[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 152 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6464-S6465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lee, and Mr. 
        Barrasso):
  S. 1690. A bill to preserve the multiple use land management policy 
in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee and Senator 
Barrasso in introducing legislation to prevent the Secretary of the 
Interior from executing his plan to ban mining on 1 million acres of 
Federal land in northern Arizona. A companion bill has been introduced 
by Congressman Trent Franks in the House. The purpose behind this 
legislation is best outlined in a recent letter that I along with 
several members of the Senate and House transmitted to the Secretary of 
the Interior today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 12, 2011.
     Hon. Ken Salazar,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Salazar: We are writing to urge you to 
     reconsider moving forward with a proposed 20-year withdrawal 
     of approximately 1 million acres of federal mineral estate in 
     northern Arizona. We predict such a decision, if finalized, 
     would kill hundreds of potential jobs in our states and erode 
     the trust needed for diverse stakeholders to reach agreement 
     on how to protect and manage public lands in the future.
       Grand Canyon National Park is an Arizona icon and a natural 
     wonder that attracts visitors from around the world. The 
     Colorado River that flows through the park is the lifeblood 
     of the West, providing drinking water for millions in seven 
     states. We share your desire to protect Grand Canyon National 
     Park and the region's water supplies from adverse 
     environmental effects that may be associated with hardrock 
     mineral exploration and development. We disagree that the 
     proposed withdrawal is necessary to achieve that objective. 
     In our view, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
     on the proposed withdrawal actually demonstrates that uranium 
     mineral development would pose little, if any, threat to the 
     park or water quality in the region. Thus, we are concerned 
     that this proposed withdrawal is more about social agendas 
     and political pressure than about the best available science.
       The aspiration on the part of the environmental community 
     to ban all mining activity in the Grand Canyon region is not 
     new. It existed during the last uranium rebound of the late 
     1970s and early 1980s. The difference is that, back then, the 
     environmental community put their aspirations aside to 
     constructively work with the mining and livestock industries 
     and Congress to reach an historic agreement on wilderness 
     designations and multiple use land policy--an agreement that 
     ultimately became Title III of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 
     1984 (P.L. 98-406). The Act designated over 1.1 million acres 
     of wilderness on the Arizona Strip while, at the same time, 
     releasing another 540,000 acres of federal land for multiple-
     use development; how that development would be conducted was 
     left to the land management planning process. The Act is 
     rightfully held up as the gold standard of stakeholder 
     collaboration and bipartisan compromise. Until now, it has 
     allowed sustainable uranium mining to co-exist with the 
     protection of some of our most treasured natural resources. 
     If the decision is made to move forward with the proposed 
     withdrawal, you will be casting aside that historic 
     compromise and ignoring the land management plans developed 
     through the land management planning process that identify 
     the bulk of the proposed withdrawal area as open to uranium 
     mineral development.

     The Legislative History of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984

       It is important that you review and fully consider the 
     legislative history of the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 
     before making a final decision regarding the proposed 
     withdrawal. At that time, former House Interior Committee 
     chairman, the late Rep. Morris Udall, led the Arizona 
     congressional delegation (including then-Rep. John McCain) in 
     crafting the legislation. The legislative history strongly 
     substantiates that there was a compromise regarding 
     wilderness protection and continued uranium exploration and 
     development on the Arizona Strip. That compromise was 
     originally embodied in a free-standing bill, the Arizona 
     Strip Wilderness Act of 1983 (H.R. 3562). The Arizona Strip 
     Wilderness Act of 1983 was incorporated into the Arizona 
     Wilderness Act of 1984 at Title III. A review of the House 
     committee report (H.Rpt. 98-643, Part 1, pages 34-35) 
     accompanying the bill demonstrates the clear recognition by 
     Congress that the lands not designated as wilderness had 
     significant uranium mineral potential, and that the land-
     management planning process would govern that future 
     development. It states:
       There is also a great desire on the part of the Bureau of 
     Land Management and all the interest groups concerned to lay 
     the wilderness issue to rest. This is particularly true for 
     those companies engaged in uranium exploration and mining, as 
     the current wilderness status of large acreages in the 
     Arizona Strip constitutes an impediment to rational and 
     coordinated exploration and development. Likewise, 
     environmental groups feel that uranium activities should be 
     excluded from certain key areas and that immediate wilderness 
     designation for such areas is far preferable to relying on 
     interim wilderness study protection. To this end, a broad 
     coalition of groups and individuals sat down during the early 
     months of 1983 and worked out an agreement that has since 
     received the support from the Administration, the State of 
     Arizona, the local congressman, both senators and virtually 
     every other interest party of which the Committee is aware. 
     Indeed, the Committee's hearings revealed nearly unanimous 
     support for the Arizona Strip proposal. Accordingly, Title 
     III of H.R. 4707 designates the following Arizona Strip lands 
     as wilderness, and releases certain other lands for such non-
     wilderness uses as are determined appropriate though the land 
     management planning process.
       [T]he Committee has not included these lands in wilderness 
     in recognition of their significant mineral (especially 
     uranium) potential. In leaving these lands open for mineral 
     exploration and potential development, the Committee 
     emphasizes that this is an environmentally sensitive area 
     that should be managed by the Bureau of Land Management to 
     minimize adverse impacts on the current remote and wild 
     values. The Committee understands that the type of mining 
     that will take place here is of a low impact, underground 
     type.
       The hearing record on the Arizona Strip Bill is also 
     instructive. It demonstrates that the stakeholders truly 
     believed a ``win win'' had been struck and were willing to 
     testify in support of the compromise. The following excerpts 
     are taken from the testimony offered on October 21, 1983 on 
     the Arizona Strip Wilderness Act of 1983 before the House 
     Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks:

[[Page S6465]]

     Testimony of Michael D. Scott, Regional Southwest Director, 
         The Wilderness Society.
       It [H.R. 3562] is supported by, among others, the mining 
     industry, local government, the livestock industry, and 
     conservationists. This unusual combination of support is not 
     an accident. It represents many months of work at forging a 
     compromise acceptable to the entire range of interests on the 
     Arizona Strip.'' (Page 296)
       At the same time that the Strip emerged as a top 
     conservationist priority, energy companies, most notably 
     Energy Fuels Nuclear (EFN), began to discover significant 
     uranium deposits. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in most cases 
     there are no significant minerals in wilderness or wilderness 
     candidate lands. As unfortunately happens on occasion, some 
     of these significant uranium deposits overlapped with 
     outstanding wildlands in the Strip. Fortunately, EFN, is not 
     a typical hard-rock mining company. Conservationists and EFN 
     decided to discuss those differences. (Page 297)
     Statement of Representative Bob Stump.
       For many months, several divergent groups, who would 
     usually be viewed as adversaries, have worked together to 
     form a consensus on wilderness designation and multiple use 
     for the Arizona Strip. The legislation which you have before 
     you today is the result of those efforts and is proof 
     positive that give and take on the part of all participants 
     can result in a compromise which will address all concerns. 
     (Page 271)
       The key and important factor in this agreement is that it 
     expresses the needs and desires of the ranching, mining, 
     local government, public land managers and environmental 
     communities  . . . an example of business interests and 
     environmental concerns working together. (Page 272)
       Almost 800,000 acres were included in the Bureau of Land 
     Management Wilderness Study Areas in the Arizona Strip. H.R. 
     3562 designates approximately 165,996 of those acres as well 
     as 122,604 acres in the Paiute Primitive Area, Paria 
     Primitive Area and Vermillion Cliffs Natural Area, as 
     wilderness. The remaining 620,000 acres or 79% of the BLM 
     Wilderness Study Areas will be released to multiple use. 
     (Page 272)
     Testimony of Gerald Grandey, Vice President, Energy Fuels 
         Corporation.
       Of what we know today, the Arizona Strip appears to be the 
     only area in the United States that has the potential to 
     produce relatively high grade uranium ore, which even at 
     today's depressed market is capable of competing with foreign 
     sources of the material, such as South Africa, Canada, and 
     Australia. (Page 106)
       The benefits to be had from the passage of the Arizona 
     Strip Wilderness Act of 1983 are clear. The wilderness in 
     question will be decided once and for all ending many years 
     of potential controversy and debate. In the areas released to 
     multiple use, our Company and others with active programs in 
     the Arizona Strip will be able to conduct exploration in a 
     cost effective and responsible manner. (Page 284)
     Testimony of Russ Butcher, Southwest Regional Representative, 
         National Parks Conservation Association.
       It was exactly one year ago that we first met and began 
     talking formally with the top officials of Energy Fuels 
     Nuclear, talking about the company's uranium exploration and 
     mining activities north of the Grand Canyon, and about the 
     relationship of these activities to an array of Federal 
     wilderness study areas. (Page 120)
       The proposed withdrawal is a ``de facto wilderness'' 
     designation; it will unravel decades of responsible resource 
     development on the Arizona Strip in a misguided effort to 
     ``save'' the Grand Canyon from the same form of uranium 
     mining that environmental groups once agreed to. Moving 
     forward with the proposed withdrawal will call into question 
     the Department's interpretation of wilderness-release 
     language in other legislation and its commitment to multiple-
     use policy in the years ahead. If the decision is made to 
     finalize the proposed withdrawal, all future wilderness 
     proposals will assuredly face even greater scrutiny as it 
     will be clear that negotiated agreements, such as those 
     contained in the Arizona Wilderness Act, are neither genuine 
     nor enduring.
       Again, we agree that the Grand Canyon deserves to be 
     protected for the enjoyment of future generations. However, 
     moving forward with the proposed withdrawal flies in the face 
     of the legislative history regarding mineral development and 
     responsible land management planning. We strongly urge you to 
     reconsider the proposed withdrawal.
           Sincerely,
         Signed by: Senator John McCain, Senator Orrin Hatch, 
           Senator Jon Kyl, Senator Mike Lee, Senator John 
           Barrasso, Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Rob 
           Bishop, Congressman Jeff Flake, Congressman David 
           Schweikert, Congressman Paul Gosar, Congressman Ben 
           Quayle, Congressman Jason Chaffetz.
                                 ______