Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Further, two chapters of the Navajo Nation representing a combined 6,000 residents passed resolutions opposing this bill because it would jeopardize development and potentially ``infringe on their royalty payments.'' Mr. Chairman, I also include those in the Record. Resolution of Huerfano Chapter Resolution # Hue-090-18 Supporting the Navajo Allotment Owners in Opposition of ``The Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' and Furthermore Requesting U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich to meet with Navajo Allotment Owners in Northwest New Mexico to Explain the Proposed Senate Bill 2907. Whereas: 1. Huerfano Chapter is a certified governmental entity of the Navajo Nation charged with the responsibility to solicit, promote, and protect the interest and the welfare of the chapter and its community pursuant to the Navajo Nation Resolution CJ20-55, December 02, 1995 and Resolution CAP 34- 98, adopting the Local Governance Act (LGA); and 2. Huerfano Chapter has a population of 3000 plus residents, both registered voters and nonregistered community members. The chapter is one of the largest land based chapters comprised of 553,528 acres in Eastern Agency, Navajo Nation and has nine {09) subcommunities including Adobe, Blanco, Bisti, Carson, Gallegos, Jacquez, Hogback, Huerfano, and Otis; and 3. The Navajo Allotment owners met on Jun 12, 2018 at Nageezi Chapter where over eighty-five (85) attended to voice their opinions on the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act'' or Senate Bill 2907; and 4. Navajo Allotment Land Owners expressed their concerns that the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' might infringe on their royalty payments they are presently benefitting from oil and gas development on their allotment lands. The Navajo communities, including the Navajo Reservation has always been in a very depressed economic state for many years and such development of natural resources gives Navajo families benefit for their daily lives; and 5. Navajo Allotment owners are concern that self-serving special interest organizations are violating the rights of Navajo Allotment Land Owners, that such publicized demonstrations and meetings by these special interest and outside groups have over shadowed the Navajo allotment land owners who benefits from oil and development on their allotment lands; and 6. Navajo Allotment Land Owners do not share opinions of environmentalists voicing their objectives on natural resources developments. These are over publicized objectives by the environmentalists have drowned out and overshadowed Navajo Allotment Land Owners Rights; and 7. Navajo Allotment Land Owners are truly the impacted people of the Chaco area. These lands were patented and allotted to the Navajo People in New Mexico and handed down through many generations. These lands were given in exchange for land taken by the U.S. Government in exchange for citizenships. Therefore, as Navajo People being land owners, they have the right to lease, develop, or excavate their lands; Now therefore be it Resolved That: 1. The Huerfano Chapter hereby supports and recognizes the opposition by the Navajo Allotment Land Owners of the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' or Senate Bill 2904. 2. Huerfano Chapter herby further supports and requests U.S. Senator Tom Udall and U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich to attend a meeting with Navajo Allotment Land Owners of the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' to explain the content and reasons of the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018''. The meeting will allow Navajo Allotment Land Owners to express their concerns of the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' and how it will limit their rights.

Mr. GOSAR. I should note, these are significant sums which the Navajo allottees depend on each and every year. According to a 2017 Department of the Interior IG report, 20,855 Navajo allottees receive a collective $96 million per year from revenues raised through responsible oil and gas development on their allotments. Quite simply, infringing on their right to develop their mineral resources jeopardizes their quality of life. Further, oil and gas development has blessed the State of New Mexico with significant budget windfalls in recent years. Just last week, the Department of the Interior announced that the State of New Mexico would receive $1.17 billion in revenues from Federal oil and gas development, the highest disbursement in the State's history. 2018 was a record-breaking year for oil and gas development in New Mexico, with State revenues reaching $2.2 billion, total. Roughly half of these revenues will return directly to the State's schools, investing in higher pay for teachers and staff, while other funds were allocated for infrastructure projects and public services. These funds were provided by oil and gas operations on not only Federal lands, but on State trust lands, as well. Roughly 8 percent of the withdrawal area in this bill is owned by the State of New Mexico and can be developed for the benefit of its citizens. Enacting this bill will cut off the revenue streams from both Federal and State energy development, reducing future revenues for educational initiatives like those signed into law earlier this year. Mr. Chairman, the Chaco Cultural History Park is already protected and off limits to oil and gas development. If leasing were to occur in the surrounding area, it would be subject to a multitude of Federal laws and regulations before any development could begin, including the National Historic Preservation Act, designed to protect culturally significant areas and artifacts on all Federal lands. Before we declare a permanent ban on energy development in such a large area, we need to have all of the facts. We need to have a complete scientific review and stakeholder engagement process that is already underway. We need to thoroughly weigh the benefits and concerns, and we need to consider all those who are impacted. Not doing so could have significant consequences for the Navajo allottees and for the State of New Mexico's budget and priorities for its citizens. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I love the passion in the gentleman's voice, but, once again, it is not me. It is the allottees who brought their voice forward, the Navajo allottees. They have seen, time and time again, promises made by the Federal Government and promises not kept. So, once again, who would you rather believe, the allottees or the BLM? Personally, I would side with the allottees. When you look at the map, it tells you the story you need to know. If we are going to make an amendment, we should guarantee access through any of that application through this area, not just through the BLM, but all this area, because those are the resources of the State.

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. GOSAR. Yes.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, once again, it says it takes it off of mineral exposure, but it doesn't give access. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would love to engage with the gentleman from New Mexico if the gentleman would not mind. Mr. Chair, Members are bringing up this concept of methane capture. There is an easy solution. Is the gentleman in favor of providing a pipeline, because what ends up happening, we can recover almost 100 percent of the methane emissions when we have a pipeline nearby, because then it becomes profitable and it becomes something that we can actually utilize.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I would let the gentleman know that I am one of these technology nerds. I have been visiting with people who have revolutionized and have new ideas in regard to pipelines that would set this on fire. So if we are looking at technology, we ought to be looking at in the right way. It is beneficial. We are living longer, not like what we were at the turn of the 1900s, which was shorter. My point is, if there is technology out there for pipelines that is very consistent with almost 100 percent capture, wouldn't the gentleman entertain that? I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, I have no problem. What I would ask in return is let's turn around and go back to Petra Nova down in Texas where we have a coal-fired plant that actually captures 100 percent of any emissions. It takes it down into the gas areas and actually injects it back in, squeegeeing what the rest of the oil and gas is, and then it condenses into limestone. It is pretty interesting technology. So I appreciate the gentleman for his back-and-forth, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), who is the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to reiterate a number of institutions that are against H.R. 2181. To preface that, we set precedents and we codify precedents. So that is why, Mr. Chairman, you will have multiple States disagreeing with H.R. 2181. So for those who are against H.R. 2181, you have the American Exploration and Mining Association, there is a group letter; Arizona Liberty, group letter; Arizona Mining Association, group letter; Arizona Pork Producers, group letter; Arizona Rock Products Association; group letter; Conservatives for Property Rights, a letter; Denver Lumber Company, a letter; enCore Energy Corporation; Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson, a letter; New Mexico Business Coalition, a letter; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; New Mexico Wool Growers Association; Western Energy Alliance; and Women's Mining Coalition. These are just some of the people who are against it. When we look at this board, we have this designation, you see it here in Chaco Canyon. What wisdom did they have when they first put this together? That is what I want to ask. The dimensions here are for a reason. Why are we expending this, particularly when there is so little trust in the Federal Government? I think we have just realized that we had to move a part of our government--I think the BLM, if I remember right--out to Grand Junction, Colorado, so that we actually had some bureaucrats who actually understood the dilemmas that are out there in Western culture and in Western States. Yes, Western States gave up a lot. They gave a lot up compared to our Eastern cohorts. We gave property to the Federal Government for stewardship, however, that has been abused. The products that we were supposed to get off those lands as public lands have dwindled. Eastern States call us beggars in regard to payment in lieu of taxes because we can't tax these Federal lands. And we are begging for pennies on the dollar. Something is wrong with that. We are also vested in the community application of the best management of these resources and getting the highest yield out of it. It is like an investment. How do we get the best out of this area? When you look at this, no wonder the Navajo allottees don't trust the Federal Government. Tell me when the Federal Government has honored their promise. Look at the Navajo generating station in Arizona. This was a promise to the Navajo and Hopi Tribes to have work that was dependent upon them, that gave them the benefits of that entrepreneurship and that reflection of minerals. Sixty percent of the Navajo economy is based off of the Navajo generating station at the mine. That is gone. Eighty percent of the Hopis on the mine and NGS. That is gone. So it is no wonder these Navajo allottees don't trust the Federal Government. I don't blame them. Trust is a series of promises kept. Until we can start honoring our promises, we have got to stop this foolishness. There is plenty of land there. I want to see my sites, but I also want my energy, too. There is a way of going about it. We engaged with the gentleman from New Mexico. It is going to be a wonderful aspect to start talking about technology in regard to recouping 100 percent of the methane and anything else that comes out of it. I do come from northern Arizona where I can see the stars. I don't want to ever lose sight of that, because I think it was Buzz Lightyear who said: To infinity and beyond. That is the way we should also be. But it is not about victimization, it is about empowerment. I believe these Navajo allottees deserve their rights to make sure that the government honors their promise. I want cultural sites to be honored. But I wonder what the difference is when this site is held in this parameter and why we are going about the business to expand it even further. Once again, enough is enough.

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that. But, once again, trust is a series of promises kept. When has the Federal Government held their trust up to the Tribal men or even allottees? It doesn't matter if they are Native American. We have had a number of mining claims that have been stymied because the Forest Service or the BLM will not give them access, even though they have allowed and stated that they would have access to that claim. So, once again, it is a hollow promise; and, once again, I beseech individuals until the government starts honoring promises, they are not entitled to the hierarchy of trust. That is just it. I trust people more than I do the government. A government that can give all can take all. I'm not for that. I'm for empowerment. I'm not for victimization. What I have seen, I don't like. I have seen that the promise to the Navajo people and to the Hopi people is lame. We are going to take these good-paying jobs in northern Arizona, and we are going to give them welfare? How discouraging is that? Does that lift a person's spirit? No, it doesn't. It doesn't give them upward mobility. I thought that was the American experience. It is sad that we are at this point in time. I think we need to have more dialogue on these bills. We need to have more discussions. Yes, the ranking member made the comment: good process, builds good policy, builds good politics. None of that exists right now. None of that exists. Until we get back to the civil debate on this, it continually won't exist. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I include the following letters in the Record. Western Caucus, Chairman Paul Gosar Opposition to H.R. 2181 So far H.R. 2181 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), Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson (Letter), New Mexico Business Coalition (Letter), New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (Letter), New Mexico Federal Lands Council (Letter), New Mexico Wool Growers Association (Letter), Western Energy Alliance (Letter), Women's Mining Coalition (Group Letter).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, when I look at this, I see the aptitude to try to amend this to give access. I have to tell the gentleman, though, it doesn't go far enough. Mr. Chair, I think what we have to do is guarantee access so that Congress is specifically and intentionally demanding that they have that access because you know as well as I know that, once again, government problems exist. I will give the gentleman an example. In the last land package, we have a land package that included the La Paz land exchange by BLM. Do you know what the big problem now has been? It was signed into law. It has been about access. Our legislation actually said that it did not impugn any of the mineral estates, but then the BLM came back and said, listen, that doesn't guarantee you access to it. That is why I think it doesn't go far enough. I would love to see it say that it requires the allottees access to those lands. But I am not opposed to it. I think it slightly makes it better. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I think we need to devolve this back to the people of interest, the Native peoples, the people of the State, the private owners. Mr. Chair, I lay no opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow Federal lands included in the withdrawal area to be conveyed or exchanged with State trust entities, as well as Native American Tribes. Currently, over one-third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the Federal Government. The 316,000-acre withdrawal this bill creates includes substantial parcels of Native American-owned private land and State trust lands. State trust lands are an essential part of funding public services in the West, especially education. However, Federal overreach, such as this legislation, puts that funding at risk. Allowing the conveyance of certain lands in the withdrawal to State trust agencies and private businesses will help to mitigate the effects of this withdrawal on essential public services and local infrastructure. Allowing the conveyance of federally held land will also go a long way to addressing one of the critical problems with this legislation, which is access. Denying access to these lands to private landowners and Native American allottees is simply wrong. The growing Federal estate is not a good thing for the long-term future of the West. Instead of locking up more land, like the majority is trying to do today, we should be focused on increasing multiple use on public lands. We can have our cake, and we can eat it, too. To put it simply, instead of needlessly locking up more land, we should be focused on unlocking the potential of the West, empowering people to enjoy it. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I am not from New Mexico, but I do have an interest in education because that was one of the standard operating procedures that we were promised on public land. If I am not mistaken, the Tribes are beneficiaries, as well, of that educational fund. And so, when you start looking at this, depriving that fund of its due resources--I don't know about New Mexico, but Arizona has got a problem paying for its educational system. It is not because we don't have enough money; it is because we don't have enough land. That is a problem. I am here on behalf of the beneficiaries that the government promised. So, from that standpoint, I don't see a dichotomy in the argument until we can understand, until we have a better facilitation of that exchange, once again, doing something expediently, as we had the discussion earlier about access to those allottees. Once again, government hasn't been the solution that it had claimed to be. We almost have to guide them hand and foot, pushing them to the right decision. Mr. Chair, I still rise in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure this bill would not take effect if the withdrawal in question is proven to affect development or economic value of Native American mineral rights on allotments. Private property rights are a fundamental American ideal. The 316,000-acre withdrawal this bill creates includes substantial parcels of privately held land, much of which is owned by Native American allottees. The benefits of owning mineral rights are obvious for Native communities. In 2015 alone, the Federal Indian Mineral Office distributed $96 million to more than 20,000 allottees around the country. At the June 5, 2019, hearing on H.R. 2181, the Committee on Natural Resources heard testimony from Delora Hesuse, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, Nageezi chapter, and a Navajo allottee, who owns mineral resources in the proposed area. Ms. Hesuse testified that H.R. 2181 would ``put many of our mineral rights off limits and stop a much-needed source of income to feed, shelter, clothe, and protect our families.'' Apparently, the voices of Ms. Hesuse and other allottees who have spoken to the committee have not been heard. This amendment is an effort to acknowledge that their livelihoods could be drastically diminished by this legislation. I ask the Members of this body to put themselves in the shoes of the Native American allottees who have staked their livelihood on the mineral rights on their properties that are rightfully theirs, only to have the Federal Government strip them of their rights. I believe that is an injustice. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.