunately we are
    mixing apples and oranges. The modern mining is so different
    from what was done in the 1950s, and they are basing all of
    their emotion on what was left over in the 1950s when nobody
    thought to clean up piles of tailings and waste rock. Nobody
    ventilated the mines and nobody worried about miners who smoked
    being irradiated 10 times more than somebody who didn't smoke.
    So, yes, that is correct. All of this is based on old mining.
        Dr. Gosar. And I know a lot of this. I mean, I am citing
    October 20, 2011, Thursday, The Daily Sun out of Flagstaff
    talks about EPA wraps up uranium mine cleanup on the Navajo
    Nation. And that is not really true, is it? We got lots more
    problems because of government mines, don't we?
        Dr. Wenrich. There are still some, but they have done a
    pretty good job of cleaning most of it up. But there are still
    some.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, what about the Tuba City Mine, the dump
    site?
        Dr. Wenrich. I think most of that has been pretty well
    cleaned up because as I drove by about a year ago, it was very
    different than it had been 10 years ago.
        Dr. Gosar. Well, not really.
        Dr. Wenrich. Oh, OK.
        Dr. Gosar. We have a problem, OK? This is overseen by the
    Department of the Interior, and we have a huge plume that is
    moving into water supplies all the way around that dump,
    implicating not only Tuba City but the Hopi Tribe as well. But
    once again, this was under the government, and so there is a
    very different type of a rules scenario and process than was
    before.
        Dr. Wenrich. I might point one thing out though. In that
    area, the uranium is right at the surface in a chimney
    formation, and it is very difficult to determine what is
    naturally occurring and getting into the water system from what
    is left over from the old mining. Granted, there is enormous
    contamination from the old 1950s mining and mill site.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chair, just for the record, a petition where
    187 Navajos are opposed to withdrawal for economic benefits for
    the record as well.
        [The petition submitted by Dr. Gosar has been retained in
    the Committee's official files:]
        Dr. Gosar. You know, and that is our biggest problem is we
    are finding a source of problems is the Federal Government
    itself, and there is no bigger critic than my family of uranium
    mining in the past from western Wyoming. But what we have to
    deal is facts, not hearsay, not scare tactics but the facts.
    And I am seeing it very clouded and misrepresented. So my time
    is up, and I thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. I think the gentleman should add to it that
    these were private mines that were operated during that period
    of time in the fifties and that the operators abandoned the
    mines and the Federal Government was left to clean it up. And
    whether the cleanup is complete or not or whether it was done
    as well as it should have been done is a question, but again,
    it was private mines. My understanding is there are some 3,000
    claims, mining claims, in the area that is going to be
    withdrawn. Is that correct?
        Mr. Abbey. That is correct.
        Mr. Garamendi. OK. And the analysis made by the Bureau of
    Land Management is that of those 3,000 there is a probability
    that some 11 would, could prove to be actual mines, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Abbey. That is correct.
        Mr. Garamendi. Now the process of proving up a claim is
    quite different than filing a claim, is that correct?
        Mr. Abbey. That is correct.
        Mr. Garamendi. So what we are talking about here is the
    3,000 claims have been filed. It is up to the claimant to then
    prove that an actual mine can exist, and that does require that
    there be a mining plan and the various environmental things go
    forward. And based upon the analysis done by the Department, by
    the Bureau, is that of the 3,000, perhaps 11 would prove to be
    actual mines. Is that correct?
        Mr. Abbey. That is the projection that we made based upon
    an assessment.
        Mr. Garamendi. But the other 2,989 could also prove to be
    mines, is that correct?
        Mr. Abbey. We would conduct a validity exam to determine
    whether or not they had valid existing rights.
        Mr. Garamendi. But it is up to the claimant to pursue it,
    correct?
        Mr. Abbey. It would be up to the claimant to pursue it.
        Mr. Garamendi. OK. So there is some potential for an
    enormous number of mines here, but the odds are there is likely
    to be only 11. That is two and a half times more than exists
    today I think by rough mathematics. So we are talking about
    here an area that is to be withdrawn that nonetheless has some
    3,000 existing claims on it, unproven but existing claims. So
    what is the problem here? What is the problem? I think the
    problem is one of politics and perception rather than reality.
        The reality is that a good deal of mining could take place
    in these areas that are going to be withdrawn, and therefore,
    we are down to a perception problem. Let us beat up the Bureau
    of Land Management and the Secretary because that seems to be a
    pretty good sport now here in this capital when in reality
    there is the potential already existing in this area of a whole
    lot of mining to go on.
        Whether it should or should not we can debate. But the fact
    is that the withdrawal does not change the reality on the
    ground that there are 3,000 existing claims that the claimant
    could if they chose to prove up and get a mine underway. Now
    there are environmental issues and there are mining laws and
    all the rest that need to be done.
        And by the way, what does the Federal Government get out of
    this? Is there a royalty? No, there is not a royalty. It is
    our, our, the American public's, uranium. And the American
    public, operating through the Secretary, has decided no more
    claims. There are already 3,000, no more needed. Thank you.
    Enough already. And by the way, the U.S. taxpayer has been left
    to clean up the old mines in this area. We don't need anymore.
    The withdrawal is appropriate. The Secretary will make a final
    decision when the time comes. This bill is totally
    inappropriate. I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me engage I guess in politics
    for a second here. The 3,000 mine claims that are still out
    there, Dr. Wenrich, what would have to be the condition before
    any of those could actually be identified or move forward?
        Dr. Wenrich. Thank you for the opportunity. I think there
    is a lot of misunderstanding here over the mining law and the
    process. First of all, as Mr. Abbey has said, each holder of
    the claims has to prove that they have valid uranium on those
    claims. It is impossible for 95 percent of those claims to
    prove that because they have been denied the opportunity to
    drill on those claims and make a discovery. Without a
    discovery, they cannot fulfill the Bureau of Land Management's
    validation of these claims. And so it is very misleading to say
    that.
        So basically every one of the claim holders out there is
    going to lose its money. Also to say that the Federal
    Government gets nothing is erroneous. Just ask me every time I
    have to write a check for those claims I have been accused of
    having to the Bureau of Land Management. It is significant. We
    pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintenance fees.
        Mr. Bishop. Let me see if I can restate that in words that
    I understand by myself.
        Dr. Wenrich. I am sorry. OK.
        Mr. Bishop. It simply means that those 3,000 claims could
    have been done were they allowed to drill in there, produce the
    ore, make the statement, all of which have been precluded by
    the Secretary's withdrawal.
        Dr. Wenrich. Correct.
        Mr. Bishop. So, if they had done that before 2009, it would
    be possible to do that. That is why we are going to end up with
    around 11 mines----
        Dr. Wenrich. Exactly.
        Mr. Bishop.--because those are the only ones that have
    actually done that before 2009 when Secretary Salazar made his
    very precipitous action. Ms. Wenrich, I have one last question
    to you, and I think it is only fair to ask you this. Do you
    stand by the data you have submitted to this group?
        Dr. Wenrich. I absolutely do. And whether I hold any mining
    claims that I have had since only two years has absolutely no
    bearing on all the research and everything I have stated in
    here. I would like to think that I have the utmost of
    scientific integrity.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, did the EIS reveal
    damage, direct damage, substantiated damage to the Grand Canyon
    watershed as a result from uranium mining?
        Mr. Abbey. The draft EIS stated that there was incomplete
    and unavailable information that added uncertainty to the
    analysis and cited potential risk of mining.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I appreciate that. That is one
    of the things that worries us on why we are proceeding to make
    some final statements with, you know, incomplete data at that
    particular point. I do have some concern though. You know, if
    the Department is willing to allow 11 mines to go forward with
    the great risk that this would bring to the Grand Canyon and to
    all the people in Los Angeles and Las Vegas who would be
    drinking the water, where is the humanity if you actually are
    going to allow 11 mines to go forward?
        Mr. Abbey. It is based upon the rights that were conveyed
    to miners by the 1872 Mining Law.
        Mr. Bishop. But those 11 mines won't destroy people and
    destroy all the visitors that are going to come to the Grand
    Canyon?
        Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, the question that is before the
    Secretary at this point in time is not whether to stop cautious
    and moderate uranium development but whether to allow
    unprecedented levels of uranium mining in this area without
    knowing the full consequences of that action.
        Mr. Bishop. And your data so far is not close to that. But
    I have to say this. And you notice I was maybe saying something
    with sarcasm, which I am not known to do. But if you are
    willing to go forward with 11 mines, that says something about
    the overall concept that is going along here and some of the
    rhetoric that is taking place in this entire debate, in the
    entire debate.
        Now does anyone happen to know how much uranium we import
    into this country? If you don't, that is not unacceptable. I
    think the next panel will go into that in some detail. Does
    anyone happen to know that?
        Mr. Johnson. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we import 90 percent
    of it.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. And yet somebody testified that 40 percent
    of all our resources are actually here in this particular area
    in the United States.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. And also, because of the high grade,
    it will make other uranium sites around the United States
    useful again as far as mining.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. I appreciate all of you, and I am
    ready to move on. But, Mr. Abbey, I have to ask you three last
    questions.
        Mr. Abbey. Please.
        Mr. Bishop. And I know you are going to be ready for these.
    Is the BLM doing any work on potential Antiquities Act
    designations?
        Mr. Abbey. No.
        Mr. Bishop. Has the Secretary or anyone in the Department
    asked BLM for input on any potential designations?
        Mr. Abbey. Under the Antiquities Act?
        Mr. Bishop. Yes.
        Mr. Abbey. No.
        Mr. Bishop. OK.
        Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, could I make one statement though?
        Mr. Bishop. I have 37 seconds. Go for it.
        Mr. Abbey. In response to an allegation that was raised.
    The integrity of the BLM's planning process and NEPA analysis
    has not been jeopardized. I think where the local field
    manager, in this case a district manager, made a statement is
    that the decision whether or not to withdraw this area is a
    decision of the Secretary of the Interior. It is not his
    decision to make.
        When the Secretary selected the preferred alternative as
    the full withdrawal, it was based upon a recommendation that
    came from me, from the Director of the National Parks Service,
    from the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and the Director of
    the U.S. Geological Survey. That is normal when it is a
    secretarial decision and not a decision to be made by the
    district manager.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Abbey, I will conclude here. And I don't
    have any--do you have any other questions before I ramble on
    here, if we are ready--do you have any for these witnesses
    before--let me just close this panel out then and make this
    last rambling comment.
        It is frustrating to me that the preferred alternative from
    the Interior Department matches the original withdrawal
    concept, especially based on the data that has been presented
    by Interior versus the data that has been presented by other
    groups so far.
        Mr. Abbey, there was a time when you and the Secretary,
    Representative Hastings, Representative Simpson and I had some
    private conversations. And I said that there were some
    frustrations we felt in moving forward with wildlands, which
    was the topic at that point, because we did not trust what
    would happen in the future. You made accommodations with that
    and I want to publicly acknowledge that, and I appreciate those
    accommodations. Even though you didn't withdraw the order, I
    still trust your accommodations on that.
        This is the same kind of situation in which a prior
    Congress, the Members sat down and they made accommodations.
    Maybe not technically within the bill, but the accommodations
    were clearly there. And all those who were involved in it
    understood it. And now once again we are going back on those
    accommodations, which means looking forward to the future, I
    hope you can understand why some of us want to always insist
    there is hard-release language everywhere because we don't have
    a whole lot of faith in what can happen in the future. And this
    is a classic example of that.
        Anyway, I appreciate it. Now, Mr. Abbey, Ms. Wagner, if you
    would like to stay for the other panel, you are welcome to. If
    you don't want to, you are welcome to do whatever you want to
    do at this stage. I would even invite you up on the dais
    because no one else has accepted that offer from me so far. We
    will see what happens. But I appreciate that.
        With that, this panel is excused with expression of
    gratitude for your willingness to come here and speak to us. I
    would like to now invite another panel. And once again,
    Director Abbey and Ms. Wagner, if you would like to stay, you
    are welcome to. If you don't, that is your choice.
        I would like to invite Mr. Harold Roberts, who is the
    Executive Vice President of Denison Mines; Mr. Richard Myers,
    who is Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute; and Mr.
    Stephen Verkamp, who is the President of Verkamp's,
    Incorporated. If they would come and join us.
        Gentlemen, we appreciate you being here. I think you heard
    the drill on every other panel before. You still know the bit.
    Your written record is already--oh, good grief. Your written
    statement is already in the record. And this is the oral
    portion to it, five minutes before you, green go, yellow get
    ready to stop, please stop at red if possible. And with that,
    we would like to turn first to Mr. Roberts from the Denison
    Mines for your comments to the Committee if you would, please.

                     STATEMENT OF HAROLD ROBERTS,
                EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, DENISON MINES

        Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Grijalva, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak to the Committee today. Again, my name is
    Harold R. Roberts. I am Executive Vice President, U.S.
    Operations, for Denison Mines USA Corp.
        Denison is a publicly traded company with uranium recovery
    operations in the Western U.S. as well as properties in Canada,
    Mongolia and Zambia. Our holdings in the U.S. include three
    operating uranium mines in Utah, two operating mines in
    northern Arizona and the only operating uranium mill in the
    U.S., located in southeastern Utah. We currently directly
    employ over 350 people in our U.S. mining and milling
    operations.
        I am here today to voice our support for H.R. 3155, the
    Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, and to express
    our concerns about the negative impact from the Department of
    the Interior's plan to withdraw from mineral entry over 1
    million acres in northern Arizona. This action will have long-
    lasting, negative effects on our company, other exploration and
    mining companies and most importantly will negatively impact
    the long-time residents and citizens of the Arizona Strip.
        On the Arizona Strip, Denison currently employs 60 people
    earning from $35,000 to $115,000 per year plus benefits. The
    company also hires an additional 15 subcontractors. In addition
    to our two operating mines on the Arizona Strip, the company
    has plans to open mines on three additional ore deposits in the
    next two years. While the withdrawal will not affect the
    currently operating mines, it will potentially jeopardize the
    plans for the three additional ore deposits controlled by
    Denison and possibly takes those property from us and
    eliminates the future jobs.
        The two current mines in the Arizona Strip will be mined
    out in one to three years, and the new mines are critical to
    maintaining and growing the current workforce. The uranium
    deposits in northern Arizona called breccia pipes are unique in
    that the ore grades are some of the highest in the U.S. The
    surface disturbance for a fully developed mine is relatively
    small, less than 20 acres or about the size of a WalMart
    parking lot. The mines are generally dry, and the timespan from
    development through full reclamation is less than six to eight
    years.
        Once fully mined out, the reclaimed sites exhibit no
    evidence of past activity and are returned to the original land
    use. The Bureau of Land Management's own draft environmental
    impact statement on the withdrawal stated that there is no
    contamination of the Colorado River watershed, and that quote
    is in my testimony. I won't repeat it here. It has been talked
    about enough today already. Denison acquired the Arizona mines
    from my former employer, Energy Fields Nuclear, who discovered,
    permitted, operated and successfully reclaimed five breccia
    pipe mines in northern Arizona in the 1980s and early nineties.
        The reclaimed sites demonstrate that these deposits can be
    developed with little or no impact to the environment while
    still providing high-paying jobs to local and state economies
    in Arizona and Utah. The current perception that uranium mining
    is detrimental to the environment of northern Arizona is not
    supported by the history of similar operations. In the 1980s,
    at the time Energy Fields was operating on the Arizona Strip,
    similar cries for protection of the area were heard.
        Working with environmental groups and Federal and State
    legislators, a landmark compromise between the environmental
    and mining communities resulted in the Arizona Wilderness Act
    of 1984. This also added more than a million acres of land to
    the national wilderness preservation system and provided that
    mining and grazing be allowed in those areas released for
    multiple use and not designated as wilderness if conducted in a
    responsible and sustainable manner.
        The Act specifically directed that nearly half a million
    acres of Bureau of Land Management lands and 50,000 acres of
    Forest Service lands be released from wilderness study area
    status with the understanding and intention that uranium mining
    would be allowed on the Arizona Strip and in the Kaibab
    National Forest.
        Since the passage of the Act, uranium mining activities in
    northern Arizona have a proven track record of production and
    reclamation that has not impacted the Grand Canyon. Rather than
    respect a longstanding and carefully crafted compromise agreed
    to by all parties, the current Administration would rather
    march forward with their goal of locking up even more Federal
    lands to responsible authorized multiple use in the West.
        The Administration is effectively eliminating high-paying
    local jobs instead of stimulating job growth in the local
    depressed economy of northern Arizona and southern Utah. The
    proponents of the Arizona Strip withdrawal talk of stopping
    uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. This is a convenient, self-
    serving distortion of the truth. There currently is no mining
    in the Grand Canyon, nor are there plans for future mining in
    the Grand Canyon National Park.
        The ore from Denison's Arizona Strip mines is shipped for
    processing to the White Mesa Mill located near Blanding, Utah.
    The mill currently employs 150 people, approximately 60 percent
    of whom are Native American. Ore from the Arizona Strip mines
    currently supplies approximately 25 percent of the conventional
    ore feed to the mill and because of the high grade provides
    approximately 45 percent of the uranium production. Loss of
    this production will have a significant impact on the White
    Mesa Mill operations. In the long-term, Denison is counting on
    our Arizona Strip production as well as other companies' future
    mines on the Strip to continue to provide a significant volume
    of feed to the White Mesa Mill.
        The proponents of the withdrawal promote the erroneous
    theory that the withdrawal will not impact the long-term
    exploration potential of the area. This could not be further
    from the truth. The withdrawal area was carefully chosen by the
    Department of the Interior and environmental groups to
    encompass all of the proven breccia pipe uranium deposits and
    to cover all of the area of the highest known occurrences of
    mineralized braccia pipes. The withdrawal area covers the
    largest percentage of mining claims in the region, which is not
    surprising in that the mining companies only stake claims in
    areas of highest potential.
        Mr. Bishop. Can I ask you to quickly summarize?
        Mr. Roberts. As a reasonable person, I find it incredible
    that the Secretary of the Interior would announce earlier this
    year that the final environmental impact statement would have
    the full withdrawal area as the preferred alternative before
    the final document was published and without regard to any of
    the no-impact findings on the historical mining activities.
        The Secretary has essentially made his decision on the
    withdrawal that day. As an individual taxpayer and businessman,
    I also find it incredible that the Secretary and this
    Administration would spend possibly millions of dollars on an
    environmental impact statement and then totally ignore its
    findings and the hard work put forth by the employees of the
    Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey. This
    action results in a total waste of taxpayer dollars and is an
    outright slap in the face to those hardworking employees.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]

    Statement of Harold R. Roberts, Executive Vice President, Denison Mines
     (USA) Corp., Concerning H.R. 3155, Northern Arizona Mining Continuity
                                  Act of 2011

        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak to the Committee today. My name is Harold R.
    Roberts. I am Executive Vice President, U.S. Operations for Denison
    Mines (USA) Corp. Denison is a publicly traded company with uranium
    recovery operations in the western U.S., as well as properties in
    Canada, Mongolia, and Zambia. Our holdings in the U.S. include three
    operating uranium mines in Utah, two operating mines in northern
    Arizona, and the only operating uranium mill in the U.S., located in
    southeastern Utah. We currently directly employ over 350 people in our
    U.S. mining and milling operations. I am here today to voice our
    support for H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
    2011 and to express our concerns about the negative impact from the
    Department of Interior's plan to withdraw from mineral entry over one
    million acres in northern Arizona. This action will have long lasting
    negative effects on our company, other exploration and mining
    companies, and most importantly will negatively impact the long time
    residents and citizens of the Arizona Strip.
        On the Arizona Strip, Denison currently employs 60 people, earning
    from $35,000 to $115,000 per year, plus benefits. The Company also
    hires an additional 15 subcontractors. In addition to our two operating
    mines, the company has plans to open mines on three additional ore
    deposits in the next two years. While the withdrawal will not affect
    the currently operating mines, it potentially jeopardizes plans for the
    three additional ore deposits controlled by Denison, and possibly takes
    those properties from us and eliminates future jobs. The two current
    mines will be mined out in one to three years, and the new mines are
    critical to maintaining and growing the current work force.
        The uranium deposits in northern Arizona, called breccia pipes, are
    unique in that the ore grades are some of the highest in the U.S., the
    surface disturbance for a fully developed mine is relatively small,
    less than 20 acres, the mines are generally dry, and the time span from
    development through full reclamation is less than six to eight years.
    Once fully mined out, the reclaimed sites exhibit no evidence of past
    activity and are returned to the original land use. In fact, the Bureau
    of Land Management's own Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
    withdrawal stated that there is no contamination of the Colorado River
    watershed from uranium mining, stating:
        ``It is also important to recognize that,. . .. there is currently
    no conclusive evidence from well and spring sampling data that (modern)
    breccia pipe uranium operations in the north Parcel have impacted the
    chemical quality of groundwater in the regional R-aquifer.''
        Denison acquired the Arizona mines from my former employer, Energy
    Fuels Nuclear, who discovered, permitted, operated, and successfully
    reclaimed five breccia pipe mines in northern Arizona in the 1980s and
    early 1990s. The reclaimed mine sites demonstrate that these deposits
    can be developed with little or no impact to the environment, while
    still providing high paying jobs to the local and state economies in
    Arizona and Utah. The current perception that uranium mining cannot be
    conducted with little or no impact to the environment of northern
    Arizona is not supported by the history of similar operations. In the
    1980s, at the time Energy Fuels was operating on the Arizona Strip,
    similar cries for protection of the area were heard. Working with
    environmental groups and federal and state legislators, a landmark
    compromise between the environmental and mining communities resulted in
    legislation designating nearly 300,000 acres of Bureau of Land
    Management lands and more than 800,000 acres of National Forest lands
    as wilderness. The Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-406) also
    added more than a million acres of land to the National Wilderness
    Preservation System, and provided that mining and grazing be allowed in
    those areas released for multiple use and not designated as wilderness,
    if conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner. The Act
    specifically directed that nearly half a million acres of Bureau of
    Land Management Lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands be
    released from wilderness study area status with the understanding and
    intention that uranium mining would be allowed on the Arizona Strip and
    in the Kaibab National Forest.
        Since the passage of the Act, uranium mining activities in Northern
    Arizona have a proven track record of production and reclamation that
    has not impacted the Grand Canyon. Rather than respect a longstanding
    and carefully crafted compromise agreed to by all parties, the current
    Administration would rather march forward with their goal of locking up
    even more federal lands to responsible, authorized multiple use in the
    West. The Administration is effectively eliminating high paying local
    jobs instead of stimulating job growth and the local depressed economy
    of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
        The proponents of the Arizona Strip withdrawal talk of stopping
    uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. This is a convenient, self serving
    distortion of the truth. There currently is no mining in the Grand
    Canyon, nor are there plans for future mining in the Grand Canyon
    National Park.
        The ore from Denison's Arizona Strip mines is shipped for
    processing to the White Mesa Mill located near Blanding, Utah. The Mill
    currently employees 150 people, approximately 60% of who are Native
    American. Ore from the Arizona Strip mines currently supplies
    approximately 25% of the conventional ore feed to the Mill, and because
    of the high grade, provides approximately 45% of the uranium
    production. Loss of this ore production will have a significant impact
    on the White Mesa Mill operations. In the long term Denison is counting
    on our Arizona Strip production, as well as other companies' future
    mines on the Arizona Strip to continue to provide a significant volume
    of the feed to the White Mesa Mill.
        The proponents of the withdrawal promote the erroneous theory that
    the withdrawal will not impact the long term exploration potential of
    the area. This could not be further from the truth. The withdrawal area
    was carefully chosen by the Department of Interior, and environmental
    groups, to encompass all of the proven breccia pipe uranium deposits,
    and to cover all of the area of the highest known occurrences of
    mineralized breccia pipes. The withdrawal area covers the largest
    percentage of mining claims in the region, which is not surprising in
    that the mining companies only staked claims in the areas of highest
    potential.
        As a reasonable person, I find it incredible that the Secretary of
    Interior would announce earlier this year that the Final Environmental
    Impact Statement would have the full withdrawal area as the preferred
    alternative, before the final document was published and without regard
    to any of the no impact findings on the historical mining activities by
    the Departments experts. This is clearly in conflict with the intent of
    the National Environmental Policy Act, and in conflict with the
    Department's procedures. I also find it curious that the Secretary
    would choose to ignore the wishes of his own BLM Resource Advisory
    Council whose members voted in August to overwhelmingly oppose the
    withdrawal. The withdrawal decision should be based on sound science
    and factual findings, not on the baseless claims of environmental
    groups, special interests and their vote-seeking elected officials.
        As a taxpayer and businessman, I also find it incredible that the
    Secretary and this Administration would spend possibly millions of
    dollars on an Environmental Impact Statement, and then totally ignore
    its findings and the hard work put forth by the employees of the Bureau
    of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey. This action results
    in a total waste of taxpayer dollars and is an outright slap in the
    face to those hard working employees.
        Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the
    Committee.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. I appreciate it. Mr. Myers.

         STATEMENT OF RICHARD MYERS, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY
     DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, AND SUPPLIER PROGRAMS, NUCLEAR ENERGY
                               INSTITUTE

        Mr. Myers. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    join you today. My name is Richard Myers. I am Vice President
    for Policy Development with the Nuclear Energy Institute.
        NEI is the U.S. nuclear energy industry's Washington-based
    policy organization. Just by way of context, America's 104
    nuclear power plants represent approximately 10 percent of our
    generating capacity. However, because they operate at such high
    levels of reliability and efficiency and safety, they produce
    20 percent of this country's electricity supply, and they
    represent nearly three-quarters of our emission-free, carbon-
    free generation.
        Worldwide, more than 150 new nuclear projects are in the
    licensing and advanced planning stage, with 65 reactors
    currently under construction. In the United States, the U.S.
    Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will
    rise by 24 percent by 2035, which means our Nation will need
    hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity to meet
    rising demand and replace aging infrastructure.
        Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can
    provide emission-free, affordable baseload electricity. As a
    result, our industry will see sustained growth in demand for
    materials, components, services and fuel. The forecasts
    generally agree that world uranium production by 2030 must rise
    by at least two-thirds from the current level and possibly
    double.
        NEI's primary goal is to ensure a diverse, competitive and
    reliable supply of uranium to bolster America's energy
    security. Given that uranium supply is a strategic priority, we
    fully support H.R. 3155 and the companion legislation in the
    Senate.
        U.S. nuclear plants consume approximately 50 million pounds
    of uranium a year. More than 90 percent of that comes from
    foreign sources. In 2010, nearly one-quarter of U.S. uranium
    requirements were met by down blended Russian high enriched
    uranium extracted from nuclear weapons. This weapons-grade
    material is converted into low-end rich uranium fuel. This
    arrangement expires in 2013, however, and will leave a gap in
    U.S. demand that must be filled from other supply sources.
        Additional U.S. uranium supply like the breccia pipe
    uranium deposits in northern Arizona are strategically
    important. The draft environmental impact statement on the
    northern Arizona land withdrawal generally found either no
    impact or minor temporary impacts that could be readily
    mitigated. This conclusion was validated by the Arizona States
    agencies responsible for environmental protection and
    management of State lands. Let me quote from the comments filed
    by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: ``The
    environmental risks posed by mining in Arizona have been
    successfully managed by both State and Federal environmental
    requirements. Modern technologies and permits ensure that new
    and reactivated mining claims can be safely worked with minimal
    environmental impact. A broad withdrawal of Federal lands is
    unwarranted. Rather than a blanket prohibition, proposed new
    mining facilities should continue to be evaluated on a case-by-
    case basis.''
        In our preliminary analysis of the Interior Department's
    final EIS, NEI has found nothing that would appear to justify
    an extreme action like the proposed withdrawal of one million
    acres. In both the draft EIS and the final EIS, we believe both
    documents are extremely well done and in fact make a compelling
    case for the so-called no-action alternative under which mine
    development would be allowed subject to the extensive Federal
    and State regulatory requirements that exist.
        A recent analysis by Tetra Tech, an environmental
    consulting firm, found that development of northern Arizona's
    uranium would have a major economic benefit, direct and
    indirect economic benefit of 29.4 billion during the period in
    which the mines would be in operation. Tax revenues from the
    mining companies could reach $2 billion in Federal and State
    corporate income taxes and $168 million in severance taxes to
    the State.
        The proposed land withdrawal is designed to protect against
    situations, circumstances and practices of the 1950s and 1960s
    when uranium was mined at the Federal Government's behest and
    on the Federal Government's account, principally for nuclear
    weapons purposes.
        Mr. Chairman, we could spend all afternoon sitting here
    listing practices and actions that were taken in the 1950s and
    1960s that were inappropriate and would never be taken in
    today's environment. Those situations in the uranium area,
    those situations and practices simply no longer exist.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]

    Statement submitted for the record by Richard J. Myers, Vice President,
      Policy Development, Planning and Supplier Programs, Nuclear Energy
                                   Institute

        Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. My name is Richard Myers. I am Vice
    President for Policy Development, Planning and Supplier Programs for
    the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI is responsible for establishing
    nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy
    industry, including regulatory, financial, technical and legislative
    issues. NEI's 375 members include all companies licensed to operate
    commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant
    designers, major architect/engineering firms, suppliers of fuel,
    materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved
    in the nuclear energy industry.
        America's 104 nuclear power plants represent approximately 10
    percent of our electricity generating capacity. However, because they
    operate at such high levels of reliability, safety and efficiency--they
    provide 20 percent of this country's electricity supply and nearly
    three-quarters of our emission-free generation. When ranked by
    performance over the last three years, the U.S. has the top three best-
    performing nuclear reactors in the world, seven of the top 10 and 16 of
    the top 20.
        Nuclear power plants operate in 31 states and produce substantial
    economic value in revenues from electricity sales--$40 billion to $50
    billion each year--and employ over 100,000 workers. Nuclear energy
    companies buy over $14 billion each year in materials, fuel and
    services from domestic suppliers in all 50 states.
        Worldwide, more than 150 new nuclear plant projects are in the
    licensing and advanced planning stage, with 65 reactors currently under
    construction. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that
    U.S. electricity demand will rise 24 percent by 2035, about one percent
    each year. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power plants
    to provide electricity to meet rising demand and replace aging
    infrastructure. Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can
    provide emission-free, affordable baseload electricity.
        As a result, our industry will see sustained growth in demand for
    materials, components, services and fuel. The World Nuclear
    Association's 2011 Market Report \1\ shows that world uranium
    production in the reference scenario must rise by at least two-thirds
    by 2030 from the current level and, under some circumstances, uranium
    supply must double. Bringing new uranium mines into production requires
    careful, time-consuming planning and permitting well in advance of
    exploration and production of uranium, and we cannot afford to remove
    high-quality reserves from consideration without good cause.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Global Nuclear Fuel Market: Supply and Demand 2011-2030,
    World Nuclear Association, September 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NEI's primary goal is to ensure a diverse, competitive and reliable
    supply of uranium to bolster America's energy security. Given that
    uranium supply is a strategic priority, NEI fully supports H.R. 3155,
    The Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, and S. 1690, the
    companion legislation in the Senate. The Administration has proposed
    that approximately one million acres of federal land in the Arizona
    Strip be withdrawn and unavailable for uranium mining for 20 years, and
    this legislation would block that withdrawal.
        My testimony today will cover two major areas:
              NEI's perspective on world uranium supply and demand,
            and the importance of U.S. uranium supply, including potential
            future supply from northern Arizona.
              NEI's preliminary assessment of the final
            environmental impact statement (EIS) on the northern Arizona
            land withdrawal, which was published last week by the Interior
            Department's Bureau of Land Management. We are unable to find
            any impacts identified in the final EIS that would justify the
            proposed withdrawal.
    Uranium Supply and Demand
        The uranium resources in the Arizona Strip represent some of the
    highest-grade ores located in the United States. In fact, according to
    the Interior Department's final EIS, these uranium resources are higher
    grade than 85 percent of the world's uranium resources. These resources
    could represent as much as 375 million pounds of uranium, approximately
    40 percent of U.S. reserves, twice current world demand and more than
    seven times current U.S. annual demand.
        A recent analysis by Tetra Tech, Inc., an environmental consulting
    firm, found that development of northern Arizona's uranium resources
    would have a significant economic benefit. Tetra Tech's analysis showed
    a direct and indirect economic benefit of $29.4 billion \2\, or an
    average annual impact of $700 million during the period in which mines
    would be in operation. Federal, state and local governments would
    receive tax revenues from the mining companies, including $2 billion in
    federal and state corporate income taxes, and $168 million in severance
    taxes to the state. Since the ore from northern Arizona mines would
    likely be taken to the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, for
    processing, trucking companies could expect revenues of approximately
    $1.6 billion during operation of the mines.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Economic Impact of Uranium Mining on Cocino and Mohave
    Counties, Arizona, Tetra Tech Inc., September 2009. The $29.4 billion
    economic impact consists of $18.9 billion in direct sales and $10.5
    billion in indirect impact. The analysis assumed a conservative uranium
    price of $50 per pound.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The uranium market is an international market, and will continue to
    be so, with commercial uranium mining on six continents. History and
    recent events make it clear, however, that maintaining U.S. capability
    in uranium production must be a strategic part of our domestic energy
    supply strategy.
        The world's nuclear power plants currently consume more uranium
    than is produced. Current worldwide uranium demand is approximately 180
    million pounds per year. Worldwide production is approximately 140
    million pounds per year, with the balance coming from secondary sources
    of supply, including inventories held by the U.S. and Russian
    governments. U.S. uranium production in 2010 was approximately four
    million pounds.
        U.S. nuclear power plants consume approximately 50 million pounds
    of uranium per year. More than 90 percent of that comes from foreign
    sources. In 2010 nearly a quarter of U.S. uranium requirements were met
    by downblended Russian high-enriched uranium extracted from nuclear
    weapons. This weapons-grade material is converted into low-enriched
    uranium fuel in what is popularly called the ``megatons to megawatts''
    program. This arrangement expires in 2013, however, and will leave a
    gap in U.S. demand that must be filled from other supply sources. In
    that context, even relatively small additions to U.S. uranium supply--
    such as might be achieved by producing the breccia pipe uranium
    deposits in northern Arizona--are strategically important.
        In addition, approximately 55 percent of world uranium supply comes
    from the 10 largest mines: Four in Kazakhstan, two in Africa, two in
    Australia, and one each in Russia and Canada. This heavy dependence on
    uranium production from a relatively small number of large mines
    represents a supply vulnerability: Any interruptions in production can
    cause disruption in the market. These interruptions do occur: From
    fires (at Olympic Dam in Australia in 2001); from mine flooding (as at
    the Rabbit Lake, Cigar Lake and McArthur River mines in Canada in the
    2003-2008 period); from floods caused by cyclones (as at the Ranger
    open pit mine in Australia in 2006, 2007 and 2011); from in situ
    leaching supply shortages (as at the Beverley mine in Australia in
    2010); and from leaching acid supply shortages (as in Kazakhstan in
    2007).
        U.S. nuclear energy companies manage this potential vulnerability
    by diversifying their sources of supply. Additional U.S. uranium
    supply, including future supply from the high-grade deposits in
    northern Arizona, is an important part of a diversified supply
    portfolio.
    The Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal
        There is no current or proposed uranium mining inside the Grand
    Canyon National Park, which encompasses 1.2 million acres and includes
    a buffer zone to protect the Grand Canyon. The one million acres
    proposed for withdrawal lie outside the park boundaries.
        Withdrawing one million acres from future mining would upset a
    longstanding and carefully crafted compromise developed in 1984 between
    the mining industry and the environmental community, and supported by
    the Arizona congressional delegation led by former House Interior
    Committee Chairman Mo Udall, Sen. Barry Goldwater, and then-Congressman
    John McCain. In the early 1980s, legislation was crafted that
    designated approximately 300,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management
    land and approximately 100,000 acres of National Forest Service lands
    as wilderness. The Act added over one million acres of land to the
    National Wilderness Preservation System, and provided that mining and
    grazing be allowed in those areas not designated as wilderness, if
    conducted in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. The
    Act also specifically directed nearly half-a-million acres of Bureau of
    Land Management lands and 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands be
    released from wilderness study with the understanding and intention
    that this would allow uranium mining on the Arizona Strip and Kaibab
    National Forest. Since the passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act of
    1984 (P.L. 98-406), there is no evidence that uranium mining and
    reclamation have impacted the Grand Canyon.
        During the 1980s, seven mines in the Arizona Strip produced
    approximately 19 million pounds of uranium, with a temporary surface
    disturbance of approximately 20 acres per mine--about the size of a
    Wal-Mart parking lot. A statement by the Arizona State Legislature
    notes that ``in the 1980s, uranium mining operations existed that have
    now been so well reclaimed that it is difficult to discern where these
    mines existed.''
        The Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Draft EIS (DEIS) on
    the northern Arizona land withdrawal was published for public comment
    in February. The DEIS considered potential impacts on air emissions,
    water resources, soil resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife,
    wilderness resources, and recreation and tourism. In general, the DEIS
    found either no impact or minor, temporary impacts that could be
    readily mitigated. This conclusion was validated by the Arizona state
    agencies responsible for environmental protection and management of
    state lands.
        The high-grade uranium resources in northern Arizona are found in
    ``breccia pipe'' formations. These are compact formations that can be
    developed with minimal environmental impact. In its comments on the
    Interior Department's draft EIS, the Arizona Land Department said:
    ``[T]he DEIS reveals nothing in the recent history of mining the
    breccia pipes in northern Arizona. . .that would appear to justify any
    withdrawal. Going back to the start of the Hack Mine complex in 1981,
    there has been no incident or event during this 30-year period that
    would. . .warrant a withdrawal.''
        In its comments \3\ on the draft EIS, the Arizona Department of
    Environmental Quality (ADEQ) noted that the draft EIS ignored state and
    federal programs designed to protect the environment, and saw no basis
    for a blanket withdrawal. ``As the lead regulatory agency responsible
    for the protection of Arizona's environment, ADEQ closely regulates
    uranium mining activities in northern Arizona. The environmental risks
    posed by mining in Arizona have been successfully managed by both state
    and federal environmental requirements currently in place. The State of
    Arizona has adopted the Aquifer Protection Permit program specifically
    designed to protect its precious groundwater resources. This State
    program provides added protection to the federal environmental laws. It
    is important that the BLM consider not only the federal programs, but
    also Arizona's unique environmental requirements when making its
    decision.'' (Emphasis added.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, comment letter to
    BLM, May 4, 2011
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ADEQ continued: ``The DEIS does not give full consideration to
    modern uranium mining technology or ADEQ-issued permits that require
    environmental controls, financial assurance, and reclamation. These
    modern technologies and permits ensure that new and reactivated mining
    claims can be safely worked with minimal environmental impact. A broad
    withdrawal of federal lands in response to concerns that new mining
    operations will pose unacceptable environmental risk is unwarranted.
    Rather than a blanket prohibition of new claims, proposed new mining
    facilities should continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
    under existing federal and state environmental permitting programs.''
    (Emphasis added.)
        The Arizona Geological Survey conducted an analysis of possible
    contamination of water resources as a result of uranium mining and
    found no cause for concern. In an April 28, 2011, letter to Governor
    Janice Brewer, the state geological survey stated: ``We conclude that
    even the most implausible accident would increase the amount of uranium
    in the Colorado River by an amount that is undetectable over amounts of
    uranium that are normally carried by the river from erosion of geologic
    deposits. Even if the entire annual uranium production from an
    operating mine were somehow implausibly dumped into the river, the
    resulting increase in uranium concentration in river water would
    increase from 4.0 to 12.8 parts per billion (ppb) for one year, which
    is still far below the 30 ppb EPA Maximum Contaminant Level.''
        The Arizona Geological Survey told the governor that ``we believe
    the fears of uranium contamination of the Colorado River from mining
    accidents are minor and transitory compared to the amounts of uranium
    that are naturally and continually eroded into the river. . .. Uranium
    has been eroding out of these deposits into the Colorado River and
    other streams and creeks for millions of years and will continue to do
    so for millions more.''
        The Final Environmental Impact Statement. In its preliminary
    analysis of the Interior Department's final EIS, published on October
    26, NEI has found nothing that would appear to justify an extreme
    action like the proposed withdrawal of one million acres.
        The EIS identifies four alternative courses of action, but only two
    alternatives are of significant interest. Alternative A is the so-
    called ``no action'' alternative, under which continued uranium mining
    would be allowed, subject to the safeguards and requirements of federal
    and state laws and regulations. Alternative B is the proposed one-
    million-acre land withdrawal. It is commonly assumed that there would
    be no mining under Alternative B, but that is not the case. Uranium
    mining would occur under both alternatives, because a number of mines
    are already operating or permitted as valid existing claims in the
    proposed withdrawal area and would, therefore, not be subject to the
    land withdrawal proposed.
        Under Alternative B (the withdrawal scenario) the final EIS
    estimates 11 uranium mines would operate in the withdrawal area over
    the 20-year period. Under Alternative A, the number of mines increases
    to 30, an increase of 19 mining projects above Alternative B. The true
    measure of environmental impact, therefore, is the difference between
    11 and 30 mining projects.
        It is instructive to compare the differences between Alternative A
    and Alternative B from various perspectives. For example, under
    Alternative A, the total acres disturbed for exploration and
    development over 20 years would be 1,364 acres; under Alternative B,
    164 acres--a difference of 1,200 acres over 20 years or 60 acres per
    year.\4\ Sixty acres per year in a one-million-acre tract of land is a
    relatively trivial difference--certainly not large enough to justify a
    draconian step like a 20-year, one-million-acre land withdrawal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management, Final
    Environmental Impact Statement on the Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal,
    October 2011, 2:35.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In terms of water usage, according to the final EIS, Alternative A
    would consume 316 million gallons; Alternative B, 116 million gallons.
    The difference is 200 million gallons over 20 years or 10 million
    gallons per year. This seems relatively insignificant in a nation where
    residential water consumption is 26 billion gallons per day, and water
    for consumed for irrigation was 134 billion gallons per day.
        Land Disturbance. The Administration proposes to withdraw 1,006,545
    acres, divided among three parcels: the North Parcel with 549,995 acres
    (the area likely to see the highest level of development); the South
    Parcel (134,454 acres) and the East Parcel (322,096 acres).
        Because breccia pipe deposits of uranium are so compact, the amount
    of land disturbed temporarily by mining is relatively small--less than
    0.2 percent of the one million acres proposed to be withdrawn.\5\ The
    final EIS states: ``Even if the entire anticipated disturbance occurred
    in one sub-basin or area, which is not likely based on locations of
    past uranium mines, the impact to overall soil productivity and
    watershed function would be small because the level of disturbance
    represents a very small fraction of the respective parcel areas. In
    addition, the magnitude of the direct impact would be somewhat less
    than the total anticipated disturbed area because not all the
    disturbance would occur at once: some areas would be reclaimed prior to
    disturbance related to other sites. Thus, disturbance impacts would be
    minor because of the small amount of relative disturbance and would
    generally be of short duration, about 5 years, which is the average
    lifespan of a mine from development through reclamation activities.''
    \6\ (Emphasis added.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ About 945 acres out of about 550,000 acres for the North
    Parcel, 107 acres out of about 134,000 acres for the East Parcel, and
    312 acres out of about 322,000 acres for the South Parcel
        \6\ Ibid, 4:111.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Water Resources. The final EIS provides an exhaustive body of data
    on potential impacts on water resources. None of it seems to justify
    the proposed land withdrawal.
        On the impact on Colorado River water quantity and quality, the
    final EIS asserts that ``water quantity impacts could vary between 0%
    and 0.002% of the average minimum flow in the Colorado River. . ..
    Water quality impacts could vary from no mine to at least one mine
    which might contribute impacted water to the R-aquifer. If any impact
    would occur, the resultant concentration of uranium or arsenic would
    not be expected to exceed estimated ambient levels.'' \7\ (Emphasis
    added.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management, Final
    Environmental Impact Statement on the Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal,
    October 2011, 2-40.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the water quality in deep aquifer springs, the FEIS finds
    nothing that would threaten drinking water standards:
            ``North Parcel: From no to 11 mines might contribute impacted
            water to the R-aquifer. If any impact would occur, the
            resultant concentration of uranium or arsenic might exceed
            ambient levels (4.9 mg/L uranium and 2 mg/L arsenic), but not
            drinking water standards (30 mg/L uranium or 10 mg/L arsenic)
            at the Kanab and Showerbath spring complex. If as many as 11
            mines contribute impacted water to the R-aquifer, the projected
            maximum resultant concentration is 14 mg/L for uranium and 4
            mg/L for arsenic.
            ``East Parcel: From no to 1 mine might contribute impacted
            water to the R-aquifer. If any impact would occur, the
            resultant concentration of uranium or arsenic might exceed
            ambient levels (1.7 mg/L uranium and 10 mg/L arsenic), but not
            drinking water standards (30 mg/L uranium or 10 mg/L arsenic)
            at the Fence Fault spring complex. If as many as 1 mine
            contributes impacted water to the R-aquifer, the projected
            maximum resultant uranium concentration is 1.8 mg/L; resultant
            maximum arsenic concentration would not be expected to exceed
            ambient levels.'' \8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Ibid, 2:37.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In part, the lack of impact on water resources reflects the local
    geology. As the final EIS notes,\9\ the ``modern (post-1980) breccia
    pipe uranium mine sites in the study area are. . .characterized by
    well-cemented, very low permeability breccias and adjacent formation
    rocks. . .. In each case, these ore deposits are on the order of 1,000
    feet or more above the R-aquifer system and are underlain by the poorly
    permeable breccias and siltstones/mudstones of the Hermit Formation and
    Supai Group. Therefore, conditions are not favorable for downward
    migration of leached minerals and constituents (such as uranium and
    arsenic) from the ore deposits to the R-aquifer.'' (Emphasis added.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Ibid, 3:62-63.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Air Quality Impacts. The final EIS finds \10\ that ``[n]one of the
    proposed mines would have potential emissions in quantities large
    enough to trigger a PSD [prevention of significant deterioration]
    review....Therefore, each mine would be considered a minor source
    relative to the PSD permitting process and would only require a State
    of Arizona Class II Non-Title V air quality permit. Compliance with the
    permit and the applicable state regulations would minimize the air
    quality impacts of mine operation. . ..
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Ibid, 4:17-18.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Mining operations related to all of the alternatives would be
    expected to result in increases in ambient air pollutant
    concentrations. Use of the unpaved and paved roads by the ore haul
    trucks would result in potential increases in fugitive dust and vehicle
    exhaust emissions. However, these impacts would be localized and
    temporary when they did occur and would be minimized by speed limit
    restrictions on unpaved roads. However, exceptional wind events have
    the potential for fugitive dust to be transported beyond several
    kilometers. The extent of the impact is dependent on the proximity of
    the mining activity to the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. Areas
    of the Park that are closer to mining operations could be impacted
    greater than areas that are farther away.'' (Emphasis added.)
        When considering the relative impacts of various industrial
    activities, it is instructive to compare emissions. For example, the
    Salt River Project's Navajo Generating Station in Page, AZ, produces
    these pollutants (in tons per year):\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ U.S. Interior Department Bureau of Land Management, Final
    Environmental Impact Statement on the Northern Arizona Land Withdrawal,
    October 2011, 3:23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CO -- 2,010
            NOx -- 33,221
            PM10 -- 3,943
            PM2.5 -- 2,817
            SO2 -- 3,944
            CO2 -- 20.1 million
        By comparison, Denison Mines' Arizona 1 Mine in the North Parcel
    has the potential to emit these pollutants (in tons per year):\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Ibid, 3:29
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CO -- 0.28
            NOx -- 1.3
            PM10 -- 324
            PM2.5 -- 5.7
            SO2 -- 0.08
        Even multiplying the emissions from operation of the Arizona 1 Mine
    by 30 times (the number of potential mines in the withdrawal area),
    total emissions from uranium mining in northern Arizona are trivial and
    incidental compared to emissions--which are judged acceptable under air
    quality control regulations--from a large coal-fired power plant in the
    same region. (The sole exception would be PM10, and only if
    all 30 mines were operating at the same time and that, of course, would
    not occur.)
        The Uranium Legacy. NEI concludes that the proposed land withdrawal
    is not justified by any information in the Interior Department's
    environmental assessment. The proposed land withdrawal is designed to
    protect against situations and circumstances that no longer exist--
    specifically, the uranium mining practices of the 1950s and 1960s, when
    uranium was mined at the federal government's behest and on the federal
    government's account, principally for nuclear weapons purposes. Uranium
    mining in those days was conducted in ways that would not be acceptable
    today--without National Environmental Policy Act reviews, without air
    quality and water quality permits, absent any requirement for
    reclamation and financial bonds to ensure that reclamation occurs, with
    none of the multiple protections required today to protect public and
    worker health and safety and the environment.
        It is a grievous mistake to judge today's uranium mining activities
    by practices and standards from 50 to 60 years ago. Yet that,
    apparently, is what the Interior Department has done in its final EIS.
    The final EIS' preoccupation with the past appears early in the
    document \13\: ``There is a history of hardrock mining activities in
    the Grand Canyon watershed dating back to the 1860s. In some cases,
    these mining activities have left lasting impacts within the watershed,
    primarily associated with older copper and uranium mines. . .. These
    historical impacts and the recent increase in the number and extent of
    mining claims located in the area have raised concerns that future
    hardrock mining activities in the Grand Canyon watershed, particularly
    for uranium, could result in adverse effects on resources. . .''
    (Emphasis added.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Ibid, 1:5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Could result in adverse impacts'' is a long distance--and many
    decades--from ``will result in adverse impacts.''
        Arizona Gov. Brewer raised this issue in an October 30, 2009,
    letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in which she objected to the
    proposed land withdrawal. ``Most environmental concerns raised by the
    legacy of uranium mining in Arizona and the southwest United States are
    the result of activities that occurred prior to the existence of modern
    environmental laws and generally resulted from detonation, disposal,
    ore-processing (milling) and weapons manufacturing sites--activities
    not associated with modern uranium extraction,'' she said. ``In the
    Colorado Plateau region of northern Arizona that includes the proposed
    withdrawal area, ore extraction and production at existing uranium
    mines has minimal environmental impact on the surrounding land, water,
    and wildlife because of modern environmental laws.''
                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar [presiding]. Thank you. First of all, Mr.
    Verkamp, thank you for being here. We may disagree on a variety
    of issues, but to see a constituent travel all the way to D.C.
    is certainly a pleasure, and I hope that you reward us with
    good weather forward. So you are recognized for five minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF STEPHEN VERKAMP,
                       PRESIDENT, VERKAMP'S INC.

        Mr. Verkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to thank
    the Committee and the Chairman, Acting Chairman. I am here to
    speak in support of H.R. 855, the Grand Canyon Watersheds
    Protection Act sponsored by Congressman Grijalva, and in
    opposition to H.R. 3155.
        My name is Stephen Verkamp, and I spent my entire childhood
    living within 50 yards of the edge of the South Rim of the
    Grand Canyon. My grandfather, John G. Verkamp, built a souvenir
    and handicrafts store in 1906, 13 years prior to the area
    becoming a national park. Until closing the store in 2008, we
    were the longest, continuous family owned business in the
    entire national parks system of the United States.
        When we speak of the Grand Canyon, it must be understood
    that the canyon does not start at the edge of the rim, nor is
    it an arbitrary line on a map but rather is the sum total of
    the entire area surrounding those edges. Wildlife is not
    concerned with man's arbitrary map-making. The public lands
    surrounding the national park are likewise critical to the
    integrity of the wild nature of the environment. They must be
    protected.
        As a kid living on the rim of the canyon, I recall playing
    on a dirt football field where the underlay for the field was
    constructed from orphan mine, the uranium mine, tailings. I can
    further recall chunks of uranium ore falling off the truck on
    the road below our residence. Naturally, being kids, we would
    pick up these pieces of ore with our hands and examine them.
        These mining practices were life-threatening and a total
    outrage. Later in my adult life, I was privileged to be the
    first full-time Federal judge with jurisdiction over Grand
    Canyon National Park and the national forests that surround the
    canyon and are the subject matter of H.R. 855. These
    experiences strongly deepen my understanding of this area.
        I mention these personal experiences to express my grave
    concern about what could be the outcome if Congressman Franks'
    bill is passed and new uranium claims are developed around the
    Grand Canyon. A major impact on the areas in question will be
    the dust pollution that will certainly create an enormous
    problem. The actual and potential mines in the South Rim are
    bounded on the east by state highway 89 and on the west by
    highway 64.
        These two highways are both single-lane and heavily
    burdened with tourist vehicle traffic to the Grand Canyon. The
    area we are talking about is all within what can best be
    described as a dust bowl due to the extremely dry conditions of
    northern Arizona. The ore trucks would have to use dirt roads
    to reach these highways, in this case, apparently Blanding,
    Utah.
        There is simply no way that a relentless parade of ore
    trucks could do anything except seriously create safety and air
    quality issues. It is my personal experience, any single
    vehicle in this area, whether it is hunter, casual user or
    other people just visiting the area, create an enormous cloud
    of dust that can literally be seen for miles and which hovers
    in the area for an unbelievably long time.
        I can only imagine what huge ore trucks will create. There
    are no other ways to transport ore to its destination other
    than by use of the two highways I mentioned. This is all on the
    South Rim where a large majority of the claims have been
    located.
        The prevailing southwest to northeast winds in that area
    will carry the truck dust directly into the national park and
    surrounding area. The impacts I have described do not begin to
    touch on the economic costs of allowing new uranium mining. It
    is estimated that the regional economy centered on the Grand
    Canyon exceeds $700 million each year.
        According to the 2010 National Park statistics, more than
    1.4 million vehicles entered one or the other of the two roads
    I have mentioned. At a conservative two persons per vehicle,
    nearly 3 million tourists visited the park by vehicle alone in
    2010.
        The cost to taxpayers of restoring mined-out areas amount
    to millions of dollars paid by taxpayers, like the case of the
    orphan mine. These companies frequently walk away or file
    bankruptcy after they have taken the ore. In my personal
    experience, the effect of major and minor changes in the park
    and surrounding forests affect tourist visitation and small
    businesses in very real ways.
        For example, several years ago there was not enough
    entrance stations into the Grand Canyon park. This fact spread
    on the internet like wildfire. Sales in our store were greatly
    reduced by this seemingly small issue. The New York Times and
    other media ran these stories because everyone in the country
    has a special love for this incredible place. The tourists went
    other places, such as Las Vegas, rather than wait the long
    entrance lines.
        Another example involved the closing of the national park
    in the mid-nineties when Congress shut down the government. The
    economic impact on our family business was so great that my
    father actually wrote a check to the Grand Canyon Park Service
    to try to help keep the park open. Once again an outside event
    created an economically devastating impact on businesses within
    the park and surrounding areas, such as Tusayan, Williams,
    Flagstaff, Belmont and other areas in the area.
        In closing, I would like to submit a letter signed by me
    and the many Arizona business owners and others who support
    Secretary Salazar's ban on new uranium claims surrounding the
    Grand Canyon. I want to thank you, the Committee, the
    Subcommittee and the Chairman for allowing me to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Verkamp follows:]

           Statement of Stephen Verkamp, President, Verkamp's Inc.,
                               Flagstaff, Arizona

        Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
    members of this subcommittee. I am here to speak in support of H.R.
    855, the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act, sponsored by
    Congressman Grijalva, and in opposition to H.R. 3155.
        My name is Stephen Verkamp and I spent my entire childhood living
    within 50 yards of the edge of the south rim of the Grand Canyon.
        My grandfather John G. Verkamp built a souvenir and handicraft
    store in 1906, 13 years prior to the area becoming a national park.
    Until closing the store in 2008 we were the longest, continuous family-
    owned business in the entire national park system in the United States.
        When we speak of ``The Grand Canyon'' it must be understood that
    the Canyon does not start at the edge of the precipice. Nor is it an
    arbitrary line on a map, but rather it is the sum-total of the entire
    area surrounding those edges. Wildlife is not concerned with mans
    arbitrary map making.
        The public lands surrounding the national park are likewise
    critical to the integrity of the ``wild' nature of the environment and
    must be protected!
        As a kid living on the rim of the Canyon, I recall playing on a
    dirt football field where the under-lay was constructed from Orphan
    uranium mine tailings.
        I can recall chunks of uranium ore falling off the truck on the
    road below our residence. Naturally, being kids we would pick up these
    pieces of ore with our hands and examine them. These mining practices
    were life threatening and a total outrage.
        Later in my adult life, I was privileged to be the first full time
    federal judge with jurisdiction over Grand Canyon National Park and the
    National Forests that surround the Canyon and are the subject matter of
    H.R. 855 These experiences, I believe, strongly deepens my
    understanding of this area.
        I mention these personal experiences to express my grave concern
    about what could be the outcome if Congressman Franks' bill is passed
    and new uranium claims are developed around the Grand Canyon.
        A major impact on the areas in question will be the dust pollution
    that will inevitably create an enormous problem.
        The actual and potential mines on the South Rim are bounded on the
    east by Highway 89 and on the west by Highway 64. These two highways
    are all single-lane and heavily burdened with tourist vehicle traffic
    to the Grand Canyon. The area we are talking about is all within what
    can best be described as a ``dust bowl'' due to the extremely dry
    conditions of northern Arizona. The ore trucks would have to use dirt
    roads to reach these highways.
        There is simply no way that a relentless parade of ore trucks could
    do anything except create serious safety and air quality issues.
        It's my personal experience any vehicle creates an enormous cloud
    of dust that can be seen for miles. I can only imagine what huge ore
    trucks will create. There are no other ways to transport ore to its
    destination other than by use of the highways I mentioned. The
    prevailing southwest to northeast winds will carry the truck dust
    directly into the national park and surrounding area.
        The impacts I have described do not begin to touch on the economic
    costs of allowing new uranium mining.
        It is estimated that the regional economy centered on Grand Canyon
    exceeds $700,000,000.00 each year. According to the 2010 national park
    statistics more than 1,440,234 vehicles entered one or the other of the
    roads in the park we have discussed. At a conservative 2 persons per
    vehicle nearly three million tourists visited the park by vehicle
    alone.
        The costs to taxpayers of restoring mined out areas amount to
    millions of dollars paid by taxpayers like the case of the Orphan Mine.
        In my personal experience the effect of major and minor changes in
    the park and surrounding forests affect tourist visitation and small
    businesses in very real ways.
        For example, several years ago there were not enough entrance
    stations into the park. This fact spread on the Internet like wildfire.
    Sales in our store were greatly reduced by this seemingly small issue.
    The New York Times and other media ran these stories because everyone
    in the country has a special love for this incredible place. The
    tourists went other places such as Las Vegas rather than wait the long
    entrance lines.
        Another example involved the closing of the National Park in the
    mid 90's when congress shut down the government. The economic impact on
    our family business was so great that my father wrote a check to the
    Grand Canyon Park Service to try to help keep the park open. Once
    again, an outside event created an economically devastating impact on
    businesses within the park.
        In closing, I would like to submit a letter signed by me and the
    many Arizona business owners who support Secretary Salazar's ban.
        I want to thank the Chairman and members of the subcommittee for
    allowing me to testify at today's hearing.
                                     ______

        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Verkamp. In keeping with
    tradition, I am going to allow the first questions to Mr.
    Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Verkamp, thank you for being
    here. The Department of the Interior conducted dozens of public
    and tribal meetings, has reviewed over 380,000 comments during
    the withdrawal process. And let me ask you, do you believe that
    the agency is moving forward and is being responsive to the
    concerns of the local communities around the Grand Canyon
    National Park as you have seen this process unfold?
        Mr. Verkamp. Thank you, Congressman. I would say that the
    people that I know--and I know a good majority of the people
    both in Grand Canyon, Flagstaff and the surrounding areas. I
    have many, many friends on the reservation. I have seen the
    mile pilings that are supposedly cleaned up out there, which is
    certainly not true. And I would say the vast majority of people
    that I know are totally opposed to this for the reasons I have
    stated, the impact on their livelihood.
        So I would say, Congressman, yes. I have studied this issue
    a lot, and a lot of the people have already kind of made their
    positions known on it. And so definitely I am very interested
    in the numbers that have shown the degree of support or
    nonsupport for increasing this big footprint of industrial
    activity that will take place.
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes. And if I may again, sir, it has been
    asserted here many times by the Majority that uranium mining
    will occur miles away from the Grand Canyon and as a result
    won't pose a threat to the park itself. There is a picture of
    the Kanab North Uranium Mine, which is located, oh, about 10
    miles from the boundary. You can see the park, the main canyon
    in the distance. You can see the creek that takes water down
    into the Colorado. Do you think that the mine might present a
    risk to the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River just from the
    photograph?
        Mr. Verkamp. Well, it looks to me like the drainage
    eventually obviously goes into the Colorado River. And if
    anyone has been up to see the Atlas Mine situation, which the
    taxpayers had to totally fund to get cleaned up, it is mostly
    cleared up, but it cost billions of dollars. And this was one
    of those companies supposedly that was going to show us some of
    this environmentally sensitive way they have of cleaning up
    situations. So I have no doubt that eventually water runs
    downhill, and that water and that drainage--I don't recognize
    it--will get to the Colorado River without a doubt.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions for the other
    witnesses. Just as a reasonable person, I think we as
    reasonable people lose perspective on this debate and this
    discussion and this legislation, and as we go forward, the
    debate will intensify and more and more of the American people
    are going to become aware of the implications of this
    legislation, because it is not simply about a mining company
    and their profit line. It is not simply about trying to thwart
    the ability to create jobs in a region. It is an issue about
    something that is the connection to the heritage of this
    country. It is about a value and a spirit of the American
    people, and it is a national symbol that we are talking about.
        I think Carville once said it when he was talking about the
    economy, that it is the Grand Canyon, stupid, and it is. That
    is what is at stake here. And I think that to minimize the
    potential of intended and unintended consequences on a national
    symbol, the connection to our past, to our heritage, and
    something that not only is the crown jewel of our national park
    system but is considered one of the wonders of the world.
        And so for people like myself from Arizona, I am not here
    because I don't want uranium mining and I am opposing Mr.
    Franks' legislation. That is not why. I am here as a person
    from Arizona and as a citizen of this Nation to say we are
    potentially risking the very symbol that has sustained what
    this country was in the past and generation after generation
    have enjoyed and wondered and thought about what that meant.
    And so it is not about anti-mining. It is about pro-Grand
    Canyon. And so the debate will come down to that. And we are
    not destroying mining by saying for the sake of the Grand
    Canyon, the crown jewel, 12 percent of the available land for
    uranium mining will be withdrawn for 20 years so that we may
    provide a buffer and some level of security for the generations
    to follow that their national symbol will be there and that the
    ability to not only visit but enjoy and contemplate what that
    means will be available to the American people.
        That is why I stand in opposition, because I am for the
    Grand Canyon, and I believe as this legislation goes forward,
    the debate will intensify and the American people will come to
    the realization that what is really at stake and what is really
    at risk here.
        With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you very, very much. At this time, I will
    also acknowledge Mr. Garamendi for his five minutes.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much. This question goes to
    Mr. Myers. The Chairman has asked how much uranium we import.
    Is it true that some of that uranium actually is part of a
    national security strategy in an agreement with Russia, the
    former Soviet Union, to deal with their highly enriched
    uranium?
        Mr. Myers. Yes, sir, that is correct. As I said in my
    statement, about one-quarter of our uranium and about one-half
    of our fuel comes from down-blended Russian high-enriched
    material.
        Mr. Garamendi. And the United States also has a significant
    stockpile of the same material, is that correct?
        Mr. Myers. Yes. The United States has a stockpile of the
    same material.
        Mr. Garamendi. OK. Now earlier on I opined that we have
    several thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel, used nuclear
    fuel, is that correct?
        Mr. Myers. Yes.
        Mr. Garamendi. And we at this time have no permanent
    repository for that, is that correct?
        Mr. Myers. We have a repository identified and fully
    characterized and judged to be suitable that the Obama
    Administration has decided to terminate the program.
        Mr. Garamendi. So the answer is I am correct with the
    statement I made, correct?
        Mr. Myers. We currently do not have a repository.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Now do we have the ability from
    past research to recycle that material in an integral fast
    reactor with pyroprocessing that can consume 90 percent of the
    total energy and reduce the longevity of the waste to some 2-
    to 300 years?
        Mr. Myers. Mr. Garamendi, I really appreciated your
    comments earlier and your enthusiasm for this concept, and we
    completely share it. Yes, it is on paper.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Now, if that is the case----
        Mr. Myers. Can I finish, sir?
        Mr. Garamendi. Please.
        Mr. Myers. And on paper, it is a very appealing concept
    because it does eliminate and uses fuel material that would
    otherwise be discarded as a waste product and eliminates both
    the toxicity and the volume of material that has to go to a
    permanent repository. But, and like many things in life, there
    is always a but, these technologies are not yet ready for
    deployment at commercial scale and they are not at the moment
    even remotely economic. So we still have if you talk to the
    experts a significant amount of technology research and
    development to do and a significant amount of funding that has
    to come from somewhere to support that before we can truly talk
    about reprocessing and full recycle of spent nuclear fuel. But
    I am absolutely convinced, as I sense you are, that that is the
    future and we need to move in that direction with all possible
    speed.
        Mr. Garamendi. I thank you very much, and I agree with all
    possible speed. And in fact, your industry has about $20
    billion set aside in some coffer here at the Federal Government
    for the----
        Mr. Myers. Well, it is an accounting entry unfortunately,
    Mr. Garamendi. It has been spent by the government on other
    things.
        Mr. Garamendi. And there are lawsuits about that. But the
    fact of the matter is that we do have a solution to the spent
    nuclear fuel problem that would really put aside this issue
    totally, that we really do not need to mine additional uranium.
    We could use the spent nuclear fuel and that technology, the
    integral fast reactor pyroprocessing, also could use the
    material that does not make it into the existing fuel cycle,
    that is, set aside at various waste piles.
        My point here is that it is perfectly correct for the
    Secretary to withdraw this area from mining for the next 20
    years, at which time, if we had any sense at all here in this
    Nation and around the world, we would move expeditiously to a
    full closing of the nuclear fuel cycle, solving multiple
    problems along the way, including this potential environmental
    problem.
        The argument that I am making is set this land aside, don't
    do more mining in this area, withdraw it from the mining, get
    on with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, which actually
    is an extraordinarily valuable asset, containing some 97
    percent of the energy, and if you use the PUREX recycling
    process, 94 percent of the energy. That is what we ought to do
    in our wisdom. We ought not to spoil additional land near and
    adjacent to the Grand Canyon, which the Ranking Member has
    correctly described as an extraordinary, extraordinary part of
    this world. So there is a solution and we ought to move on it.
    Mr. Myers, final comment?
        Mr. Myers. Mr. Garamendi, I completely agree with you about
    the long-term promise of recycling and reprocessing and closing
    the nuclear fuel cycle. I would just mention, though, that we
    do believe that this is a decade or more away.
        Mr. Garamendi. Here I will reclaim my time. It is not a
    decade away. The reactor operated safely for 30 years. The
    pyroprocessing system continues to exist in a laboratory in
    Idaho. What we need is to spend about $10 billion over the next
    10 years to create the demonstration plant. And your industry
    should be fully in support of that. We do not need an
    additional 30 or 40 years of research. What we really need is
    to move on.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the additional time. Thank you
    very much.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Mr. Roberts, in his testimony, Mr.
    Verkamp asserts the cost to taxpayers of restoring mined-out
    areas amount to millions of dollars paid by taxpayers like the
    case of the orphan mine. As a representative of a company that
    currently does business on the Strip, I would like to get some
    clarification on that statement. Under existing Federal law,
    the statement is not correct, right?
        Mr. Roberts. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are required to submit
    surety evidence or surety bonds for the reclamation of our
    mines, all of our mines, and also including our milling
    facility in Utah. So we have somewhere around a half a million
    dollars of surety bond against just the Arizona one mine, and
    actually we are double bonded I call it. We have a bond to the
    BLM. We also have a similar bond to the State of Arizona
    because there is no crossover in their jurisdictions.
        So the money is set aside to reclaim the property if for
    some reason we should be able to do that or shouldn't be able
    to do that in the future. So it is a little bit of an evolution
    of the process. I respect what has happened in the past with a
    lot of the legacy sites and the history of mining. A lot of
    that was done under U.S. Government jurisdiction, under U.S.
    Government uranium purchase programs. The government really
    basically did not allow for costs to be included in the
    payments to the miners or to producers for the cost of
    reclamation. So basically the government was stuck with that.
        In the case of the orphan mine, you know, it was mined
    early on as a copper mine starting back in the early 1900s.
    There was no regulations for permitting and bonding at that
    time. Subsequently it was mined for uranium. Interestingly
    enough, actually my former employer, Energy Fields Nuclear,
    made a proposal to the Park Service to reclaim the orphan mine
    at our expense, and this was done in 1986. And I know this
    because I made the proposal. I investigated the site. I put the
    proposal together. We were told by the Park Service that they
    were not allowed to do that because these type of actions had
    to go to competitive bid, and that was the end of it.
        Dr. Gosar. So let me get this straight. So your company
    offered to clean up the orphan mine at your expense and you
    were refused, right?
        Mr. Roberts. That is correct.
        Dr. Gosar. Wow. Another good purchase of the Federal
    Government. I want to point out this poster board that we have
    up here. This actually shows a site that had been mined and the
    reclamation after it, so it is very, very different. I am
    actually one who actually goes, touches and does. So I have
    been at the mine and I have seen all the protocol. And being
    out there, the site that we looked at, you could not find the
    mine site except for what was required by the Federal
    Government to keep in operation a spring, a pumping station.
        So just for an FYI, and I am very well aware that a lot of
    the environmental groups sure like the way the roads are
    uptaked and your maintenance of them. So Mr. Roberts again. Mr.
    Verkamp states, as he recalls as a child--and I think a lot of
    us understand this because, you know, our past, which again I
    would like to point out that the Federal Government conducted
    uranium mining activities, not private industry.
        He states that uranium ore was falling off trucks and kids
    were playing with it. Is this even plausible today with current
    State and Federal laws and regulations?
        Mr. Roberts. Well, it is clearly not plausible today. I
    mean, I understand his comment. And when I look back knowing
    the history of the government-subsidized program, the
    government-mandated mining programs--an example is on the
    Navajo reservations--I can understand what he describes might
    have happened. That clearly isn't what happens today with
    modern mining techniques, modern mining regulation and the way
    we do business today.
        You know, all U.S. industry has a history of not
    understanding the risks and hazards of their industry, and it
    was a lack of knowledge. The mining business is no different.
    So, you know, I always tell people judge us by the way we do
    things today, not the way the Federal Government did things
    back in the 1950s. You know, our ore haulage program today is
    very sophisticated, very robust. All of our trucks are secured
    to make sure the ore is safe. The trucks are tarped. You know,
    we have no desire to spread uranium ore down the highway any
    more than the local citizens do. It is of great value to us. We
    spend a lot of money finding the ore. We spend a lot of money
    mining the ore, and we want it to get to the mill. We certainly
    don't want it spread down the highway.
        So we go to great lengths to make sure that we are not
    going to be spilling any uranium ore on the highways or
    anywhere else where a member of the public may come in contact
    with it.
        Dr. Gosar. And I was very impressed when I came out there.
    That was one of my questions, and I was very rewarded with
    seeing how the trucks and the technology actually looks like a
    Saran wrap where actually we see pneumatics actually put a tarp
    down and seal the tarp. So I am very impressed.
        Mr. Verkamp, I would like to get back to you and make sure
    when you talk that your mike is on because I couldn't hear you
    last time.
        Mr. Verkamp. OK. I am sorry.
        Dr. Gosar. I would like to get some clarification on your
    testimony. You opened your testimony by stating you are here to
    support H.R. 855 and against H.R. 3155. You don't mention the
    Secretary's proposed actions. Do you support the Secretary of
    the Interior's proposed action, the withdrawal of 1 million
    acres subject to existing right?
        Mr. Verkamp. Yes.
        Dr. Gosar. Then I am slightly confused about your
    testimony. You state that the development of projects will
    create an enormous dust pollution problem, serious safety and
    air quality issues and major visibility issues at the park.
    That is not supported by chapter 4 of the final EIS. Your
    testimony implies you are completely opposed to uranium mining
    in the Strip. But according to the Bureau of Land Management's
    press release announcing the release of the final draft
    environmental statement claims, that as many as 11 uranium
    mines could be operational over the next 20 years under the
    preferred alternative, including the four mines currently
    approved.
        If you are supporting the Secretary's proposed action, is
    your support based on the assumption that none of the sites the
    Secretary claims could be operational over the next 20 years
    will ever come to fruition?
        Mr. Verkamp. I don't have any specific technical--can you
    hear me all right--information about, you know, the
    governmental action. I am from Grand Canyon and I know the
    area. I know it hands on. And anyone who tells me that a dust
    situation there is not going to be critical I don't think
    understands the place. It is going to take them, if they are
    going to go out to Blanding, they are going to be on dirt roads
    for 40 miles probably, and as I said, that dust just goes
    everywhere. And if anybody wants to say that that doesn't
    impact air traffic as well as just people going into the Grand
    Canyon, I don't agree with that.
        And the other thing that hasn't been mentioned is the
    safety factor. I don't care how sure they are now about how
    they can contain it on a truck because the traffic out there is
    going to require, if they pull into the main road, either the
    one on 64 or 89, they are going to have to have street lights
    out there, and people go through that area at 65, 70 miles an
    hour.
        So I am not convinced that that is not a problem as much as
    they are suggesting. I have some question, and I am dubious
    about the new techniques that are being used by mining
    companies when I see down in the southeastern part of the
    country that they are blowing the tops out of mountains to get
    coal. So I am dubious about the environmentally sensitive
    nature of some of this hauling.
        Dr. Gosar. So let me rephrase this. So you are in support
    of the 11 mines that would be allowed to go forward or not?
        Mr. Verkamp. If I had my way, there wouldn't be any mines
    within that area, period.
        Dr. Gosar. OK, OK. My last statement that I would like to
    make is I agree with Congressman Grijalva. I love the Grand
    Canyon. You know, I am newer than you are. You know, I have
    been there 27 years. I love it. I love its beauty. I also love
    the business of it. But I disagree with Mr. Grijalva in the
    fact that they are not mutually exclusive. There is a place for
    both. And I think that is what the agreement was all about was
    working.
        And when I look and I actually touch and see, what the
    American people want us to do is have common sense, is provide
    energy, provide the technology, institute the technology and
    work with industry and people. I am well aware of the value of
    what the Grand Canyon proposes in economics, but I also
    challenge you, what is that wage per person. Is it 20,000? Is
    it 30,000? Is it part-time? Is it full-time?
        We have to have a mitigation problem in regards to our
    economy, and everything should be on the table. And this is all
    about common sense. It should be about a government working
    with people, not dictating and saying no because as this issue
    will show you, the Federal Government is the biggest problem
    and has been.
        So, with that being said, with no further comment, I agree
    with this legislation, and I am opposed to the way the
    Secretary has done their dictation. If there is no further
    business, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    And I want to thank all the witnesses who came forward today.
    Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

         Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Theodore Roosevelt, the President who used the Antiquities Act to
    first protect the Grand Canyon from development said the following:
    ``We regard temples and Roman triumphal arches and Gothic cathedrals as
    a priceless value. . .but we are, as a whole, still in that low state
    of civilization where we do not understand that it is vandalism to
    destroy or to permit the destruction of what is beautiful in nature.''
        Today, we are considering yet another Republican attempt to
    establish a permanent uranium mining zone next door to one of the
    planet's most iconic landmarks, Grand Canyon National Park. While we
    have made important strides over the last century, H.R. 3155 threatens
    to return this nation to the low state of civilization President
    Roosevelt found us in a century ago.
        As we consider this legislation, we should remember a few important
    facts.
        [Slide One--Horn Creek warning sign]
        First, uranium mining has already harmed the Grand Canyon and the
    people who call the area home.
        Just a single uranium mine caused permanent radioactive
    contamination of an entire creek within the Park. The water in Horn
    Creek is so radioactive that the Park Service warns hikers not to drink
    it, unless DEATH BY THIRST is the only other option.
        Native People who live in and around the Canyon still suffer higher
    rates of illness and death as the terrible legacy of the last uranium
    boom in the area.
        But rather than learning a lesson from this unfortunate tragedy,
    the Republican Majority has again offered legislation that could lead
    to unchecked uranium mining around Grand Canyon National Park.
        [Poster Two--Map of the withdrawal]
        Next, it is important to make absolutely clear that the Department
    of the Interior's proposed mining withdrawal will not stop current
    mining operations. The proposed withdrawal ONLY prevents new uranium
    mining around the Grand Canyon.
        According to the Department's own analysis, there could still be
    eleven operational uranium mines near the Grand Canyon over the next 20
    years, even if the withdrawal occurs. That number is too high, but
    given the complete inadequacy of the Mining Law of 1872, that is the
    reality.
        But apparently that is not good enough for the Majority. It appears
    that for Republicans, the only appropriate amount of uranium mining is
    UNLIMITED uranium mining.
        H.R. 3155 will PERMANENTLY strip the Interior Department of the
    power to protect lands around the Grand Canyon from uranium mining.
        Even if widespread environmental contamination occurred--even if a
    huge waste spill took place that poisoned the drinking water of
    millions of Americans in Los Angeles and Las Vegas--even if the rate of
    severe illness spiked among families living near the Canyon--the
    Department of Interior would be powerless to stop any new mining.
    Congress has NEVER taken such a rash step before.
        [Poster Three--Map]
        If H.R. 3155 were enacted, there would be nothing to stop
    development of a uranium mine on every square mile of land around the
    Grand Canyon with at least one mining claim; that is the Republican
    vision for this beloved, international landmark.
        Each year, Grand Canyon National Park generates $700 million
    dollars in local revenue and supports more than 12,000 jobs. These
    jobs--not to mention the entire economies of several major cities--
    depend on clean water and clean air. We should not put all of this at
    risk to increase the quarterly profits of a few foreign-owned mining
    conglomerates.
        The simple truth, Mr. Chairman, is that water flows downhill. When
    we are talking about Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River,
    do we really want that water to contain uranium? Do we really want to
    return to a state of such low civilization that we allow something so
    beautiful to be so vandalized?
        The American people say no and we should say no as well. I yield
    back.
                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by the Western Business
    Roundtable on H.R. 3155 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [A statement submitted for the record by The Wilderness
    Society on H.R. 3155 follows:]

     Statement submitted for the record by The Wilderness Society on H.R.
            3155, The Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide a statement on behalf of The Wilderness Society
    regarding H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of
    2011. The Wilderness Society works on behalf of its 500,000 members and
    supporters to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our
    wild places and our public lands and forests.
        On behalf of our 500,000 members and supporters nationwide, we
    oppose H.R. 3155 because it will place one of America's most important
    natural icons--the Grand Canyon--at risk from increased uranium
    pollution.
        The Grand Canyon has a rich history of conservation dating back
    over 100 years. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt gave a seminal
    speech on the rim of the Grand Canyon, in which he urged Americans to
    preserve this historic natural landmark:
            In the Grand Canyon, Arizona has a natural wonder which, so far
            as I know, is in kind absolutely unparalleled throughout the
            rest of the world. I want to ask you to do one thing in
            connection with it in your own interest and in the interest of
            the country--to keep this great wonder of nature as it now is.
            . .
            Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been
            at work on it, and man can only mar it. What you can do is to
            keep it for your children, your children's children, and for
            all who come after you, as one of the great sights which every
            American if he can travel at all should see.
        Five years later, in 1908, using the powers vested in him by
    Congress through the Antiquities Act, President Roosevelt designated
    the Grand Canyon as a national monument.
        For 100 years, this stunning landmark has endured. And yet now it
    is imperiled by uranium pollution that threatens the sublime beauty
    that President Roosevelt urged us to preserve.
        Some have asserted that the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (PL 98-
    406) is evidence that Congress intended uranium development to take
    place in perpetuity along the Arizona Strip and that the proposed
    mining withdrawal somehow violates this intent. Neither the language of
    the Arizona Wilderness Act nor the act's legislative history supports
    this assertion, and The Wilderness Society wishes to clarify the record
    on this issue.
        A review of the legislative language and history of the Arizona
    Wilderness Act finds that nothing in the legislative record supports or
    suggests that the legislation was meant to be the final disposition on
    the status of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Arizona
    Strip. Perhaps the strongest support for the interpretation that the
    Arizona Wilderness Act was not meant to be a final disposition of
    wilderness lands in Arizona comes from Congress itself. Since the
    passage of the Arizona Wilderness Act, Arizona's congressional
    delegation has sponsored and passed multiple pieces of legislation
    creating new wilderness areas across the state.
        Then there is the language of the law itself. In addition to
    designating wilderness areas in the Arizona Strip, the Arizona
    Wilderness Act released non-designated lands in the Strip from section
    603 of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA). In
    particular, the legislation stated that released lands need not be
    managed to maintain their suitability for wilderness designation.
    However, the legislation contains no language preventing future
    consideration of Arizona Strip lands for wilderness. Instead, non-
    designated lands are managed under section 202 of FLPMA, which
    requires, among other things, consideration of wilderness values and,
    where appropriate, protection of lands with wilderness character. This
    means that the BLM must consider and, as appropriate, protect lands
    with wilderness character through the local land management process.
        In regards to National Forest lands, Congress clearly intended
    that, after a pause, the Forest Service should review the wilderness
    values of released lands and make wilderness recommendations. This
    language was a carefully crafted compromise which appeared in dozens of
    statewide forest wilderness bills in the 1980s. Section 103(a)(2) of PL
    98-406 states:
            With respect to the national forest system lands in the State
            of Arizona which were reviewed by the Department of Agriculture
            in the second roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II) and
            those lands referred to in subsection (d), except those lands
            designated for wilderness study upon enactment of this Act,
            that review and evaluation or reference shall be deemed for the
            purposes of the initial land management plans required for such
            lands by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
            Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act
            of 1976, to be an adequate consideration of the suitability of
            such lands for inclusion in the National Wilderness
            Preservation System and the Department of Agriculture shall not
            be required to review the wilderness option prior to the
            revisions of the plans, but shall review the wilderness option
            when the plans are revised. (emphasis added)
        The intention to continue wilderness reviews after a pause was
    discussed in the Senate Report 98-463 accompanying the Arizona
    Wilderness Act, which states:
            In short, the wilderness option must be considered in each
            future planning generation if the particular land in question
            still possess wilderness attributes. . .[T]he language also
            provides that lands recommended for wilderness in future
            generations of plans shall be managed for the purpose of
            protecting their suitability for wilderness designation as may
            be required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
            Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest
            Management Act of 1976, and other applicable law, upon
            implementation of such plans. (emphasis added)
        It is simply false to suggest, as some have done, that the Arizona
    Wilderness Act required that non-wilderness lands would be open to
    uranium mining in perpetuity, and such a reading does not comport to
    the legislative history of the legislation. While non-wilderness lands
    are made available to non-wilderness uses, such uses are not required--
    they are merely one option to be considered in the land management
    planning process. The House Report accompanying the legislation, H.
    Rep. 98-463, makes this clear, stating that the legislation ``releases
    certain other lands for such non-wilderness uses as are determined
    appropriate through the land management planning process.'' (emphasis
    added)
        Congress has adopted this approach because it affords land managers
    the ability to make decisions based on sound science, updated
    information, and current societal values. Despite numerous efforts to
    enact such a provision, since passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964,
    Congress has rejected every effort to enact legislation to permanently
    release lands from consideration for wilderness.
        It is exactly the approach anticipated by the Arizona Wilderness
    Act that the Department of the Interior (Department) is now undertaking
    in the lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. Through the land management
    planning process, and after careful review of public comment, and
    recent scientific information, the Department is now considering which
    non-wilderness uses are appropriate on these lands.
        As opposed to new wilderness, which limits a suite of activities
    beyond new mining claims, the Department is considering a limited
    mineral withdrawal that is necessary to preserve the fragile ecology
    and scenery of the Grand Canyon. This should not be confused with
    designating wilderness, which is, of course, a prerogative Congress has
    reserved for itself.
        Arizona has doubled its population since the last wilderness
    legislation passed in 1990. Land management must keep pace with the
    growing demand for environmental conservation and high quality outdoor
    recreation. Wilderness areas are more important than ever in balancing
    our growth and providing our communities with natural amenities and
    sustainable local economies.
        For the benefit of present and future Americans, we urge the
    Committee to heed the words of President Theodore Roosevelt, honor the
    language of the Arizona Wilderness Act, and preserve the majesty of the
    Grand Canyon by rejecting H.R. 3155.