Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. My Speaker, I thank my colleagues across the aisle and, in particular, Mr. Young, my friend from the committee. When I first came to Congress, this is one of the first bills that he sponsored. I was very proud to vote for it then, and I encourage all of my colleagues today to be very proud to vote for it now. The reauthorization is $13 million, and it is an amount of money that goes very far in Indian Country, an amount of money that many could argue should be more, but the point today is to reauthorize. By reauthorization and seed money, which is so important to the Native youth and children, I think we make a statement as a Congress that we, too, join in reaffirming the revitalization, the preservation of both language and culture among the first Americans in this country. We say to them that what they bring as persons, as a Tribe, as a people is vital, too, and enriches the fabric of this Nation of ours. I am proud to be here. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. It is a good piece of legislation that does good work and will continue to do good work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support S. 256, the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization Act. The United States has a trust responsibility to support indigenous peoples in this country. The survival of indigenous peoples' languages is fundamental to the success of Native communities and the survival of traditional Native cultures. The history of the United States tells us about the deliberate efforts to eliminate indigenous peoples' languages and cultures through forced assimilation, boarding school forced attendance, treaties that have not been honored, and promises not kept. According to UNESCO, 74 Native languages stand to disappear within the next decade. Scholars project that only 20 Native languages will be spoken by the year 2050. The linguistic and cultural genocide is real and demands action. The Esther Martinez language program has been a tool that was created to address this stark reality. This language program is named in honor of a New Mexico Tewa teacher and storyteller, Esther Martinez, who is known and honored for her dedication and efforts in revitalizing her people's language. The Esther Martinez Initiative funds immersion programs that are successful in preserving and revitalizing Native languages, both to indigenous communities, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. Today, grants provided under Esther Martinez' program have empowered Native communities to establish language immersion programs that are successfully reviving Native languages and improving Native economies. This grant has been used to develop curriculums rooted in Native language based on traditional values and beliefs in subject areas that obviously include language, mathematics, science, and social studies. Esther Martinez grants also support children's books in Native languages, the development of language assessment tools, and the intergenerational programs to support regular use of Native language with children at home. Importantly, they also provide funding to train Native language teachers to use the language immersion curriculum developed by the Tribe and/or school. The powerful link between language and identity for Native people is essential in the development of successful students and communities. These language immersion programs have proven to be the best model for developing fluent speakers and successful students. S. 256 reauthorizes the Esther Martinez program for $13 million annually, increases the maximum duration of the grant, and reduces the number of program enrollees needed to qualify for a grant. The survival of Native languages is fundamental to the success of Native communities and the survival of traditional Native cultures. I would like to thank my colleagues Representative Lujan and Senator Udall for leading the effort, and for the support of Representative Haaland. I urge my colleagues to support S. 256, the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time in opposition to the amendment. As I said earlier, I think we keep forgetting the essence of what we are talking about here today. And the essence is the Grand Canyon, something that is recognized nationally, not only as an environmental icon, but the dependency that 40 million people have on the water of the Grand Canyon. And while we want to minimize this, the reality is that the history tells us and current health studies tell us of the impact that Native communities have suffered because of uranium contamination in their water, in their air, and in their land. Those are reasons enough to put aside a very special place and permanently ban uranium mining. This amendment cuts an exception based on territorial imperative or some provincial thought that we are not all part of one great Nation. This is a national issue and should be treated that way. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I recognize there is some sensitivity, or even a misunderstanding in this Chamber to legislating in other Members' districts, but I would point out that it is something we do almost every day that we are here. We vote on policies that impact the Nation, which is why we are a national legislature. I would also point out that the gentleman from Arizona offered numerous amendments to a bill in New Mexico, the Chaco Canyon legislation, that will be considered later today, and those lands are certainly not in his district. If each of us only ever legislated in our own district, we would be doing a disservice to the American people, but we would never get anything done, as well. Furthermore, every Member of the Chamber has a responsibility to support sovereign Tribal Nations who have asked this body to protect the Grand Canyon. Serving the American people requires that we take a national view into account. The lands protected in H.R. 1373 are public lands belonging to every American. They protect an iconic American landscape, the Grand Canyon, important to people across this country. I can also easily think of 30 million Americans, most of whom are outside the gentleman's district, who want to see the clean waters of the Colorado River protected. The Colorado River provides drinking water to Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and to countless cities and towns across the west. It needs to be protected from uranium mining. The lands in the gentleman's district were not included in this bill arbitrarily. They were added after an extensive multiyear study and public process that accounted for a long list of regional factors before recommending withdrawal. The land in the gentleman's district is essential to protecting the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River watershed from uranium's toxic impacts. We also need to consider the support for this proposal on the ground. In a bipartisan poll, almost two-thirds of Arizonans supported permanent protections for the lands around the Grand Canyon, including those in the gentleman's district. Representative O'Halleran, who represents the vast majority of the lands in this bill, is an original cosponsor and a vocal supporter, because he knows that this bill is important to all his constituents. H.R. 1373 receives vocal support from Tribal communities, including Havasupai, Navajo Nation, Hopi Nation, the Hualapai, the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, and the National Congress of American Indians. The bill receives support from Coconino County and the city of Flagstaff, who have a major stake in protecting the clean waters of the Grand Canyon. H.R. 1373 is supported by recreationalists, sportsmen, conservationists, and hundreds of local organizations and individuals from Arizona and across this Nation. This bill is a broadly supported effort to protect public lands that belong to all Americans. The bill is an effort to protect the Grand Canyon. A vocal minority of opponents who will never be swayed should not stop the overwhelming voice of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow Secretary Bernhardt to kill this proposal in pursuit of information we already have. My colleagues across the aisle continually allude to the lack of information we have about this region, the lack of study, and the lack of science. They seem to ignore the extensive, multiyear study that preceded the current withdrawal. That study looked at local economies. It reviewed the best available science. It took into account public comments. It considered how uranium mining might impact the Grand Canyon region. In the end, the review produced a 1,500-page environmental impact report outlining, in detail, the rationales for different actions. Within the report, there was a detailed analysis considering other mineral resources in the region, the very study the gentleman is now trying to predicate the withdrawal on. The study did, indeed, find there were a handful of other mineral resources in the region, but the study also made clear that these elements were secondary to uranium and that they occurred in quantities insufficient to drive mine development. This is why, when you look at mineral claims in the withdrawal area, they are almost all for uranium. We know uranium is the primary resource here, and we know the major threat that uranium poses to clean water, to public health, and to the Grand Canyon itself. Uranium mines have polluted ground water and destroyed many communities across the Southwest. The landscape is littered with abandoned mine sites. We only need to consider Kanab Creek Uranium Mine. It sits on the edge of the Grand Canyon and has been offline for years, yet virtually no remediation has been done. You can see the site is still covered in waste rock, uranium ore tailings, and pond sludge. This toxic waste is exposed to the environment, escaping beyond the mine, infiltrating the soil, and elevating local uranium levels. This mine is only one of hundreds of closed mines awaiting remediation. Industry likes to pretend like practices have changed, but they provide no assurances that they will do anything but despoil the land and leave taxpayers with the bill. Despite protests from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), we know what the resources are, and we know what the threats are to this region. We don't need to duplicate a study to tell us that we shouldn't be mining in the Grand Canyon, and we certainly should not let misinformed talking points kill this bill. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in closing, and in opposition to the amendment, in July, the President formed a nuclear working group, the Nuclear Fuel Working Group, essentially to deal with the questions coming from the uranium mining industry, in particular, Energy Fuels and Ur-Energy. The issue there was an attempt to try to defend the indefensible in trying to open up the Grand Canyon once more, looking at lifting the moratorium. So the urgency for the legislation before us is based on acts that the administration has taken at this point. One should note that Secretary Bernhardt represented Ur-Energy USA from 2009 to 2012. My point is that enough advocates exist for the mining industry as we stand. What we are asking, in defeat of this amendment, is that the public interest has some advocates, and that Members of this body can take care of that public interest and not the profit interests that seem to be driving any decisions around mining and particularly uranium mining. The public interest is the public health, the Grand Canyon, the water supply for 40 million people, and the Tribes and indigenous people and communities that exist there that have been for decade upon decade coming to this Congress, coming to their leadership, asking for support and relief. This bill begins to provide both. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a ``gotcha'' amendment. The substance of the amendment is misdirected, to say the least, and it ignores history and ignores the reality that we are in right now. That reality is that, when I began to get involved in this issue more than a decade ago, it was in response to discussions that I had with the Havasupai Tribe, with the Navajo Tribe, with the Hopi Tribe, and with other indigenous nations in and around the Grand Canyon. The consensus and the unity around the issue that we have to protect the Grand Canyon was important, not only for religious, cultural, and sacred reasons, but also for the fact that that is their home. At the end of the day, the vote today is a response to that work, to their advocacy, to their support, and to the input that they had on the legislation. It is a vote to affirm by this Congress that, indeed, the concerns that they raised are real and important. Mr. Chair, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concerns, I really do. Hostile nations like Russia have shown their true face by interfering in our elections and continuing to attempt to influence the results of an American election. Although it is hard to take my colleague seriously on this concern when members of his own party and the President refuse to acknowledge what the intelligence community and millions upon millions of Americans already know, Russia interfered in the 2016 election. But let's be clear about the true intent of this motion. What the gentleman has put forward will kill this bill, opening a pathway for uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. Instead, they seem to think that the real threat to our national security is that Democrats aren't willing to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon. And make no mistake, this is what they are supporting when they vote against this bill or this procedural motion. This is not theoretical. The Grand Canyon, and I will say it again, the Grand Canyon is under threat from uranium mining, and my colleagues across the aisle are perfectly willing to let it happen. We don't need to open up the Grand Canyon to uranium mining to meet our national security or energy needs. The region that is being designated for permanent withdrawal holds less than 1 percent of known U.S. reserves of uranium. Meanwhile, we get the majority of our uranium from domestic mining or from our closest allies, Australia and Canada. The Department of Defense has testified that we have enough uranium stockpiled to meet national security needs for decades to come. And we stockpile enough uranium to run reactors for years without importing a single pound. I could rattle off the facts all day about how nonsensical this motion is and how ridiculous an argument our colleagues are making. I can share letters from national security experts breaking down their concerns about the need to protect the Grand Canyon from further uranium mining. I could even show you data from the Heritage Foundation, a known friend of our colleagues, showing the Republican arguments about uranium security are, here in Heritage's words, ``a hollow Russian doll.'' But at the end of the day, we can't lose sight of what this is really about. Our colleagues want to see the Grand Canyon, one of the most American of American landscapes open to uranium mining. They want to block this bill. They want to stop this place from being permanently protected, so that a very few wealthy companies can open up mine shafts and pull uranium out of the Grand Canyon and leave the mess to the taxpayers to clean up. We don't need this uranium in the designated area. It is expensive to extract. It risks our clean water and threatens our Tribal communities. On that point, the threat to Tribal communities is based in a legacy of antihistory, a legacy of illness, a legacy of high levels of contamination among Navajo people in the area in the Navajo Nation. It is based on lost land and soil-contaminated land, and it is based upon contaminated water. That is the legacy around the Grand Canyon to the people and the environment around there. It is a legacy that has united Indian Country in support of permanent protection for the Grand Canyon, and we should respect that voice. It is a voice that has been clear about the importance, not only of the Grand Canyon as a cultural resource, but the Grand Canyon as a resource of water for 40 million people in this country. We don't need this uranium. As I said, it is, frankly, hard for me to imagine a more cynical move than to continue to mine in the Grand Canyon. They are willing to use misinformation to ignore the people of Arizona and the United States and to threaten one of the most iconic landmarks just to open up a few acres for extraction. So I ask my colleagues here today, if the Grand Canyon isn't worth protecting, what is? What are we doing here if we are willing to let public lands owned and cherished by all Americans get sold to the highest bidder? This really shouldn't be up for debate. After all, my friends and colleagues, it is the Grand Canyon. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to generations to come to do our part to permanently protect the Grand Canyon, and in protecting the Grand Canyon respect Native communities that came to us and said we need this, we need it for our lives, and we need it for the generations to come. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

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. 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. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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. 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. 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. 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. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick), my colleague.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), my colleague.