Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)

[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Estate to be Withdrawn'', including any land or interest in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the enactment of this Act, are hereby withdrawn from--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.

[[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.

____________________