As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, Republican members of Congress have been waging a war to open 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. Last week Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar took one of the last steps in withdrawing the area from new mining claims. But in response, Republicans have introduced H.R. 3155, the Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011, to keep the decision from moving forward. The issue has become “one of the top legislative priorities of Republicans in Congress” as Energy and Environment Daily reported this morning.
At a hearing yesterday on the bill in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands, Republicans called a witness to the stand who is a retired United States Geological Survey scientist. Dr. Karen Wenrich noted in her testimony supporting the bill that the Bureau of Land Management has “vastly overstated the environmental harm caused by past and potential uranium development.”
However, under questioning from Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), it became clear through public Securities and Exchange Commission filings that Wenrich stands to make $225,000 by selling 61 uranium claims that she owns only if the Interior Department’s withdrawal does not go forward.
GRIJALVA: Ms. Wenrich, let me ask you a couple of questions. Do you stand to benefit personally if the Department’s proposed withdrawal is terminated? In other words, would you benefit financially if the bill you are testifying on were enacted and became law?
WENRICH: Just like everybody in northern Arizona I stand to benefit from having a job. But if you’re thinking that that’s going to affect my testimony I might point out to you that I am a research scientist with a PhD, I have done almost all of this research prior to this.
GRIJALVA: Ok but I’m asking about if…well Mr. Chairman, let me just submit for the record copies of a Securities and Exchange Commission filing by American Energy Fields, Inc. that states that the witness will receive at least $225,000 for selling 61 uranium claims that she currently owns in northern Arizona once the withdrawal is terminated. Is that SEC filing correct, Ms. Wenrich?
WENRICH: I think you need to give me the courtesy of explaining the fact that everything that I have done in this research was prior to me owning those claims that I started two years ago. All research is based on previous work that was done long prior to this when I was a government scientist and when I worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency as a scientist. I believe in giving all the facts and I challenge you to find where my facts are erroneous. So I think whatever my career opportunities are irrelevant to what I’m presenting here.
GRIJALVA: Question: is the filing correct or not?
WENRICH: I just said it was correct.
GRIJALVA: It was?
WENRICH: Yes, it is correct.
Watch it:
This is the third time in the last three years that Wenrich has been sought as a witness by Republicans (she also appeared before the committee in 2008 and 2009). This time around, her financial stake in the withdrawal was readily apparent after a June 2011 report went into the issue more in depth.
The overwhelming efforts to open up the lands around the Grand Canyon to uranium mining is just one example of how Republicans in Congress are trading our public lands for corporate profits. Other instances include the giveaway of the world’s third-largest copper deposit to a mining company that will pay no royalties, a bill to let go of some of the nation’s wildest places, and the GOP’s continued defense of subsidies for oil and gas companies that have already accrued more than $100 billion this year.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 5 days to add 340 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.