[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8609-H8618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 GRAND CANYON CENTENNIAL PROTECTION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1373.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Welch). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 656 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1373.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1227


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1373) to protect, for current and future generations, the 
watershed, ecosystem, and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region 
in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes, with Ms. Sanchez in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I want to start today with a story.
  Near the south rim of the Grand Canyon sits Canyon Mine, a breccia 
pipe uranium mine in the middle of the Kaibab National Forest, only a 
few miles from the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park.
  This mine opened in 1986 after assurances that its operations would 
have minimal impact and that they wouldn't impact groundwater.
  Mind you, since it opened three decades ago, uranium production has 
never occurred at the site. Uranium ore has never come out of the mine.
  What has come out of the mine is over 20 million gallons of 
groundwater, polluted with uranium and arsenic from the ore body. The 
water has flowed into the mine ever since the mine operator pierced a 
groundwater aquifer in 2016.
  Again, the mine operator had assured regulators its mine shaft would 
be dry.
  The situation is so dire that the mine operator regularly resorts to 
spraying this uranium-contaminated water into the air to speed 
evaporation. On windy days, this spray has been known to travel off the 
site and into the surrounding areas and environment.
  Meanwhile, the mine shaft continues to fill with contaminated water.
  There are really only a few places that water might go if it escapes 
the mine shaft: down toward other aquifers, including those that feed 
the water to the Supai Village and Havasu Falls, or to the seeps and 
springs that flow into the Grand Canyon and, eventually, to the 
Colorado River itself.

                              {time}  1230

  Supai village has been the home of the Havasupai people for more than 
1,000 years. They have made this canyon their home. Their history is 
there. Their homes are there. Their lives are there. Yet this mine puts 
all that at risk.
  Again, no ore production has occurred at this site, but it has 
already degraded millions of gallons of clean water and put lives and 
culture at risk. And that contamination risk will only get worse once 
mining commences and the water is exposed to more and more uranium ore.
  This isn't a unique example. The Pine Nut mine on the North Rim of 
the Grand Canyon was thought closed and capped for two decades, but in 
2009 the mine was discovered to have unexpectedly filled with over two 
million gallons of radioactively contaminated water.
  Uranium mines across the southwest pollute our water, endanger our 
communities and our health, and despite assurances, hundreds of these 
sites are still waiting to be cleaned up, particularly those mines that 
impact Tribal communities.
  Madam Chair, for Arizonans, for the Havasupai, and for countless 
others across the southwest, the mineral withdrawal made permanent by 
H.R. 1373 is not theoretical and it is not trivial. I rise today to ask 
for this House's support for protecting clean water, protecting the 
health of our communities, and protecting the public lands and 
environment on which we all rely.
  The bill before us today permanently extends an existing temporary 
moratorium on new mining claims on public lands surrounding the Grand 
Canyon National Park, to prevent another canyon or Pine Nut mine from 
threatening our communities and our livelihoods.
  This House needs to act on this proposal because these critical 
protections are under threat from the Trump administration.
  Under the guise of energy dominance and fabricated arguments about 
national security, they have continually pushed for these lands to be 
open to exploitation on behalf of a few wealthy mining interests. The 
idea that we need to mine around the Grand Canyon--mind you, the Grand 
Canyon--to meet our energy needs is patently false. There is ample data 
to show it, and national security and nuclear nonproliferation experts 
have routinely raised the alarm that this fear-mongering about supplies 
is based on fantasy. It is time to stop rehashing the same worn out 
arguments. We shouldn't be mining for uranium around the Grand Canyon, 
period.
  This is an effort I have been involved in for over a decade, and I 
hope we can move forward today. I urge my colleagues to help me protect 
access to clean water and a healthy environment for the people of 
Arizona by supporting H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection 
Act.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise in opposition to H.R. 1373, the so-called Grand Canyon Centennial 
Protection Act. It is an antimining attack on northern Arizona and my 
district.
  This legislation imposes a massive land grab of more than one million 
acres, permanently banning mining and other multiple-use activities in 
an area nearly the size of Delaware. The withdrawal is also, I would 
like to point out, very far outside the Grand Canyon. The actual Grand 
Canyon, of course, is already subject to a multitude of Federal 
protections.
  Around one-third of the proposed withdrawal area in this bill is in 
my district. The rest is in Representative O'Halleran's district. And 
none of the lands in this bill are in the sponsor of this bill, 
Representative Grijalva's, district.
  This bill would have direct negative impacts on six counties in 
Arizona and Utah, with an estimated two to 4,000 jobs lost and $29 
billion in foregone overall economic activity. The withdrawal area also 
contains 4,204 acres belonging to the Arizona State Land Department for 
the benefit of Arizona's school children. This withdrawal will mean 
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue for local communities 
and for our schools. I think every single school district is hurting 
for money in Arizona.
  Further, the majority of the active and historic mining claims are in 
my district, and the main point of this bill is to lock up those lands 
for mineral development.
  I said that this is an attack on northern Arizona, and that is true, 
but that is not all. This bill is a specific, targeted attempt to 
prevent access to the

[[Page H8610]]

highest grade and largest quantity of uranium reserves in the country. 
In doing so, this legislation has serious defense and energy security 
implications for the entire Nation.
  Uranium is a uniquely valuable element. It is a source of renewable 
energy and also an irreplaceable application in defense and medicine. 
And yet, domestic uranium production in 2018 was 33 percent lower than 
in 2017. This year those numbers are likely to be even worse. Our 
domestic industry is disappearing. If nothing is done, it will be 
completely gone in just a few years. Look at what has happened with our 
timber industry in Arizona. We have completely wiped out the mechanism, 
and now we are victims of catastrophic wildfires.
  During consideration of this bill in committee, my colleagues across 
the aisle claimed that we source most of our uranium from allies like 
Canada and Australia. But they neglected to mention that a Canadian 
mine, which provided 15 percent of the global uranium supply, closed 
just last year. An Australian mine is scheduled to stop operations in 
2021 after 40 years of mining.
  But why is this? Why is our domestic industry struggling to stay in 
business and the uranium supply from our friends in Canada and 
Australia shrinking?
  Well, the largest uranium producer in the world is Kazakhstan, and 
together with Russia and Uzbekistan, these countries have been 
deliberately trying to ``corner'' the global market. Yes, I said it. 
Corner the global market. They are pushing the price of uranium down to 
artificially low levels and driving competitors in the United States 
and elsewhere out of business. In fact, China is joining in it too, 
buying up mines in Namibia.

  We currently import about 97 percent of our uranium from foreign 
sources. As of 2018, the majority of our uranium imports now come from 
hostile nations like Russia. This is not always the case, but the 
problem has gotten worse and worse over time, especially in recent 
years. I think all of us here today should consider that very alarming.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have cited concerns 
about water quality as a reason to prevent mining in the withdrawal 
area. But, in fact, successful uranium mining occurred in the 1980s. 
These mines were reclaimed so well that you can't tell where they have 
even existed. There was no damage done to the Grand Canyon watershed. 
In fact, they may have improved the watershed. And due to the small 
footprint of a typical breccia pipe operation, usually less than 40 
acres, even if every mining claim in the area became a mine, only a 
small fraction of the withdrawal area would be affected.
  Keep in mind that this is an area where mining and other multiple-use 
activities can coexist. In fact, a thoroughly-negotiated compromise to 
do just that was created by the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984, 
supported by the entire Arizona and Utah delegations. 387,000 acres of 
land was added to the National Wilderness Preservation System in 
exchange for 540 acres to be available for multiple use, including 
mining.
  Unfortunately, some of the environmental groups involved in that 
compromise have forgotten why it was made. Attempts to withdraw this 
area have returned with very strong opposition from my constituents and 
residents of northern Arizona.
  There is no question that H.R. 1373 will hurt local revenues, kill 
jobs, and undermine American energy security. It is opposed by the 
people of my district, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposition.
  Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I recognize my colleague from Arizona--
that was accurately stated, that he represents 70 percent of the 
designated area in this legislation.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).
  Mr. O'HALLERAN. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, legislation that would ban 
uranium mining in and near the Grand Canyon.
  I am proud to represent Arizona's First Congressional District, which 
is home to the Grand Canyon. Our canyon is a national treasure with 
cultural significance to Native American Tribes and Nations throughout 
the region, as well as home to the Havasupai Tribe.
  The Grand Canyon brings in over 6 million visitors each year. In 
2018, these visitors spent $1.2 billion in the local economy and 
supported over 12,000 jobs. The Grand Canyon is also home to the 
Colorado River, the water supply for an enormous portion of the 
southwest region.
  Potential contamination of the water by uranium mining would have a 
ripple effect that would devastate the 40 million people that rely on 
the Colorado River and local aquifers. Unfortunately, areas in and near 
the canyon are plagued by the toxic legacy of uranium mining to this 
day.
  Currently, there are over 500 abandoned uranium mines in the Navajo 
Nation alone. They have been there for 80 years. The Federal Government 
has an obligation to clean them up, as did the mining companies that 
abandoned them.
  Cancer diagnoses in the region are extremely high and are directly 
linked to uranium mining activity dating back to the Cold War.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass the Grand 
Canyon Centennial Protection Act. This commonsense bill protects our 
canyon, the health of northern Arizonans, the water supply of the 
southwest, and the growth of our State's economy by banning uranium 
mining in and near the Grand Canyon.
  Additionally, I want to note that this withdrawal of uranium mining 
does not jeopardize our energy market or our national security by 
forcing us to seek foreign sources. We are actually seeking foreign 
sources now because our cost is not competitive with world prices.
  According to Federal data, both New Mexico and Wyoming have three 
times the amount of uranium reserves as Arizona, Colorado, and Utah 
have combined. Our uranium imports are lower than they have been in 15 
years, and Canada, our ally, is our largest supplier along with 
Australia, another ally.
  I am proud to stand today in support of the Grand Canyon Centennial 
Protection Act, because the Grand Canyon is too precious to lose. I 
implore my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.
  The Arizona land trust is for the schools. This land may not be used 
for uranium mining, but it could be used for anything else to be able 
to address the issues of funding schools in Arizona. And, again, the 
mine that the chairman mentioned has a reason to be closed.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I want to explain. This is a cross-
section of geological formations. These yellow areas are called the 
breccia pipes. What ends up happening is these alluvial fans actually 
direct water. Uranium is water soluble. This is the Grand Canyon down 
here. This is where the springs come through. So what ends up happening 
is it dissolves into water, and it comes into the water.
  So it seems like to me, what we would want to do is get rid of that 
so there was not a perpetual leaching into the subsurface water. 
Geology tells us a lot.
  Madam Chairwoman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairwoman, when I chaired the Federal Lands Subcommittee a few 
years ago, the ranking Democratic member was from Massachusetts. She 
shared the Democrats' goal of having the Federal Government acquire as 
much land in the west as it possibly could. Try as I might, I could 
never impress upon her the difference between a State like 
Massachusetts, where the Federal Government owns only 1.2 percent of 
the land, and a State like mine, California, where it controls 46 
percent. I have got one county in my district where the Federal 
Government owns 93 percent of the land.

  And I tried in vain to get her to understand the dire economic 
implications for her district if the Federal Government one day seized 
46 percent of her State, took it off the tax rolls, restricted public 
access, and forbade any productive use on it. What would that do to her 
State's economy? Yet, that is precisely what the Federal Government has 
done to the west.
  Now, the Federal Government owns 39 percent of the State of Arizona. 
Our

[[Page H8611]]

holdings include the largest deposit of high-grade uranium ore in the 
United States, one of the largest in the world. Its development is 
critically important to our future defense and energy needs at a time 
when 93 percent of the uranium we use comes from foreign governments.
  Now, the Federal Government not only owns these critical deposits, it 
is responsible to the American people for their wise management and 
productive use.
  Now, a rational person might say, well, thank God we can be 
independent of foreign governments and develop these reserves for the 
benefit of taxpayers and the economy. A rational person might say that.
  But, of course, this bill is anything but rational. It would close 
these Federal lands, a million acres of them, far from the Grand 
Canyon, I might add, just to be clear, and forbid the American people 
from benefiting from these rich uranium deposits on the land that the 
American people own.

                              {time}  1245

  This bill imposes a completely irrational total prohibition on the 
development of these resources and devastates the economic potential 
for the communities nearby.
  Indeed, this bill is most strongly opposed by the local 
representative from these communities, Congressman Gosar. The elected 
county supervisor from Mohave County came to Washington to plead with 
the Democrats not to hobble the economy of their rural district in this 
way. Once again, the Democrats dismissed the pleas of local residents 
in order to scratch their own ideological itch to seize as much land as 
they can and put it off-limits to the American people.
  Madam Chair, I would remind the Democrats that this was the practice 
of the early Kings of England. They set aside one-third of the English 
countryside, declared them to be the King's Forests, off-limits to the 
common people. This practice so enraged the English people that no 
fewer than five clauses in the Magna Carta were written to redress 
their grievance.
  Not content to limit such devastating restrictions to the Federal 
lands, this measure would also hamstring mining on tens of thousands of 
acres of State trust fund lands, which help fund Arizona's public 
schools and hospitals.
  The Democrats have waged a war against agriculture and mining for 
many years now. This bill is just their latest ham-handed example.
  I think the American people need to wake up to what a devastating 
future these policies will produce. Think about this: Everything that 
we touch, everything that provides for our survival, our comfort, our 
quality of life, absolutely everything, is either mined or is grown. I 
don't know of any exceptions.
  I think it is time we carefully consider the nihilism of the modern 
left and where it would take our communities and where it would take 
our country before it is too late.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick), my colleague.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1373, the 
Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
  I have lived in Arizona my entire life, born and raised there. I 
remember frequently visiting the canyon as a child, marveling at its 
magnificence and its beauty. I have hiked down the Grand Canyon with my 
family, camped on the banks of the Colorado River. It is not a place 
where we should have uranium mining.
  There are many Native American Tribes who live in that area and who 
consider that a sacred site. For hundreds of years, their ancestors 
visited the Grand Canyon. They continue to worship there and have 
ceremonial sites in the Grand Canyon.
  We just cannot allow this kind of contamination to continue. The 
problem with uranium mining is that the retroactive disposal of uranium 
is very, very difficult to clear from the land.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Chair, one more point. When it rains in that 
watershed, rain carries that uranium contamination to our stock tanks 
and ponds, and then that contamination goes into our cattle.
  Madam Chair, this is a very serious issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1373.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick) 
for acknowledging that.
  We are going to go back to learning about geology. Once again, we 
have these breccia pipes, and you can see them on this location on the 
platform here.
  Now, let's look at something that naturally occurs in the next 
picture. What do you think this is? This is an exposed breccia pipe 
next to an alluvial fan.
  This is exactly what she was talking about. When water and air get to 
this, it immerses it into the water and carries it down.
  This is a concentrated supply of uranium. Wouldn't it be better to 
mine that area? That is what we have to get after. It is safe; it is 
effective; and it will show some mitigation.
  Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1373, the Grand 
Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
  This bill is very cleverly named to imply that it is safeguarding the 
Grand Canyon, something I believe that we all support. After all, who 
wouldn't want to protect one of our Nation's most iconic natural sites?
  But when we look at what this bill actually does, we quickly see that 
it has very little to do with the Grand Canyon. Instead, it is a 
Federal land grab that would lock up approximately 1 million acres of 
public land in northern Arizona and permanently ban mineral 
development.
  Let me make this clear: H.R. 1373, the so-called Grand Canyon 
Centennial Protection Act, focuses on land outside Grand Canyon 
National Park, miles away from the canyon.
  To hear this policy described, it sounds like we would be backing 
backhoes and trucks right up to the canyon and chipping off the rim of 
the canyon, but that is just not so. This is land very far outside of 
the park.
  This policy is progressive. It progressively increases outside 
bureaucratic control over more Federal land.
  The policy and the world view that supports it reminds me of the 
story of the greedy farmer. He said he didn't want all the land; he 
just wanted the land that bordered his land. Policy like this doesn't 
claim to want all the land; it just wants to put the land in protection 
that borders the land that is in protection. Someday, there won't be 
any land left if we continue implementing policies like this.
  As Mr. Gosar has already pointed out, the land up for debate is in 
his and Mr. O'Halleran's districts, not Mr. Grijalva's, and closing its 
development would result in hundreds of millions of dollars of lost 
revenue for local schools and communities.
  One of the common arguments against mineral development is that it 
disrupts wildlife habitats and water supplies, but we have seen this 
disproved time and time again. A strong economy and environmental 
stewardship can coexist.
  The Arizona Geological Survey published a report outlining uranium 
mining in this part of Arizona, showing how mining here would not 
contaminate the Colorado River, the Grand Canyon, or any of the 
surrounding watersheds.
  We have also seen how areas that were mined in the past have been 
successfully reclaimed. As modern mining techniques and technology 
continue improving, this process will only become more efficient and 
advanced.
  Finally, we cannot have a discussion about barring natural resource 
development on public lands without addressing the far and wide-ranging 
geopolitical repercussions. Our domestic uranium industry is currently 
supplying less than 1 percent of the uranium necessary to fuel U.S. 
nuclear reactors. Despite a vast domestic supply of uranium, much of it 
is inaccessible due to laws like H.R. 1373.
  This means the U.S. is forced to outsource its uranium supply from 
countries like Russia, Uzbekistan, and

[[Page H8612]]

Chinese-owned mines in Namibia. With geopolitical tensions constantly 
increasing, it is foolish for us to continue relying so heavily on 
countries that have proven themselves to be unfriendly to the U.S.
  If we permanently ban mineral development on another vast expanse of 
land, we are overtly threatening American energy and economic security, 
and I believe we are promoting less environmental stewardship around 
the globe.
  I have seen this story play out over and over again. My Democratic 
colleagues claim to be concerned about environmental safety and 
security, but their only solution is to lock up millions of acres and 
throw away the key.
  I ask: Wouldn't our time be better spent finding smart energy 
solutions that are sustainable and environmentally friendly and that 
provide American jobs?
  If we want the U.S. to continue leading the world in long-term energy 
solutions, this must be our approach.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stanton), my colleague.
  Mr. STANTON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman, Chairman Grijalva, 
for yielding, and for his leadership as the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, and as the senior member of our Arizona 
delegation.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial 
Protection Act.
  When people think of Arizona, they most often conjure up images of 
the Grand Canyon. It is our State's greatest treasure and one of the 
most iconic natural wonders on Earth.
  It took nearly 2 billion years for the Colorado River and its 
tributaries to cut through layer after layer of rock to form the 
canyon. The spectacular scene is something best experienced in person, 
which is why it is one of the most visited national parks in our 
country.
  The park is a key economic driver for northern Arizona's economy. 
Last year, the Grand Canyon welcomed 6.3 million visitors, bringing 
almost $1 billion of value to our local economies.
  President Teddy Roosevelt, who designated the Grand Canyon a national 
monument in 1908, said: ``Leave it as it is. You cannot improve upon 
it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.''
  We could not agree more.
  As we celebrate the park's centennial this year, we must take the 
necessary action to preserve this natural landscape for future 
generations to experience.
  The bill before us today, which makes permanent a ban on new uranium 
mining permits on nearly 1 million acres around the canyon, is that 
necessary action. It is a vital step to protect this delicate 
ecosystem, the significant number of species that call it home, as well 
as the Colorado River watershed on which millions of people rely for 
water.
  This legislation has strong support from leaders and industries 
across our State, from our Tribal nations to cities and counties, to 
recreation and environmental organizations.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to join us in preserving the Grand 
Canyon and supporting this important bill.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Madam Chair, it is great that the gentleman brought this up. So once 
again, let's go back to our geological timeframe.
  This water cuts through. This is the Grand Canyon. This is the shelf 
that you go over and look over at the beautiful, majestic aspect of the 
river.
  Look at what we have cut across, these breccia pipes. Once again, 
this is exposure. It is water-soluble, air-soluble. It goes back into 
the watershed.
  Once again, we are talking about up here, where mitigation should be 
very, very important.
  Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Stauber). He has been a stalwart person in regard to the mining 
industry; that it is a way of life in northern Minnesota.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Chair, I rise today with my colleagues in 
opposition to this harmful legislation.
  Today, the other side of the aisle is kowtowing to the wealthy and 
elite environmental lobby by ignoring science and facts and legislating 
over the needs of rural communities. This heavy-handed Federal approach 
ignores potential revenues generated from State trust lands that would 
flow to schools and our local communities.
  I feel like we are living in the movie ``Groundhog Day'' sometimes. 
Time and time again, locals who live on these lands, who work in the 
area, who raise their families there, who represent these districts 
are supportive of these projects. Those who often know nothing about 
the local projects, the economy, or the environment are the ones who 
are inserting themselves in opposition.

  This illustrates the vast divide between the realities for local 
communities and the visions of environmentalists. What these visions 
tend to ignore is that the choice is a binary one. We either get these 
minerals needed for our everyday life, renewable energy, and national 
security from right here in the United States, or we import them from 
places like Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in 
Africa.
  Do these countries have the same standards in place as we do to 
protect the environment? Madam Chair, the answer is no.
  Do these foreign mines hire workers with high-wage salaries? Madam 
Chair, the answer is no.
  Are these mines required to comply with a regulatory agency like the 
Mine Safety and Health Administration? Madam Chair, the answer is no.
  Do Russia and China have our best national security interests in 
mind? Madam Chair, the answer is no.
  Therefore, this legislation is baffling. Our enemies abroad could not 
have written a better bill to benefit their economies and national 
security goals while simultaneously damaging ours.
  Instead of arbitrarily deciding that mining is wrong, Madam Chair, 
let's look at the facts. One, it is unsustainable and irresponsible to 
continue our reliance on foreign adversaries for our minerals. Two, 
mining and a pristine environment are not mutually exclusive.
  Madam Chair, I encourage anybody in this body to come to northern 
Minnesota and view our reclaimed mines, which are home to the cleanest 
drinking water in the State of Minnesota.

                              {time}  1300

  Or, how about visiting the Hermit Mine in Arizona. This was a 
functional uranium mine in the 1980s. It is now fully reclaimed with a 
pristine landscape.
  We need these minerals. Let's stand up against antiscience scare 
tactics and vote against this bill and in support of good jobs, 
renewable energy, and national security for our country.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1373, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act.
  This bill ensures that uranium mining will not irreversibly 
contaminate the sensitive habitats and clean water of the Colorado 
River watershed, which provides drinking water to nearly 30 million 
Americans, including some of my constituents in Nevada.
  While uranium and other hard rock mining can help foster economic 
activity, as it has done in my home State of Nevada, it can also 
threaten community health. In my district, I have seen the impacts that 
uranium contamination can have on local communities in the town of 
Yerington and the Yerington Paiute Tribe.
  For decades, uranium contamination has persisted in this area, 
endangering the health of my constituents and forcing families to stop 
drinking from their taps, literally having to rely on bottled water. 
Sadly, cleanup of this site and others like it often takes much longer 
than it should, leaving families to choose between leaving their homes 
or living amongst health hazards.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to work on this bill to support 
this legislation in a bipartisan tradition and to vote to protect the 
Grand Canyon region and Colorado River watershed from the damaging 
impacts of uranium mining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H8613]]

  Madam Chair, once again, let's look at mitigation. The previous 
speaker on our side, Mr. Stauber from Minnesota, actually talked about 
it.
  Well, here is an active mine site called the Pigeon Mine. This is 
what it looked like: a footprint of less than 40 acres; right around 30 
acres. And this is it, newly minted right as it was done for 
reclamation. In 2 years, you are not going to be able to find anything 
here.
  Once again, look at what we are dealing with here. This is an exposed 
breccia pipe. Any water, any rain, any snow, any air will actually 
dissolve this and put it in the air--not just uranium, but arsenic as 
well. These are eroded away.
  Once again, geology teaches you everything you need to know. Once 
again, all these breccia pipes are built here.
  Here is the Grand Canyon. We are not doing anything here. But look at 
the exposure here for the uranium leaching into the subsurface and into 
the Colorado River--not just that, but arsenic as well.
  Look at what we are mining up on here, protecting and clearing that 
out. And you can see that their mitigation is exemplary.
  Eighty years ago, we abandoned a bunch of mines, but a lot of Federal 
Government was to blame about that.
  We also heard the dissertation in regards to the park could generate 
all sorts of other revenue. Well, the last time I looked, the park 
wasn't generating; they were going in the negative. In fact, the 
backlog on maintenance is over $12 billion.
  The government doesn't run these very, very well, and this is a great 
opportunity for multiple use. It actually cleans the water, improves 
the drainage into the subsurface water, and gets to a problem with a 
solution that works and has been trusted.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act 
is an important bill to protect one of America's most iconic national 
parks and elevate the voices of Tribal communities.
  Tribal leaders from across the Southwest have called on Congress to 
permanently protect this region from uranium mining. These communities 
have seen firsthand the devastating impact uranium extraction could 
have on their lives, on their health, and the health of their children.
  For example, the Havasupai Tribe live in the bottom of the Grand 
Canyon. Uranium contamination of the aquifers that sustain their land 
would destroy their drinking water, their farms, and kill their 
livestock. Even their ability to remain on their Tribal homeland is at 
risk.
  It is time for Congress to listen to these Tribal leaders. It is time 
for Congress to stand up for future generations who are relying upon us 
for clean water, public lands, cultural heritage, and other priceless 
resources.
  As a chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I hear from Americans about the value of 
conserving our public lands and protecting our air and our water. The 
Trump administration's agenda puts that all at risk by prioritizing 
profits for mining companies over our public health and the health of 
our environment.
  In my home State of Minnesota, the Trump administration's push to 
mine at any cost jeopardizes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, 
our Nation's most visited wilderness area.
  Congress needs to state clearly and emphatically that some places are 
just simply too important and too precious to exploit. Today, we take a 
stand to protect the lands and waters surrounding the Grand Canyon, one 
of the earliest and most iconic national parks.
  Madam Chair, I support H.R. 1373, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, once again, geology tells us everything we need to know. 
Once again, the gentlewoman actually talked about the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness. Once again, I feel sorry for the public being 
misused and used like pawns by the other side about the misnomer.
  Once again, the Grand Canyon--this is the Grand Canyon. There is 
nothing going on right here. Oh, I forgot. Water runs down, dissolves 
uranium and arsenic, and puts it into the water.
  What we are talking about is mitigation on this plateau. This is 
outside the Grand Canyon experience. This is what is so important is 
that this is helping out the health and the strength of the purity of 
water. That is the key here.
  Not only that, but the last time I knew, Arizona fights over water 
because we have to drink whiskey. We want clean water here, so we are 
enabling, actually, clean water here.
  Once again, there are dozens of fights for the conversation we are 
having today. The American people are being used like pawns. They don't 
know what is right. Go back to geology. The geology sets you free.
  You have seen the mitigation. Yes, 80 years ago, there wasn't great 
mitigation. That was a big part of the U.S. Government and its 
oversight. But now, there is great opportunity for this to happen. We 
are not talking about the Grand Canyon. It is outside on the plateau.
  Once again, as these are exposed through erosion, you have 
contamination of subsurface water. It seems to me like we should 
actually clean it up.
  The other thing I keep hearing about is we have got plenty of 
supplies. Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so 
narrow-sided that they forgot about: How did China actually grow to own 
the world market of rare earths? I mean, think about that. In order to 
have a cell phone, you have got to have these critical minerals and 
rare earths.
  In the trade debate, what did China threaten us with? Withholding 
rare earths.
  Why do we have some of our leading battery technology over in China? 
Because we didn't have supply chains here.
  The other side talks about globalization. Well, let's talk about 
globalization. Nobody--let me repeat--nobody--in the world does mining 
like the U.S. No one does it under the same protections, and the same 
protections for the workers--nobody.
  And if we are talking about globalization, which always keeps coming 
out of the other side's mouth, well, then we ought to be bringing all 
this home so that we are the entrepreneur, we are the one forcing this 
issue, and we are the one who controls our own destiny.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this bill and his unwavering commitment to both his home State and our 
environment.
  Madam Chair, this legislation isn't just about protecting our land 
and natural resources for generations to come.
  It isn't just about ensuring the water rights for the Havasupai Tribe 
and indigenous people our country has long abused and ignored.
  It is not just about the tourism industry that could crumble and 
threaten the local economies that depend on it.
  It isn't even just about the health of our environment, our air, our 
water, and our children.
  It is about the choices that we make and the priorities that we 
share.
  It is about finally choosing people over profits.
  It is about finally choosing the long-term health of our planet and 
our children over the short-term reward of stripping our resources and 
leaving devastation and destruction behind.
  By passing the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act, we will show 
the people of Arizona, and countless other Americans who have been 
sidelined by powerful special interests, that they are still heard, 
that they are still seen, and that they will not be dismissed by their 
government.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, once again, the gentleman made my point perfectly for 
me: This is about people.
  There is mitigation. We are holding people accountable. They are 
empowered because now we are controlling the energy cycle. We are not 
indentured to another country like China or Russia.

[[Page H8614]]

  We are looking at the long series, making sure that we control our 
own destiny. That was the American experience. And we are accountable. 
That is key.
  So when you look at mitigation like this, you can't dispute it. You 
are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are what they are.
  So there is a way forward and a way forward to do this right, and it 
is being presented right here. The answer is not ``no''; it is about 
what it takes to get to ``yes.'' This bill is totally wrong for that 
very format.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I include in the Record a list of organizations that are 
opposed to this bill; a Statement of Administration Policy threatening 
to veto this bill if it were even to get through; a letter from the 
Uranium Producers of America in strong opposition to the bill; an 
article from The Epoch Times, dated September of 2019, basically 
talking about the U.S. needs alternatives to China's rare earth 
monopoly, once again, a stranglehold.

                  Western Caucus, Chairman Paul Gosar


                        Opposition to H.R. 1373

       So far H.R. 1373 is opposed by: American Exploration & 
     Mining Association (Group Letter), Arizona Liberty (Group 
     Letter), Arizona Mining Association (Group Letter), Arizona 
     Pork Producers (Group Letter), Arizona Rock Products 
     Association (Group Letter), Citizens For America (Group 
     Letter), Conservative Coalition of Northern Arizona (Group 
     Letter), Conservatives for Property Rights (Letter), Denver 
     Lumber Company (Letter), enCore Energy Corp (Letter), Lake 
     Havasu Chamber of Commerce (Letter); the Mohave County 
     Supervisors (Resolution), National Mining Association 
     (Letter), National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (Letter), 
     New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association (Letter), New Mexico 
     Federal Lands Council (Letter), New Mexico Wool Growers 
     Association (Letter), Western Energy Alliance (Group Letter).
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 1373--Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act--Rep. Grijalva, D-AZ, 
                           and 122 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1373, the Grand 
     Canyon Centennial Protection Act. This bill would permanently 
     make more than 1 million acres of Federal lands in Arizona 
     off limits to development and uses that would otherwise be 
     permissible under Federal laws governing public lands, 
     mining, mineral, and geothermal leasing. The Administration 
     opposes such a large, permanent withdrawal, which would 
     prohibit environmentally responsible development, as 
     determined through site-specific analysis, of uranium and 
     other mineral resources.
       The United States has an extraordinary abundance of mineral 
     resources, both onshore and offshore, but this legislation 
     would restrict our ability to access critical minerals like 
     uranium in an area known to have them in large supply. 
     Moreover, the size of the withdrawal included in H.R. 1373 is 
     inconsistent with the Administration's goal of striking the 
     appropriate balance for use of public lands described in two 
     executive orders. This withdrawal would conflict with the 
     objectives set forth in Executive Order 13783, Promoting 
     Energy Independence and Economic Growth, and Executive Order 
     13817, A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable 
     Supplies of Critical Minerals. Development of our Nation's 
     mineral resources is essential to ensuring the Nation's 
     geopolitical security, and this bill would not help us 
     achieve that goal.
       If H.R. 1373 were presented to the President, his advisors 
     would recommend that he veto it.
                                  ____



                                 Uranium Producers of America,

                           Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 28, 2019.
     Hon. Raul Grijalva,
     Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop: On behalf 
     of the Uranium Producers of America (UPA), I write to express 
     our strong opposition to H.R. 1373, the Grand Canyon 
     Centennial Protection Act. The permanent mineral withdrawal 
     imposed by H.R. 1373 unnecessarily eliminates access to 
     significant known deposits of uranium, rare earth elements, 
     and other critical minerals.
       UPA is a national trade association representing the 
     domestic uranium mining and conversion industries. UPA 
     members conduct uranium exploration, development, and mining 
     operations in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, South 
     Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. UPA members operate 
     valuable, high-grade uranium deposits that provide quality, 
     high-paying jobs, tax revenues, and produce clean energy for 
     the citizens of the United States. UPA's mission is to 
     promote the viability of the nation's uranium industry, while 
     being good stewards of the environments in which we work and 
     live.
       H.R. 1373's permanent withdrawal of over one million acres 
     of federal land from mineral development ignores the 
     comprehensive suite of federal, state, and local 
     environmental regulations that apply to the mining process, 
     from exploration and production to reclamation and closure. 
     H.R. 1373 disregards the well-documented success of mine 
     reclamation in the withdrawal area and the fact that all 
     federal lands within Grand Canyon National Park were already 
     withdrawn from the Mining Law when the park was created. 
     Moreover, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are 
     significant undiscovered uranium resources in the withdrawal 
     area, but the mineral assessment required as part of the 
     current moratorium has not yet begun. This means H.R. 1373 
     would permanently strand resources without an informed 
     understanding of the economic value of the deposits and the 
     national security impact of their permanent withdrawal.
       Ensuring responsible access to uranium deposits on federal 
     land is a crucial component of ensuring the long-term 
     viability of the domestic uranium industry, the survival of 
     which is vital to energy and national security. Despite the 
     existence of vast deposits, domestic producers forecast 2019 
     production to plummet below one percent of what is required 
     to power our commercial nuclear reactors, which is not enough 
     uranium to power even one of our nation's 98 reactors. These 
     reactors produce approximately 20 percent of the electricity 
     for the U.S. power grid, representing the world's largest 
     commercial nuclear fleet and supplying more than half of the 
     carbon-free power in the United States. In addition, 
     international agreements require domestically-sourced uranium 
     to meet our defense requirements, including our nuclear 
     weapons and the nuclear-powered Navy.
       H.R. 1373 is particularly objectionable at a time the 
     United States is at risk of losing its domestic uranium 
     industry and becoming completely reliant on imported uranium. 
     Uranium imports from state-backed entities have created an 
     uneven global playing field on which market-driven uranium 
     companies in the United States are unable to compete. An 
     increasing share of uranium imports into the United States 
     are coming from government or state-controlled entities 
     located in nations that are not aligned with U.S. interests. 
     While free market companies are forced to adapt to market 
     conditions, state-backed entities within the Russian sphere 
     of influence (RSOI) have ignored the market, increased their 
     total supply, and added further downward pressure to prices. 
     U.S. uranium companies are not competing with free market 
     companies in the RSOI; they are competing with governments 
     more concerned about increasing market share, and 
     geopolitical advantage, than profitability.
       We urge you to vote against H.R. 1373 and instead 
     prioritize policies to revive and expand domestic uranium 
     mining, nuclear fuel production and the provision of clean 
     energy in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jon J. Indall,
     Counsel for UPA.
                                  ____


               [From the Epoch Times, September 8, 2019]

          US Needs Alternatives to China's Rare Earth Monopoly

                           (By James Gorrie)

       As the trade war goes on, China threatens to deprive the US 
     of critical elements its economy and its military can't do 
     without.
       Many consider China's vast portfolio of U.S. Treasuries as 
     their not-so-secret weapon in the ongoing trade war. And it 
     some ways. that is certainly true. China could decide to 
     liquidate much or all of its U.S. bond holdings in response 
     to rising tariff, and use other tactics. like currency 
     devaluation.
       But such a move would damage their economy along with 
     America's. The Chinese are smarter than that.


                   China State Media Hints at Embargo

       Besides. the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has another. 
     more tangible ace up its sleeve. As unbelievable as it 
     sounds. China holds a near global monopoly on the supply--or 
     more accurately. the processing capacity--of rare earth 
     elements (REE).
       Should China decide to impose an embargo against the sale 
     of REEs to the United States, the American economy and the 
     U.S. military would be scrambling to replace them, at least 
     in the short run. That's not overstating this situation, by 
     the way. As Foreign Policy magazine recently observed. 
     ``Beijing could slam every comer of the American economy. 
     from oil refineries to wind turbines to jet engines. by 
     banning exports of crucial minerals.'' The list of REE-
     critical products includes smartphones. special alloys. 
     navigation systems, and much more. China, of course. is well 
     aware of this. In fact. China's state-run media have been 
     promoting an embargo, or leveraging the threat of one. in 
     response to the U.S. tariffs on Chinese products. and 
     specifically. against the U.S. blacklisting of Huawei. 
     China's biggest telecom equipment manufacturer and a leader 
     in 5G networks. Since all media in China is controlled by the 
     Chinese Communist Party (CCP). it's a certainty that this 
     message is being sent to U.S. trade negotiators directly from 
     the CCP.

[[Page H8615]]

  



                      China Made This Play Before

       If China docs stop selling REEs to the United States. it 
     wouldn't be the first time they've played that card. In 2006. 
     China began limiting its exports of REEs. reducing them by 40 
     percent until 2010. The reduction caused the prices of non-
     China-sourced REEs to skyrocket. China also took advantage of 
     its market dominance and stopped selling to Japan in 
     retribution for a maritime incident.
       After the United States. along with Japan and Europe. 
     prevailed against China in a WTO fight in 2015. China 
     dramatically dropped its REE prices and drove the only active 
     REE processing plant in the United States, Molycorp, into 
     bankruptcy. At that time China produced 95 percent of the 
     world's rare earth metals.


                          How Did We Get Here?

       But how has the U.S. allowed itself to be put in such bind? 
     Wouldn't it make sense to have secured an American or at 
     least a friendly source of these REEs on which so much of our 
     military preparedness and our economy are reliant? Shouldn't 
     that have been a priority, say, decades ago?
       Actually. it was. But that changed in 1980. when rare earth 
     mineral mining and processing came under the purview of the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency. Regulatory guidelines became increasingly 
     restrictive, driving up costs, steadily decreasing U.S. 
     producers' competitiveness. By the mid-1990s, the U.S. was no 
     longer producing REEs.


              Rare Earth Elements Aren't so Rare After All

       Fortunately, REEs aren't rare at all. In fact, they're 
     actually quite plentiful around the world, even in the United 
     States. The 17 elements that are categorized as REEs have 
     magnetic and conductive aspects and are typically unearthed 
     as a result of mining operations. but most are present in 
     only small amounts. There are few, if any. specific ``rare 
     earth mines.'' The costs and health risks of producing REEs 
     are in the processing. For instance. since toxins and 
     radiation are a by-product of processing REEs. many Western 
     nations' environmental and labor laws make processing them 
     both costly and a health risk to miners. It has been easier 
     much cheaper for other nations to let China produce them, 
     since neither health codes nor environmental standards are 
     significant factors there.


                        An REE Shortage Crisis?

       But the costs of allowing China to gain the upper hand in 
     the world's supply of REEs are now becoming clear. If China 
     does in fact restrict REE sales to the United States in the 
     near future. it would certainly impact both the consumer 
     product markets and the military.
       The key question is, how long it would take to bridge the 
     supply gap and find alternatives? One mitigating factor is 
     Australian-based Lynas. the world's only major rare-earth 
     producer outside of China. It has partnered with Texas-based 
     Blue Line to establish U.S. operations by 2021. However, the 
     United States still lacks any REE processing capacity, 
     representing a critical and ongoing vulnerability in its 
     military capabilities. But the news isn't all bad. The 
     Mountain Pass mine in California is currently being prepared 
     to ramp up REE processing operations by 2020. Coincidentally. 
     Mountain Pass was previously owned by Molycorp, which had 
     invested over $1.5 billion in the processing project. before 
     being forced out of business by China in 2015. The critical 
     role that REEs play in both military and consumer products is 
     impossible to overstate. The U.S. economy is dependent upon a 
     steady and dependable supply. If America is to be successful 
     in its bid to roll back China's power and influence over the 
     rest of the world. ensuring its own supply of strategic REE 
     is not just an option. it's a necessity.

  Mr. GOSAR. Once again, let's go back. Let's look at the geology. The 
geology tells us everything that we need to know.
  We need to understand the minerals. The minerals are water soluble. 
These are condensed pipes, vertically. What is happening is that, as 
water runs--and this is a lot of sedimentary rock. That is why the 
Grand Canyon is so deep.
  When it runs over these breccia pipes, like we have talked about, 
they are exposed naturally. Prior to that, they are covered with what 
they call a sulfite cap. But once they are exposed--and you can see 
this under the Grand Canyon experience--you walk over these breccia 
pipes. You walk over them. They are exposed naturally.
  Don't you think it is wise to remove these? It is a good 
concentration. It keeps the supply chain in.
  And if you get rid of our only mining uranium concentrator, it 
doesn't come back. It won't come back. And then you sold your soul to 
China and you sold your soul to Russia, because they own the monopoly.

                              {time}  1315

  That is what is wrong here.
  Last, but not least, we also have to make sure that multiple-use is 
put down forward. We are stewards of that--we, as Congress.
  Public lands were taken aside by the Federal Government from the 
States in a joint tenancy, that they would be vested properly for the 
best use, the best investment, and the best return. The last time I 
have been watching, we have been actually denigrating that.
  When is enough enough? Arizona has more national monuments than any 
other State in the country.
  Congress then told the people that we will give payment in lieu of 
taxes. We have had to beg for every penny that we get. That is wrong. 
This contract is about, yes, you can do all this. You can clean up mine 
sites that were left before.
  And don't get me started on the Bennett Freeze, by the way. The 
Federal Government put an arbitrary line, that you can't do anything 
under that Bennett Freeze line. Wow, that is wonderful. Thank the 
Federal Government for that. That is amazing, and particularly a lot of 
the mine shafts that have been exposed from that very era.
  Once again, this is about common sense, facts. We have disputed 
everything that they have talked about. This is a natural formation. It 
is millions upon millions upon millions of years old. As that water 
runs down, as that air runs down, we contaminate it with low levels of 
uranium. Wouldn't it be better if we actually got rid of that and 
actually got better and more clean water, clean of uranium and arsenic?
  That is an important process here. That is where we are actually 
helping people out. People benefit from it.
  Once again, here is a breccia pipe exposed, not by man but by nature. 
You are walking all over it.
  Once again, you see this alluvial fan where water runs. What do you 
think it is running over? What do you think it is dripping down 
through? What do you think is dissolving in there?
  Madam Chair, this isn't rocket science, but it is not an emotional 
one either. It is an articulated, scientific argument.
  Once again, the mitigation, I could take somebody up here and nobody 
could find this mine site now. This is after immediate resolution on 
it. But what is different about this than 80 years ago is that we are 
holding people accountable. The government failed at that before. We 
have seen this type of mitigation over and over again.
  In the Resolution Copper mine down in southern Arizona, we have seen 
an investment of almost $1 billion by the mining company to mitigate a 
previously mined area. It is beautiful. It is absolutely beautiful. I 
want people to go see it. I want them to try the water. It is pristine. 
It is cleaner than they found it.
  That is good stewardship. That is utilizing the things that were 
given to us to make this country and technology grow. That is the 
opportunity that we have.
  Arbitrarily just taking things off back and forth, that is not the 
right way to go.
  Talking about the indigenous people there, well, it is sad when we 
use them as pawns, when we have a press conference and they don't even 
know what they are coming to the press conference for. That is sad.
  America needs to wake up. This has nothing to do with the Grand 
Canyon. This has everything to do with monopolization and removing part 
of the segment that we promised future generations for that investment. 
That is what we have done. That is what the other side wants to do.
  There is a way forward, responsibly, clean, and proper.
  Madam Chair, I would like to have all of my colleagues vote against 
this measure. Once again, the President issued a SAP that he will not 
sign the bill, and it will die in the Senate.
  Once again, this is a messaging bill. It is sad that we are 
bombarding everyone with bad facts. Spend time looking at the facts. 
Geology, the rocks, set you free. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Since we are engaging in a little bit of a geology course, I would 
like to point out, at the Kanab North Uranium Mine that has already 
been closed, within 400 feet of the mine site where the fence is, after 
20 years, levels are as high as 10 times above the naturally occurring 
level for uranium concentration. This has been open and exposed for 20 
years. The mine ceased operations in the 1990s.

[[Page H8616]]

  I use that to say that, as far as I understand, the House of 
Representatives is a national legislature, and as a national 
legislature, we have responsibilities to deal with issues, regardless 
of whether it is in my particular district or in my colleague, Mr. 
Gosar's particular district.
  Over the course of the last couple of days, we have heard our 
Republican colleagues call this bill a number of things: a tired, old 
retread; a national security threat; a Federal land grab; an attack on 
science; and even an idle waste of time. I want to assure this Chamber 
and the American people that protecting the Grand Canyon is none of 
these characterizations.
  The truth is, this bill is a critical safeguard for the Grand Canyon, 
one of the most iconic landscapes in the world, and the vital Colorado 
River watershed that supplies drinking water for communities throughout 
the Southwest.
  Forty million people depend on that source. We just passed, 
overwhelmingly, the drought contingency plan for five States, including 
Arizona, because of the imminent threat of drought and the need to 
protect that river and that water source.
  Most importantly, this bill is in response to Tribal communities that 
have experienced firsthand the toxic legacy of uranium mining. When I 
first got involved in this effort over a decade ago, it was not because 
of narrow special interests. It was because the Navajo Nation, the 
Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and other impacted 
communities were calling for an end to the contamination associated 
with uranium mining.

  These communities have lived on the land since time immemorial. Their 
interests go beyond the handful of jobs associated with the boom and 
bust cycle of the mining industry.
  Historically, Tribal communities in the Southwest have borne the 
brunt of uranium mining's impact, with some estimates placing over 
1,000 abandoned uranium mines and four mills on the Navajo Nation 
alone.
  In 2008, health officials discovered that nearly 30 water sources in 
the Navajo Nation contained unsafe levels of uranium, and 27 percent of 
the residents tested positive for high levels of uranium.
  The Navajos are not alone. In fact, the Havasupai, who live in the 
Grand Canyon and depend on the aquifer beneath the Colorado Plateau, 
are dealing with contaminated groundwater associated with the active 
discharge by the Canyon Mine. This is why several Havasupai Tribal 
leaders and members traveled to Washington, D.C., to be present for 
this vote.
  This bill is about protecting these communities. It is about 
providing lasting protection for a sacred landscape.
  The consequences of uranium mining are not some imagined or unproven 
threat. We are forcing communities to contemplate the viability of 
their ancestral homes.
  The United States has an obligation to protect Tribal communities and 
ensure that they prosper. We have a moral obligation to protect our 
most sacred and treasured public lands. We shouldn't need a treaty to 
remind us to do the right thing.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with the Havasupai and 
other affiliated Tribes to protect the Grand Canyon for future 
generations.
  A ``yes'' vote today on the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act 
is, overall, a declaration that there are places and communities in 
which extraction and destruction of a landscape, and jeopardizing 
people's health and their welfare and generational advancement, that 
those places should be left alone.
  The Grand Canyon should be left alone. It is, after all, the Grand 
Canyon. I urge swift adoption of H.R. 1373, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I include in the Record this document.
  It is titled ``Why I Changed My Mind About Nuclear Power.''
  It details very clearly and wisely why nuclear power and its supply 
chains are very important.

           [From Environmental Progress, September 12, 2019]

   Why I Changed My Mind About Nuclear Power: Transcript of Michael 
          Shellenberger's TEDx Berlin 2017--November 21, 2017

                       (By Michael Shellenberger)

       Like a lot of kids born in the early 1970s, I had the good 
     fortune to be raised by hippies. One of my childhood heroes 
     was Stewart Brand. Stewart is not only one of the original 
     hippies, he's also one of the first modern environmentalists 
     of the 1960s and 70s. As a young boy, one of my favorite 
     memories is playing cooperative games that Stewart Brand 
     invented as an antidote to the Vietnam War.
       I'm from a long line of Christian Pacifists known as 
     Mennonites. Every August, as kids, we would remember the US 
     government's atomic bombing of Japan by lighting candles and 
     sending them on paper boats at Bittersweet Park.
       After high school, throughout college, and afterwards, I 
     brought delegations of people to Central America to promote 
     diplomacy and peace and to support local farmer cooperatives 
     in Guatemala and Nicaragua.
       Over time, as I've travelled around the world and visited 
     small farming communities on every continent, I've come to 
     appreciate that most young people don't want to be stuck in 
     the village. They don't want to spend their whole lives 
     chopping and hauling wood. They want to go to the city for 
     opportunity--at least most of them them do--for education and 
     for work.
       What I've realized is that process of urbanization of 
     moving to the city is actually very positive for nature. It 
     allows the natural environment to come back. It allows for 
     the central African Mountain Gorilla, an important endangered 
     species, to have the habitat they need to survive and thrive.
       In that process you have to go vertical, and so even in 
     places like Hong Kong you can see that with tall buildings 
     they can spare the natural environment around the city.
       Of course, it takes a huge amount of energy to go up, and 
     so the big question of our time is how do you get plentiful, 
     reliable electricity without destroying the climate?
       I started out as an anti-nuclear activist and I quickly got 
     involved in advocating for renewable energy. In the early 
     part of this century I helped to start a labor union and 
     environmentalist alliance called the Apollo Alliance and we 
     pushed for a big investment in clean energy: solar, wind, 
     electric cars.
       The investment idea was eventually picked up by President 
     Obama, and during his time in office we invested about $150 
     billion to make solar, wind and electric cars much cheaper 
     than they were.
       We seemed to be having a lot of success but we were 
     starting to have some challenges. Some of them you're 
     familiar with. Solar and wind generate electricity in Germany 
     just 10 to 30 percent of the time, and so we're dependent on 
     the weather for electricity.
       There were other problems we were noticing, though. 
     Sometimes these energy sources generate too much power and 
     while you hear a lot of hype about batteries we don't have 
     sufficient storage even in California, where we have a lot of 
     investment and a lot of Silicon Valley types putting a lot of 
     investment in battery and other storage technologies.
       While we were struggling with these problems, Stewart Brand 
     came out in 2005 and said we should rethink nuclear power. 
     This was a shock to the system for me and my friends. Stewart 
     was one of the first big advocates of solar energy anywhere 
     during the early 1970s. He advised Governor Jerry Brown of 
     California.
       But he said, look, we've been trying to do solar for a long 
     time and yet we get less than a half of a percent of our 
     electricity globally from solar, about two percent from wind, 
     and the majority of our clean energy comes from nuclear and 
     hydro.
       And according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change, nuclear produces four times less carbon emissions 
     than solar does. That's why they recommended in their recent 
     report the more intensive use of renewables, nuclear and 
     carbon capture and storage.
       Let's take a closer look at Germany. Germany gets the 
     majority of its electricity and all of its transportation 
     fuels from fossil fuels. Last year Germany got 40 percent of 
     its electricity from coal, 13 percent from nuclear, 12 
     percent from natural gas, 12 percent from wind, and six 
     percent from solar.
       Keep in mind that you don't just have to go from 18 percent 
     solar and wind to 100 percent solar and wind. To replace the 
     entire transportation sector with electric cars you'd need to 
     go from 18 percent renewables to something like 150 percent. 
     Germany's done a lot to invest in renewables and innovate 
     with solar and wind, but that's a pretty steep climb--even 
     before you get to the question of storage.
       Let's look at last year, Germany installed four percent 
     more solar panels but generated three percent less 
     electricity from solar.
       Even when I'm in meetings with energy experts and I ask 
     people if they can make a guess as to why they think that is, 
     and you'd be shocked by how many energy experts have no idea.
       The reason is just that it wasn't very sunny last year in 
     Germany.
       Well, that probably meant that it was windier, right? 
     Because if it's not as sunny then maybe there's more wind and 
     those things can balance each other out?
       In truth, Germany installed 11 percent more wind turbines 
     in 2016 but got two percent less of its electricity from 
     wind. Same story. Just not very windy.
       So then you might think, ``Well, we just need to do a lot 
     of solar and wind so that

[[Page H8617]]

     when there's not a lot of sunlight or wind we can get more 
     electricity from those energy sources.''
       That's what Germany is trying to do. Its plan is to 
     increase the amount of electricity it gets from solar by 50 
     percent by 2030, which would take you from 40 to 60 
     gigawatts.
       But if you have a year like 2016, you'll still only be 
     getting nine percent of your total electricity from solar. 
     And this is the biggest solar country in the world. Germany 
     is the powerhouse of renewables.
       The obvious response is we'll just put it all in batteries. 
     We hear so much talk about batteries. You would think that we 
     just have a huge amount of storage.
       Environmental Progress took a look at our home state of 
     California and we discovered that we have just 23 minutes of 
     storage for the grid--and to get that 23 minutes you'd have 
     to use every battery in every car and truck in the state. 
     (Which, as you can imagine, is not super practical if you're 
     trying to get somewhere. And Germany might be a little 
     different but not very different from California.)
       Most people are aware that to make this transition to 
     renewables, Germany has been spending a lot more on 
     electricity. And German electricity prices rose about 50 
     percent over the last 10 years. Today, German electricity is 
     about two times more expensive than electricity is in France.
       You might think, look, that's a small price to pay to deal 
     with climate change. And I would agree with that. Paying a 
     bit more for energy--at least for those of us in the rich 
     world--is a decent thing to do to avert the risk of 
     catastrophic global warming.
       But when you compare French and German electricity, France 
     gets 93 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources, 
     mostly hydro and nuclear while Germany gets just 46 percent, 
     or about half as much clean energy.
       Here's the shocking thing: German carbon emissions have 
     gone up since 2009, and up over the last two years, and may 
     go up again this year. And while German emissions have gone 
     down since the 1990s, most of that is because, after 
     reunification, Germany closed the inefficient coal plants 
     from East Germany. Most of its emissions reductions are just 
     due to that.
       Let's look at last year. One of the ways you can reduce 
     emissions quickly is by switching from coal to natural gas, 
     which produces about half as much emissions. Coal to gas 
     switching would have resulted in lower emissions except for 
     the fact that Germany took nuclear reactors off-line. And 
     when it did that, emissions went up again.
       There's still question about the future: if we do a lot of 
     solar and wind, won't it all work itself out?
       One of the biggest challenges to solar and wind has come 
     from somebody in Germany who is not a pro-nuclear person at 
     all. He's an energy analyst and economist named Leon Hirth. 
     What he finds is that the problem I described earlier--where 
     you have too much solar or wind and you don't know what to do 
     with it--reduces their economic value.
       The value of wind drops 40 percent once it becomes 30 
     percent of your electricity, Hirth finds, and the value of 
     solar drops by half when it gets to just 15 percent.
       One of the things you hear is that we can do a solar roof 
     fast--just one day to put up the thing--whereas it takes five 
     or ten years to build a nuclear plant. And so people think 
     that if we do solar and wind we can go a lot faster.
       But the speed of deployment was the subject of an important 
     article in the journal Science last year, which was 
     coauthored by the climate scientist James Hansen. They found 
     that even when you combine solar and wind you just get a lot 
     less energy than when you do nuclear. That goes for Germany 
     as well as the United States. They just compared ten years of 
     deployment for the two technologies and it's a stark 
     comparison.
       Well, I can tell what you're thinking, because it's what I 
     was thinking: it sounds like I might need to rethink my views 
     of nuclear power. But what about Chernobyl? What about 
     Fukushima? What about all the nuclear waste? Those are really 
     reasonable questions to ask.
       When I was starting to ask them, there were other people 
     who were starting to change their minds. One of the ones I 
     was most impressed by, and who was very influential, was 
     George Monbiot.
       Monbiot wrote a column shortly after Fukushima where he 
     went through the scientific research on radiation and 
     concluded, ``The anti-nuclear movement to which I once 
     belonged has misled the world about the impacts of radiation 
     on human health.''
       I write some pretty harsh things sometimes, but this was a 
     pretty strong column. He was talking to a lot of scientists 
     who study radiation.
       One top British scientist who studies radiation is Gerry 
     Thomas. She started something called the Chernobyl Tissue 
     Bank out of her concern for the accident. She's a totally 
     independent professor of pathology at Imperial College in 
     London.
       I called her and said, ``I'd like to present on the science 
     of radiation but I'm not a radiation scientist, so can I just 
     steal your slides? If you let me, I'll put your picture on 
     them.''
       The first thing she points out is that most ionizing 
     radiation--that's the kind of radiation that is potentially 
     harmful that comes from a nuclear accident--is natural.
       I was like, ``That sounds alright. I like natural foods. 
     Natural radiation from hot springs.''
       Gerry said, ``No, actually, natural radiation is just as 
     potentially harmful as artificial radiation.''
       What's striking is that the total amount of ionizing 
     radiation we're exposed not just from Chernobyl and Fukushima 
     but all of the atomic bomb testing in the sixties and 70s 
     totals just 0.3 percent. Most of the radiation we're exposed 
     to comes from the earth, the atmosphere, and the buildings 
     around us.
       Let's look at the big one: Chernobyl. This was the event 
     that led me to be anti-nuclear and become an anti-nuclear 
     activist.
       The United Nations has overseen these very large research 
     efforts involving hundreds of scientists around the world who 
     do this research. So the possibility of somebody fudging the 
     data or covering something up is pretty low in that 
     environment, because there are so many credible scientists at 
     different universities doing the research.
       This was a pivotal moment for me. Chernobyl is the worst 
     nuclear accident we've ever had. Some people say it's the 
     worst accident we'll ever have. I don't need to make a 
     statement that strong. But they literally had a nuclear 
     reactor without a containment dome and it was on fire. It was 
     just raining radiation down on everybody. It was a terrible 
     accident.
       But when they start counting bodies, what they come up with 
     is 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome, 15 deaths from 
     thyroid cancer over the last 25 years. As horrible as it 
     sounds, thyroid cancer is the best cancer to get because 
     hardly anybody dies from it. It's highly treatable. You can 
     have a surgery to remove the thyroid gland and take 
     thyroxine, which is a synthetic substitute. In fact, most of 
     the people who died were in remote rural areas where they 
     couldn't get the treatment they needed.
       If you take the 16,000 people who got thyroid cancer from 
     Chernobyl, they estimate 160 of them will die from it. And 
     it's not like they're dying of it right away. They'll die 
     from it in old age. That's not to say it's okay, but it's to 
     put it in some context.
       And there's no evidence of any increase in thyroid cancer 
     outside of the three nations most affected, Russia, Ukraine 
     and Belarus.
       There's no evidence of an effect by Chernobyl on fertility, 
     birth malformations, or infant mortality; nor for causing an 
     increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes or still births; nor 
     for any genetic effects.
       I think this last one is the most striking thing: there's 
     no evidence of any increase in nonthyroid cancer including 
     among the cohort who put out the Chernobyl fire and cleaned 
     it up afterwards.
       I'm still surprised by this finding, and so I put the link 
     to the web site on that slide, because I don't think you 
     should take my word for it. Reading about Chernobyl was, for 
     me, a big part of changing my mind.
       What about Fukushima? It was the second worst nuclear 
     disaster in history and a lot smaller than Chernobyl. There 
     have been no deaths from radiation exposure, which is pretty 
     amazing. Meanwhile, 1,500 people died being pulled out of 
     nursing homes, hospitals--it was insane. It was a panic. The 
     Japanese government shouldn't have done that. It violated 
     every standard of what you're supposed to do an accident. 
     You're supposed to shelter-in-place. In fact, by pulling 
     people out of their homes and moving them around outside they 
     actually exposed more people to more radiation.
       And you have to put that in comparison of the other things 
     that were going on, like the 15,000 to 20,000 dying instantly 
     from drowning--pinned down by many different technologies, by 
     the way--from that tsunami.
       So while there was no increase in thyroid cancer, there was 
     the stress and fear from believing you were contaminated 
     despite the evidence showing that that wasn't the case at 
     all.
       Some scientists did an interesting study. They took a bunch 
     of school children from France to Fukushima and had them wear 
     dosimeters, which is what we call geiger counters now.
       You can see here that when those kids go through the 
     airport security system their radiation exposures spiked. 
     When they flew from Paris to Tokyo on the airplane their 
     radiation exposures spiked. They went through the French 
     embassy's security system their radiation exposures spiked.
       When they went to the city of Tomioka, which received a lot 
     of radiation from the accident, it was just a tiny blip 
     compared to the security systems.
       Let's put this in an even larger context. If you live in a 
     big city like London, Berlin, or New York, you increase your 
     mortality risk by 2.8 percent, just from air pollution alone. 
     If you live with someone who smokes cigarettes your mortality 
     risk increases 1.7 percent.
       But if you were someone who cleaned up Chernobyl, your 
     mortality risk increased just one percent. That's just 
     because there wasn't as much radiation exposure as people 
     thought.
       I'm from the state of Colorado in the United States where 
     we have an annual exposure to radiation about the same as 
     what people who live around Chernobyl get.
       This is really basic science and is right there on their 
     web site but nobody knows it. Only eight percent of Russians 
     surveyed accurately predicted the death toll from Chernobyl, 
     and zero percent accurately predicted the death toll from 
     Fukushima.
       Meanwhile, there are seven million premature deaths per 
     year from air pollution

[[Page H8618]]

     and the evidence against particulate matter only gets 
     stronger. That's why every major journal that looks at it 
     concludes that nuclear is the safest way to make reliable 
     electricity.
       All of this leads to an uncomfortable conclusion--one that 
     the climate scientist James Hansen came to recently: nuclear 
     power has actually saved 1.8 million lives. That's not 
     something you hear very much about.
       What about the waste? This is the waste from a nuclear 
     plant in the United States. The thing about nuclear waste is 
     that it's the only waste from electricity production that is 
     safely contained anywhere. All of the other waste for 
     electricity goes into the environment including from coal, 
     natural gas and--here's another uncomfortable conclusion--
     solar panels.
       There's no plan to recycle solar panels outside of the EU. 
     That means that all of our solar in California will join the 
     waste stream. And that waste contains heavy toxic metals like 
     chromium, cadmium, and lead.
       So how much toxic solar waste is there? Well, to get a 
     sense for that, look at how much more materials are required 
     to produce energy from solar and wind compared to nuclear. As 
     a result, solar actually produces 200 to 300 times more toxic 
     waste than nuclear.
       What about weapons? If there were any chance that more 
     nuclear energy increased the risk of nuclear war, I would be 
     against it. I believe that diplomacy is almost always the 
     right solution.
       People say what about North Korea? Korea proves the point. 
     In order to get nuclear power--and it's been this way for 50 
     years--you have to agree not to get a weapon. That's the 
     deal.
       South Korea wanted nuclear power. They agreed not to get a 
     weapon. They don't have a weapon.
       North Korea wanted nuclear power. I think they should have 
     gotten it. We didn't let them have it, for a variety of 
     reasons. They got a bomb. They are testing missiles that can 
     hit Japan and soon will be able to hit California.
       So if you're looking for evidence that nuclear energy leads 
     to bombs you can't find it in Korea or anywhere else.
       Where does that leave us? With some more uncomfortable 
     facts. Like if Germany hadn't closed its nuclear plants, it's 
     emissions would be 43 percent lower than they are today. And 
     if you care about climate change, that's something you at 
     least have to wrestle with--especially in light of the facts 
     I've presented on the health impacts of different energy 
     sources.
       I'd like to close with a quote from somebody else who 
     changed his mind about nuclear power, and somebody else who 
     was a huge childhood hero for me, and that's Sting: ``If 
     we're going to tackle global warming, nuclear power is the 
     only way to generate massive amounts of power.''
       Thank you for listening.

  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
McCollum) having assumed the chair, Ms. Sanchez, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1373) to 
protect, for current and future generations, the watershed, ecosystem, 
and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region in the State of 
Arizona, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________