Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a Navajo saying that a rocky vineyard does not need a prayer but a pickax.
We don't need protectionist prayers from elites in Washington who think they have all the answers; we need a pickax for prosperity and opportunity for folks living in rural America and the Navajo people in New Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.
My amendment would prevent the proposed ban on future oil and gas development from going into effect in an area that already has adequate protections, protections that are there to ensure that these operations won't have any adverse impact on historic and sacred lands in the Chaco Canyon Historic Park.
The reality is there are already a litany of State and Federal laws in place to ensure environmental protection and to prevent mineral development from affecting sensitive infrastructure and sacred artifacts within this exclusion zone.
Energy companies have had a positive track record when it comes to working with the Federal Government to comply with these laws for necessary permits and approvals. And, since producers already meet the standards set in several comprehensive environmental laws, this proposed ban on new oil and gas development in this area, in my opinion, is unnecessary, is misguided, and is overreaching.
In fact, drilling for minerals already prohibited within the Chaco Canyon Historic Park, keeping the culturally sensitive artifacts safe from any sort of potential disturbance caused by oil and gas development, this bill is nothing more than a buffer zone on top of an already existing buffer zone that has protected cultural artifacts effectively for 100 years, Mr. Chairman.
Unfortunately, if enacted, this bill would create significant access and extraction complications for the Navajos. This adverse impact would be a result of the checkerboard nature of the mineral rights and how Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands are intersecting.
Even though the area is proven to house abundant oil and gas reserves, the restrictions on accessing Federal land would make doing business in that area almost impossible, leading to a de facto extraction ban on the Navajo's privately-owned mineral rights. The so- called buffer zone imposed by the bill is arbitrary and completely unnecessary, again, in my opinion.
The whole purpose of establishing the Chaco Culture National Historical Park was to protect every area of historic significance and, again, it has worked for a century now. That goal has already been achieved. The protection is already ensured. Extending the boundaries and adding acreage to the heritage area will not enhance protection of areas of historical significance, but instead, will limit the potential of private landowners to steward and reap the rewards of their privately held land passed down to them from their ancestors.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Private property rights are a cornerstone of our democracy and our free society. That doesn't just extend to folks in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma. It extends to all Americans and our Tribal brothers and sisters. One of them who testified at one of the hearings, who is a member of the Navajo Nation, said that this is a steadfast personal property right that sustains our livelihoods and our way of life. This is a much-needed source of income to feed, shelter, clothe, and protect our families.
Mr. Chairman, this is unnecessary. This is one of those times where Washington thinks it has the solution, where we sit in our ivory tower and dictate the terms to folks living in rural communities in New Mexico and throughout the country, folks that depend on these energy jobs for their livelihoods, and I just trust that the local community and the great State of New Mexico knows best how to manage their resources.
This is not disturbing any sacred land or historic artifacts. That is not what this is about. This is about a protectionist, activist view to ban drilling, in my opinion. And the State of New Mexico is incredibly dependent on the oil and gas revenues, Mr. Chairman. A third of their budget, Mr. Chairman, is reliant on oil and gas royalties.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is critical to make sure that our colleagues know that Washington doesn't have the solutions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Yes, in its current form.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of America's economic prosperity and unrivaled security is an abundant, affordable, and reliable supply of domestic energy. American energy independence is, undoubtedly, a matter of national security, but it is also a question of life and death to many rural economies.
In west Texas, and for my neighbors in eastern New Mexico, energy producers are as crucial to our communities as educators, healthcare providers, and agricultural producers. Traditional sources of energy make up 90 percent of our Nation's energy supply and support over 10 million jobs in this great country.
In New Mexico alone, Mr. Speaker, more than 100,000 jobs are oil and gas related. A whopping one-third of the State's budget comes from oil and gas revenues. That is over $2 billion, half of which supports funding public education.
Thousands of Navajo landowners receive millions of dollars every year from oil and gas royalties. Putting a permanent ban on any future mineral development outside the National Park would be devastating for local economies, the Navajo people, and the entire State of New Mexico.
Therefore, my motion to recommit will prevent this legislation from taking effect until it is confirmed that New Mexico will not suffer this severe economic harm resulting in a loss of revenue. That is revenue used to fund schools, roads, hospitals, and other important public services.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill claims not to infringe on the private property rights of the Navajo people, the reality is that many of their lands are surrounded by Federal lands, making it virtually impossible to develop if this legislation were to pass.
H.R. 2181, let's be clear, would eliminate key revenue sources used for public services. It would destroy jobs and economic activity there in New Mexico and, ultimately, threaten the livelihood of the Navajo people.
This, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, would be an absolute travesty for the Navajo people because the poverty rate in the Navajo Nation is more than three times the national average, about 38 percent. The unemployment rate is more than five times the national average, 20-plus percent. Almost half of all Navajo children live in poverty.
Oil- and gas-related employment is critical to jobs and income in these isolated areas where the Navajo people live. It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that a handful of activists should be able to deprive the Navajo Nation of opportunities to find work, opportunities to lease their own mineral rights, and opportunities to lift themselves up out of poverty by reaping the benefits of their own land.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old Navajo saying: ``A rocky vineyard does not need a prayer, but a pickax.''
The Navajo people don't need more protectionists' prayers from Washington elite and environmental activists. They need the pickax of prosperity and opportunity that comes from freedom, and the ability to manage their own private property rights and their own private mineral rights.
The Navajo people are a proud people, just like all Americans, and they just want an opportunity for a better life for themselves and their families.
Mr. Speaker, this is a classic case of a solution looking for a problem. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2181.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source