Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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,
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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;
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source