[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.
____________________