Grand Canyon Centennial Protection Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source