[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8618-H8622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 GRAND CANYON CENTENNIAL PROTECTION ACT

  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1373.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1403


                     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 further 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 Mr. 
Cuellar (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources, printed 
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1373

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Grand Canyon Centennial 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND IN THE STATE OF 
                   ARIZONA.

       (a) Definition Of Map.--In this Act, the term ``Map'' means 
     the map prepared by the Bureau of Land Management entitled 
     ``Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act'' and dated July 11, 
     2019.
       (b) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     approximately 1,006,545 acres of Federal land in the State of 
     Arizona, generally depicted on the Map as ``Federal Mineral 
     Estate to be Withdrawn'', including any land or interest in 
     land that is acquired by the United States after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, are hereby withdrawn from--
       (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under 
     the public land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.
       (c) Availability Of Map.--The Map shall be kept on file and 
     made available for public inspection in the appropriate 
     offices of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
     Management.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C 
of House Report 116-264. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part C of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall not be effective until the Secretary of the 
     Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, finds 
     that the withdrawal under section 2 will not adversely affect 
     jobs available to Native Americans, other minorities, and 
     women.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that this act shall not 
become effective until the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Labor, finds that the withdrawal will not 
adversely affect jobs available to Native Americans, other minorities, 
and women.
  I believe deeply in protecting the environment for my grandchildren, 
but I also believe in protecting the potential employment opportunities 
of Arizonans, especially those in underserved communities. Resource 
development benefits the economies of local communities.
  As noted at markup in the Committee on Natural Resources, the 
temporary political mineral withdrawal imposed in 2012 by the Obama 
administration, which focused on banning mining, cost Arizona and Utah 
thousands

[[Page H8619]]

of jobs and $29 billion in economic activity.
  We should not entertain any withdrawal without confirmation that this 
bill will not adversely affect jobs, particularly for Native Americans, 
minorities, and women.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not a good faith effort 
to protect Native communities, minorities, or women. It is simply a 
``gotcha'' amendment intended to kill the bill.
  It is truly insulting that our colleagues across the aisle would try 
and use Native communities as pawns to kill this proposal, knowing full 
well that Native people have too often had to bear the brunt of 
uranium's toxic impacts.
  On the Navajo Nation, there are hundreds of abandoned uranium mines 
waiting to be cleaned up. These toxic sites pollute water and damage 
public health. A recent study found dozens of contaminated water 
sources on the Navajo Nation, and nearly one-quarter of the residents 
had elevated uranium levels in their health screenings.
  The Havasupai fear this same danger for their community. They live 
downstream of the Canyon Mine and of other proposed mines, and they 
worry that they, too, will be forced to bear that toxic burden.
  That is why the Havasupai, the Navajo Nation, the National Congress 
of American Indians, and the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, along 
with other regional Tribes, all support a permanent withdrawal.
  These indigenous voices are not props at a press conference. They are 
not quaint or docile. They are smart and passionate advocates for their 
people, for the situation now, and, more importantly, for future 
generations to come. They deserve our respect. Anything less, I think, 
crosses a line.
  Republicans aren't lifting these Native voices. They are ignoring 
Native voices and threatening the continued health of Native 
communities to score some cheap political points.
  This amendment won't help Native communities. It will kill the very 
protections they are asking this Congress to enact.
  Mining is not, and will never again be, the future of job creation in 
that part of Arizona, and that is especially true for women and 
minority communities.
  During the extensive, multiyear analysis and public comment process 
that went into the original withdrawal, the previous administration 
reviewed job opportunities in the region. They found that mining could 
likely support 295 direct jobs--295 jobs. This is in contrast to nearly 
12,000 jobs directly supported by Grand Canyon National Park, all of 
which rely on a healthy, uranium-free Grand Canyon.
  If we are serious about job growth in this part of Arizona, we need 
to be talking about how we can better support our outdoor recreation 
and tourism economies. That would help all the communities in the area.
  Mining, in particular, is not a field known for its diversity. In 
2018, less than 14 percent of all workers in mining, quarrying, and 
extraction were women, and less than 13 percent were minorities.
  Meanwhile, the outdoor rec industry is making a major push to 
diversify, developing outreach programs and pipelines to bring people 
of color and women into that space.
  There really isn't much of a comparison here.
  Mr. Chairman, if you still aren't sure if this amendment was made in 
good faith, I would point out the original sponsor's voting record.
  The original sponsor voted against the Violence Against Women Act, in 
which an amendment therein contained a particular focus on missing and 
murdered indigenous women throughout this country.
  She voted against the Equality Act. She voted against the Carcieri 
fix, one of the most important votes in this Chamber to protect Tribal 
sovereignty.
  The Democratic Caucus has offered numerous opportunities to champion 
the causes of Native Americans, women, and people of color. The 
original sponsor and many of her colleagues have declined those 
opportunities.
  I am more than happy to work with any of my colleagues to uplift 
traditionally underrepresented voices, but this amendment is not a 
legitimate attempt to do so. It is simply an attempt to weaponize the 
communities that our party has worked so hard to protect.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, through the Chairman to the gentleman on the 
other side, I would like to know if the gentleman actually supports a 
mine in Arizona.
  That is a question.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again, now we find out the true 
understanding of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), that he 
doesn't approve of any mines whatsoever. And why that is so important 
here is that we talk about indigenous people and empowerment. Well, 
let's focus back on this.

  Recently, the Navajo Generating Station, which was commissioned by 
Congress to provide power for the water for CAP that revolutionized 
Arizona for its growth, the delivery of water, was all given to the 
Tribes, the Navajo and Hopi--not just the coal mine, but the power 
plant as well. These were great-paying jobs. They had benefits. It 
empowered the Native Americans.
  Now, what is interesting about that is that now we are shuttering 
this enterprise down. Eighty percent of the Hopis' operating budget per 
year is going away; 60 percent of the Navajos' operating budget is 
going away.
  And, interestingly, what is our answer from our colleagues on the 
other side? Welfare.
  Oh, my Lord, my God, I can't believe what I am hearing. Welfare, that 
is the answer.
  So let's go back and have a little bit of a geological conversation 
again, because rock sets you free.
  Once again, these breccia pipes are on this part of the Grand Canyon. 
This is where everybody goes.
  Look at these breccia pipes that are exposed. They are water soluble. 
That drains down. Gravity takes it down. That is why you are getting 
that infiltration into the water.
  I am not here to hurt anybody. I refuse to do that. But I am not here 
to turn my back on Native Americans who are empowered instead of 
victimized.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a ``gotcha'' amendment. 
The substance of the amendment is misdirected, to say the least, and it 
ignores history and ignores the reality that we are in right now.
  That reality is that, when I began to get involved in this issue more 
than a decade ago, it was in response to discussions that I had with 
the Havasupai Tribe, with the Navajo Tribe, with the Hopi Tribe, and 
with other indigenous nations in and around the Grand Canyon. The 
consensus and the unity around the issue that we have to protect the 
Grand Canyon was important, not only for religious, cultural, and 
sacred reasons, but also for the fact that that is their home.
  At the end of the day, the vote today is a response to that work, to 
their advocacy, to their support, and to the input that they had on the 
legislation. It is a vote to affirm by this Congress that, indeed, the 
concerns that they raised are real and important.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, once again, my points have been made.
  This is a good amendment because what it does is it looks at the 
overall application to make sure that we are not blindsiding our Native 
Americans.
  There is hardly consensus whatsoever. We heard from numerous groups 
over and over again that they do not agree with this bill.
  In fact, when the gentleman from Arizona on the other side actually 
had a press conference, they gathered leaders, and the leaders had no 
idea what they were there for the press conference with.
  Once again, as I asked previously what mine would the gentleman from

[[Page H8620]]

Arizona on the other side actually endorse, the answer was crickets.
  That tells you who he is playing for. It is not for Native Americans.
  Maybe it is the Sierra Club. Maybe it is The Wilderness Society. And 
I wonder if they get any of their payments from China and Russia. I 
wonder if there is a collaboration here.

                              {time}  1415

  Once again this is a great amendment. It talks about empowering 
people with jobs, holding their dignity, and directing the aspects of 
their life. That is what is invigorating about America. Victimization 
does none of that.
  I ask all my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part C of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION.

       The withdrawal under section 2 of this Act shall not apply 
     to any Federal land depicted on the Map as ``Federal Mineral 
     Estate to be Withdrawn'' located in the 4th Congressional 
     District of Arizona, as configured on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What this amendment basically does is, it takes my district out of 
this withdrawal. Seventy percent of the active mine sites and proposed 
mine sites are in my district, and we want to make sure that we are not 
victimized, that we are taken out of this withdrawal area.
  This body actually had rules that they tried to follow that they 
didn't usurp Members' districts, they worked with those Members' 
districts. And with that, I would ask that we endorse that and withdraw 
my district from this withdrawal.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I recognize there is some sensitivity, or even a misunderstanding in 
this Chamber to legislating in other Members' districts, but I would 
point out that it is something we do almost every day that we are here. 
We vote on policies that impact the Nation, which is why we are a 
national legislature.
  I would also point out that the gentleman from Arizona offered 
numerous amendments to a bill in New Mexico, the Chaco Canyon 
legislation, that will be considered later today, and those lands are 
certainly not in his district.
  If each of us only ever legislated in our own district, we would be 
doing a disservice to the American people, but we would never get 
anything done, as well. Furthermore, every Member of the Chamber has a 
responsibility to support sovereign Tribal Nations who have asked this 
body to protect the Grand Canyon.
  Serving the American people requires that we take a national view 
into account. The lands protected in H.R. 1373 are public lands 
belonging to every American. They protect an iconic American landscape, 
the Grand Canyon, important to people across this country. I can also 
easily think of 30 million Americans, most of whom are outside the 
gentleman's district, who want to see the clean waters of the Colorado 
River protected.
  The Colorado River provides drinking water to Phoenix, Tucson, Las 
Vegas, Los Angeles, and to countless cities and towns across the west. 
It needs to be protected from uranium mining. The lands in the 
gentleman's district were not included in this bill arbitrarily. They 
were added after an extensive multiyear study and public process that 
accounted for a long list of regional factors before recommending 
withdrawal.
  The land in the gentleman's district is essential to protecting the 
Grand Canyon and the Colorado River watershed from uranium's toxic 
impacts.
  We also need to consider the support for this proposal on the ground. 
In a bipartisan poll, almost two-thirds of Arizonans supported 
permanent protections for the lands around the Grand Canyon, including 
those in the gentleman's district.
  Representative O'Halleran, who represents the vast majority of the 
lands in this bill, is an original cosponsor and a vocal supporter, 
because he knows that this bill is important to all his constituents. 
H.R. 1373 receives vocal support from Tribal communities, including 
Havasupai, Navajo Nation, Hopi Nation, the Hualapai, the Inter Tribal 
Association of Arizona, and the National Congress of American Indians.
  The bill receives support from Coconino County and the city of 
Flagstaff, who have a major stake in protecting the clean waters of the 
Grand Canyon. H.R. 1373 is supported by recreationalists, sportsmen, 
conservationists, and hundreds of local organizations and individuals 
from Arizona and across this Nation.
  This bill is a broadly supported effort to protect public lands that 
belong to all Americans. The bill is an effort to protect the Grand 
Canyon. A vocal minority of opponents who will never be swayed should 
not stop the overwhelming voice of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, I am sure glad that the opposition actually brought that 
up about New Mexico, because what we are actually doing is, we are 
representing the voices that didn't get a chance to speak out on behalf 
of their claim, their allotments, but we will get to that. And we will 
be showing you exactly why we are doing that.
  In my district, there are eight historic mines included in this 
withdrawal area. Six are in my district. Also included in the 
withdrawal area is the potential for 20 new mines that would provide 
hundreds of high-paying jobs to the local communities in Mohave County 
north of Grand Canyon. Not only am I opposed to the inclusion of Mohave 
County in this bill, but so are the Mohave County Board of Supervisors, 
who unanimously voted to oppose this bill.
  In addition to the board of supervisors, local business organizations 
are also opposed to this bill, including Lake Havasu Area Chamber of 
Commerce, Arizona Rock Products Association, Arizona Pork Producers 
Council, plus many others.
  I say to my colleagues, local residents and businesses in Mohave 
County should have a say. They should not be swayed.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the letter against this bill, H.R. 
1373, from the Mohave County Board of Supervisors.

                       Mohave County Resolution 
                              No. 2019-065


   OPPOSING H.R. 1373 WHICH SEEKS TO MAKE PERMANENT THE 2012 URANIUM 
                               MINING BAN

       Whereas, Mohave County is located in Northwestern Arizona 
     and the Mohave County Board of Supervisors is committed to 
     wise stewardship and land conservation and continued 
     recreational access for hunters, anglers, campers, and other 
     recreationists, as well as allowing for productive uses, 
     including agriculture, timber production, mining, and energy 
     and natural resource development;
       Whereas, on January 9, 2012, President Barack Obama's 
     Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar withdrew from mineral entry 
     1.07 million acres of subsurface estate in Coconino and 
     Mohave Counties, in northern Arizona;

[[Page H8621]]

       Whereas, one of the richest grades of uranium ore in North 
     America sits untouched in the northern region of Mohave 
     County due to the 2012 withdrawal. The 375 million pounds of 
     uranium deposit in the area is the equivalent of enough 
     electricity generating capacity for the entire state of 
     California's 40 million people for 22.4 years;
       Whereas, the affected area included in the withdrawal was 
     specifically left open for multiple use as part of an open 
     1984 compromise agreement directed at the behest of House 
     Interior Committee Chairman Morris Udall among environmental 
     groups, the mining industry, the livestock industry, both 
     states of Arizona and Utah and signed into law by President 
     Ronald Reagan;
       Whereas, That compromise created 6 to 8 mile protective 
     buffer zones around the Grand Canyon National Park in the 
     form of 300,000 acres of designated BLM and 800,000 acres of 
     National Forest Wilderness areas while releasing lands with 
     high potential for mineral extraction and livestock grazing 
     and recreational purposes;
       Whereas, the uranium industry in the southwest has 
     historically been a major economic driver for the region. 
     Mohave County and our neighboring State of Utah could see 
     major economic potential with the opening of more uranium 
     mining near the Arizona Strip. Mining in the area can bring 
     in over $40 million annually in payroll, $9.5 million in 
     mining claim payments and fees to local governments in 
     Arizona and Utah, and over $30 billion over a 42 year life 
     span, helping to finance local schools, roads, hospitals, and 
     other infrastructure;
       Whereas, Congressman Raul Grijalva has introduced H.R. 
     1373, titled the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act that 
     aims to make permanent the 2012 uranium mining ban along with 
     including a mining ban on any land or interest in land 
     acquired by the United States after enactment of the bill;
       Whereas, H.R. 1373 is very misguided with its title. Since 
     the 1984 Compromise there has been no mining allowed within 
     BLM Wilderness areas or within the Grand Canyon National Park 
     itself;
       Whereas, the Government's own Draft Environmental Impact 
     Statement stated that there is no evidence to show that 
     mining activities outside the Grand Canyon National Park pose 
     a risk to areas within the Colorado River drainage or inside 
     the National Park itself;
       Whereas, Modern mining industry reclamation techniques are 
     vastly superior to those used by the United States government 
     during the Cold War era uranium boom of the 1950 and 1960s, 
     which did bring harm to Native American and local populations 
     and are demonstrably improved and safe;
       Whereas, Arizona and neighboring Utah have abundant in-
     ground uranium resources, considerable existing uranium 
     infrastructure, and large numbers of qualified workers 
     capable of supplying defense and energy needs for decades to 
     come;
       Whereas, the permanent ban of uranium mining in the Arizona 
     Strip area would be detrimental to our local economy and 
     cause severe economic harm to local communities without 
     promised economic benefits from tourism; Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, by the Mohave County Board of Supervisors that 
     Mohave County strongly opposes H.R 1373 and any attempt to 
     make permanent the 2012 Uranium Mining Ban in the Arizona 
     Strip area of Mohave County.

     Adopted on this 17th day of June, 2019:
     Mohave County Board of Supervisors: Hildy Angius,
                                                         Chairman.
     ATTEST:
                                                   Ginny Anderson,
                                               Clerk of the Board.

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, let's go back through this. You know, we have 
heard all about the health implications, but rocks set you free.
  Once again, we look at these breccia pipes that are outlined in this 
yellow and red. The red are the most concentrated parts of this. What 
ends up happening is you see them dissolve in water and in air.
  And so when you look at the Grand Canyon, you are seeing this seepage 
that comes into the Grand Canyon watershed naturally. What we are 
actually doing is cleaning this up. Wouldn't that be amazing, amazing 
that we are actually interceding on the best behavior and the best 
acknowledgements of the people around there? Amazing.
  And I would hardly call this a problem. In fact, immediate 
restoration of these lands is impeccable. Yes, we have this negative 
connotation about what the past has done. But this is where history and 
our new technology actually intercede, where we are actually 
intervening on this, making and improving the landscape. That is 
amazing. That is absolutely amazing.
  Once again, this is untouched. Man is not here. This is what nature 
has done to expose this. Once again, you have an exposed breccia pipe. 
You have a ravine that carries water that sheets off. Once again, by 
taking that out, taking that breccia pipe out, it facilitates 
permeation down into lower aquifers replenishing limited water supplies 
that we actually have. It is amazing what the rocks do. They set you 
free.
  And my district has said, listen, exclude us from this overreach by 
the Federal Government. The Federal Government has hardly been a 
champion in regard to Native Americans and people in this area. We rule 
by fiat and scare people.
  Once again, this is a good bill. We want to be excluded from this 
withdrawal. I would hope that everybody would listen to the people from 
my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for everybody to vote for this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  As I said earlier, I think we keep forgetting the essence of what we 
are talking about here today. And the essence is the Grand Canyon, 
something that is recognized nationally, not only as an environmental 
icon, but the dependency that 40 million people have on the water of 
the Grand Canyon. And while we want to minimize this, the reality is 
that the history tells us and current health studies tell us of the 
impact that Native communities have suffered because of uranium 
contamination in their water, in their air, and in their land. Those 
are reasons enough to put aside a very special place and permanently 
ban uranium mining.
  This amendment cuts an exception based on territorial imperative or 
some provincial thought that we are not all part of one great Nation. 
This is a national issue and should be treated that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part C of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The withdrawal under section 2 of this Act shall not go 
     into effect until the Secretary of the Interior completes a 
     mineral survey of the area proposed for withdrawal, including 
     uranium, rare earth elements, geothermal and oil and gas 
     resources, and determines that there are no mineral 
     resources, geothermal resources, or critical minerals present 
     other than uranium.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 1373 permanently bans oil, natural gas, geothermal, uranium, and 
other critical minerals and rare earth leasing and production on over a 
million acres of land in Arizona. This commonsense amendment does not 
kill the bill. It delays the effective date until we have done adequate 
mapping and surveying of the minerals and resources in this area.
  Specifically, the amendment allows the bill to go into effect when 
the Secretary of the Interior completes a mineral survey of the area 
proposed for withdrawal including uranium, rare earth elements, 
geothermal, and oil and gas resources, and determines that there are no 
mineral resources, geothermal resources, or critical minerals present, 
other than uranium.
  The temporary political mineral withdrawal imposed in 2012 by the 
Obama administration that focused exclusively on banning mining cost 
the surrounding areas in Arizona and Utah between two and 4,000 jobs 
and $29 billion in overall regional economic activity. The previous 
administration's misguided actions killed more than 7,000 hard-rock 
mining claims in the area over a 3-year span.

[[Page H8622]]

  This legislation would expand the withdrawal area and also expand the 
mineral withdrawal in the withdrawal area to include oil and gas 
leasing, geothermal leasing, and other mineral development in addition 
to mining.
  Mr. Chairman, there are rare earths and other valuable minerals, 
including copper and uranium, in this area. There is also a great 
amount of geothermal potential. We should at least know all the 
minerals and resources potential in this million-acre area before we 
permanently lock it up. This just requires mapping and surveying of the 
targeted areas for the withdrawal.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow Secretary 
Bernhardt to kill this proposal in pursuit of information we already 
have.
  My colleagues across the aisle continually allude to the lack of 
information we have about this region, the lack of study, and the lack 
of science. They seem to ignore the extensive, multiyear study that 
preceded the current withdrawal.
  That study looked at local economies. It reviewed the best available 
science. It took into account public comments. It considered how 
uranium mining might impact the Grand Canyon region.
  In the end, the review produced a 1,500-page environmental impact 
report outlining, in detail, the rationales for different actions. 
Within the report, there was a detailed analysis considering other 
mineral resources in the region, the very study the gentleman is now 
trying to predicate the withdrawal on.
  The study did, indeed, find there were a handful of other mineral 
resources in the region, but the study also made clear that these 
elements were secondary to uranium and that they occurred in quantities 
insufficient to drive mine development. This is why, when you look at 
mineral claims in the withdrawal area, they are almost all for uranium.
  We know uranium is the primary resource here, and we know the major 
threat that uranium poses to clean water, to public health, and to the 
Grand Canyon itself.
  Uranium mines have polluted ground water and destroyed many 
communities across the Southwest. The landscape is littered with 
abandoned mine sites.
  We only need to consider Kanab Creek Uranium Mine. It sits on the 
edge of the Grand Canyon and has been offline for years, yet virtually 
no remediation has been done. You can see the site is still covered in 
waste rock, uranium ore tailings, and pond sludge. This toxic waste is 
exposed to the environment, escaping beyond the mine, infiltrating the 
soil, and elevating local uranium levels.
  This mine is only one of hundreds of closed mines awaiting 
remediation. Industry likes to pretend like practices have changed, but 
they provide no assurances that they will do anything but despoil the 
land and leave taxpayers with the bill.
  Despite protests from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), we know 
what the resources are, and we know what the threats are to this 
region.
  We don't need to duplicate a study to tell us that we shouldn't be 
mining in the Grand Canyon, and we certainly should not let misinformed 
talking points kill this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, this is a typical breccia pipe, and you are 
seeing the collapsing of the geological formations. What is so 
interesting about that is that it concentrates different minerals 
there, not just uranium. Copper, vanadium, there are a number of things 
here that have all of a sudden become very critical in our technology 
sector.
  This is a very important application here, and we want to make sure 
that we are studying that properly.
  Now, if we are talking about the reclamation process, well, here we 
go. Yes, 80 years ago, we didn't reclaim mines right. We didn't ask 
them to be bonded. We didn't go back and investigate them for 
mitigation.
  This is what American mining actually does. It takes what they need; 
it returns it. And I would be very interested in taking a Geiger 
counter to check this versus this when it started. I wonder if there is 
an improvement.
  Deja vu? It is. So, once again, the arguments are bland. They are 
fraudulent. In this aspect, we show mitigation.
  What we can do when we have a mine site like this is we can actually 
leverage them and say: Listen, in order to do this, we need you to 
mitigate some of these other mining sites.
  It has been something that our side has proposed nonstop, but the 
other side refuses to let that happen because, they claim, that it is 
not going to be up to standard. That tells you people are scared of 
their own laws.
  This looks pretty good to me. When I look at the mitigation aspects 
and what is here and available, that is for the common cause for the 
American people. It is an investiture. You are not doing your due 
diligence unless you know exactly what you have for today and the 
future.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is 
smart. It is critical and, from that standpoint, empowering. I ask 
everybody to vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, and in opposition to the 
amendment, in July, the President formed a nuclear working group, the 
Nuclear Fuel Working Group, essentially to deal with the questions 
coming from the uranium mining industry, in particular, Energy Fuels 
and Ur-Energy.
  The issue there was an attempt to try to defend the indefensible in 
trying to open up the Grand Canyon once more, looking at lifting the 
moratorium. So the urgency for the legislation before us is based on 
acts that the administration has taken at this point.
  One should note that Secretary Bernhardt represented Ur-Energy USA 
from 2009 to 2012.
  My point is that enough advocates exist for the mining industry as we 
stand.
  What we are asking, in defeat of this amendment, is that the public 
interest has some advocates, and that Members of this body can take 
care of that public interest and not the profit interests that seem to 
be driving any decisions around mining and particularly uranium mining.
  The public interest is the public health, the Grand Canyon, the water 
supply for 40 million people, and the Tribes and indigenous people and 
communities that exist there that have been for decade upon decade 
coming to this Congress, coming to their leadership, asking for support 
and relief. This bill begins to provide both.
  Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tonko) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting 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.

                          ____________________