Deb Haaland: “I strongly oppose this amendment because it would negate the withdrawal. It would prevent us from protecting Chaco…”

“I strongly oppose this amendment because it would negate the withdrawal. It would prevent us from protecting Chaco Canyon. The gentleman's amendment would allow for new drilling to occur on lands within the withdrawal area, so long as certain standards are met. Essentially, this amendment would protect the status quo, a status quo opposed by the All Pueblo Council of Governors, the Navajo Nation, the entire New Mexico delegation, the governor, and even the administration. When Secretary Bernhardt visited Chaco last spring, he agreed to a 1- year moratorium because he knew that new drilling posed a threat to these sacred resources. Now this amendment seeks to overturn those temporary protections offered by the Trump administration and to prevent permanent protections from being enacted. That cannot stand. Furthermore, this amendment contains numerous drafting edits that would make it impossible to enact. It names the park site incorrectly. It refers to undefined terms. And its unclear wording would essentially allow anyone to drill in the withdrawal area. This is clearly not a good faith amendment, and it is clearly not an amendment intended to improve this proposal. It is simply an attempt to open these sacred lands with resources that extend beyond the park to extraction, because some of our colleagues cannot be satisfied until every acre of land in this country has an oil rig or an open pit mine.…”