Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, just to make sure that the record is clear, as I mentioned, much of our public lands--and CBO mentioned that as well--are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. I think it's important to see how that translates into acreage: BLM lands, 245 million acres, 95 percent open; Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open; Fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 57 percent open; Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open. The real threat to access to our public lands for hunters, anglers, and recreational shooting is the privatization of these very important public resources, degraded habitat due to lack of funding, and development that disrupts habitat and water quality. The majority frequently laments that Federal lands dominate the West and are robbing local communities of important resources. They have promoted taking these same lands and giving it to the States, liquidating others, and intensely developing what is left. If that is the pattern of land management that the majority seeks for our public lands, then hunters, anglers, recreational and people that enjoy our open spaces and public lands will be more endangered by that public policy than by a problem that this bill attempts to address that doesn't exist. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4089 and yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation is completely unnecessary. If enacted, it would actually harm hunting and fishing on our public lands. Today, April 17, 2012, nearly 85 percent of Federal lands are open for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. These activities have always been an essential part of Federal land management, and they always will be. Yes, hunting and shooting are facing ever increasing pressures from development, from pollution and habitat destruction. Areas that were once fertile and open hunting grounds are now condominiums or strip malls. The reality is that Federal public lands and Federal land managers are the last bastion of a hunting tradition many have enjoyed for generations. While so much private property is closed to hunters, the Federal lands remain open. But instead of recognizing the value of these lands and the expertise of these dedicated land managers, instead of recognizing the complexity of balancing the competing demands of our public lands, supporters of this bill accuse local land management professionals of opposing hunting and claim that officials here in Washington and we here in the Capitol know best how to manage wildlife thousands and thousands of miles away. The legislation and its supporters are wrong on every count. As part of the analysis of H.R. 4089 by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO found that hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are allowed on most Federal lands under current law. The problem this bill claims to solve actually does not exist. What's worse, this bill is not designed to improve the quality of our public lands or our public recreation, rather, it is another in a string of legislative proposals put forth by the majority intended to devalue and degrade our public resources. Since the beginning of this Congress, Republicans have pushed for unlimited oil and gas development on Federal lands, even waiving important environmental assessments designed to make sure energy development doesn't destroy wildlife and surrounding communities. Republicans have rejected efforts to put safeguards on offshore drilling to protect important coastal ecosystems. Republicans have fought to sell Federal lands on the cheap or just give them away. Republicans have tried to cut off funding for new habitat through the Land and Water Conservation Fund; they support dams and other development in and along wild and scenic recoveries; they even push for uranium mining near the Grand Canyon in my beloved State of Arizona. Supporters of this bill will claim to love wildlife, but they attack wildlife habitats every chance they get. At every turn, we've argued that our parks, forests, and monuments are important for recreation, for wildlife, and for water. We have argued against these development proposals because we believe that these lands provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities. For supporters of this legislation to come to this floor and claim they have seen the light, that all of a sudden they realize Federal public lands are valuable, is not credible. This bill is not intended to save Federal lands or to support Federal land managers. This bill is designed to wrap them in red tape, place obstacles in their path, and intimidate them by making them seek permission from agency heads in Washington before they can do their jobs. This bill is about scoring political points with outside groups, even if it means harming our precious public resources. Not only is H.R. 4089 bad policy, it is an expensive piece of legislation. Again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, forcing the Federal land management agencies to scrap decades of careful planning and then forcing them to redraft all of these current plans according to the dictates of politicians here in Washington will ultimately cost $12 million. On a day when the majority has voted to deem the Ryan budget in place, a budget we are told is necessary, even though it will devastate our seniors, our students, our families, our environment, the majority is asking the House to vote for $12 million in new spending that is both unnecessary and harmful. Hunting and fishing and recreational shooting are commonplace on Federal lands. The only step this Congress could take to endanger these activities is to pass H.R. 4089. With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. I rise in strong opposition to the Foxx amendment and in strong support of National Monuments and the Antiquities Act. Following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt, who used the Antiquities Act to protect the Grand Canyon, and Franklin Roosevelt, who used it to protect the Grand Tetons, 16 Presidents--eight Republicans and eight Democrats--have used the Antiquities Act to designate approximately 130 national monuments. In more recent history, President George W. Bush used the Antiquities Act to designate the largest national monument in history. Most recently, President Obama used the act to preserve an enormously popular Fort Monroe in Virginia. These special places might have been lost to development or destruction had the 59th Congress not authorized Presidents to use the Antiquities Act to move quickly to protect Federal lands. And that is worth repeating: the Antiquities Act allows designation of national monuments on Federal land only. This land is already owned by the Federal Government, and the claim that there is some kind of land grab going on is totally false. Our national monuments are valuable, popular tourism designations that serve as powerful economic engines. Headwaters Economics studied 17 large national monuments in 11 Western States and found positive impacts to the local economies and employment. The Antiquities Act has served present and future generations well for more than a century, and there is no need for this amendment. National monuments do not harm private property rights, and they improve the quality of life in surrounding communities while saving historic, cultural, and scenic resources for our children and our grandchildren. The Foxx amendment will hobble the Antiquities Act by giving States a veto over Federal designations on Federal land, and it would do so based on criticisms of the act and of national monuments that are patently false. The Foxx amendment should be defeated, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will close. The contradiction is very important. The majority talks about local control, local control. In this instance, you have the State of Louisiana that has prevented this, that has prohibited this type of hunting on its lands, and that is a local decision to be honored, but it is okay to honor that decision, but on Federal lands we want to make an exception and set a precedent. I would suggest that the contradiction in this amendment merits its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a few points that I really believe need to be made. The decision to eliminate dog deer hunting in this forest was made only after more than half a dozen public meetings, a comment period that resulted in a 1,000 comments which were thoroughly reviewed. In fact, the policy has been amended in response to those specific local concerns. The justification for this policy is not only to prevent trespassing, though this is one reason it is necessary. The forest has a checkerboard pattern of non-Federal lands mixed in with Federal lands. Dog deer hunting results in deer running over long distances and hunters pursuing them and at times discharging firearms on the run. In an area with private homes, the Forest Service determined that this was simply too dangerous. The Forest Service has collected input from local residents and not hunters who fear for their safety during dog deer hunting season. To be clear, while the decision was ultimately approved by the region in Atlanta, the policy was developed by the local Forest Service staff who work on the forest. Lastly, this amendment is redundant and wasteful because a rule already in place meets the requirements of the proposed amendment. The current rule already covers the smallest portion of forest possible because with the checkerboard lands the rule must cover the entire forest to be effective. While public safety is the primary justification for this rule, preventing trespass is another reason for the rule and why it was put in place. The Fleming amendment would throw out the current rule and then require a new rule that meets the exact same requirements. This is redundant, a waste of time and money. Finally, according to the Forest Service, the State of Louisiana already prohibits dog deer hunting on State lands, so this is simply consistent with State policy. This amendment should be defeated. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the argument that nothing to do with hunting and shooting has happened yet but there may be a secret plan to do so after the election, that's as preposterous as it is ridiculous. The problem does not exist, and this bill would do real harm. The example that my good friend, the chairman, used about urban encroachment and development speaks to the point that we have been trying to make in this legislation, that the greatest threat to hunting and fishing and recreational shooting is exactly that--development, privatization, and unregulated extraction--as we were talking about around the Grand Canyon and uranium mining. Those threats to our public lands are the threats and the trends and the public policy that is being promoted by the majority that will limit and deny access to public lands to hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters. Right now, as we stand, BLM, 245 million acres, 95 percent open to those activities; Park Service, 84 million acres, 70 percent open to those activities; fish and Wildlife, 150 million acres, 50 percent open to those activities; Forest Service, 193 million acres, 95 percent open to those activities, ``those activities'' being hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. If we want to protect access and protect the opportunities for hunters and fishermen in our public lands, I would urge the approval of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Mr. Honda for his yeoman work on the budget. The Republican majority is asking the American people to, once more, accept the premise that a trickle-down theory of economics is the path to solvency, balanced budget, and fiscal responsibility. Well, this trickle-down theory, as promoted, all it has done is create a dry opportunity for the middle class in this country. Unemployment is up, and it has increased the number of poor and unemployed in this country, and this kind of insecurity has led us to the situation that we're in. Our budget, the Progressive budget, Budget for All, reintroduces something fundamental to the American people, its values and its moral imperatives that have made us a great Nation. Our budget is about fairness in burden and fairness in all. There should be no privileged group that receives that 40 to 50 of the benefit from the tax cuts. That money is needed in this society, and our budget asks for shared burden and shared responsibility. We create jobs. We front-load jobs in this. We are about fiscal responsibility, reducing the deficit and balancing the budget; and we, more importantly than anything else, invest in the American people. We invest in our people, our greatest resource. We save and promote Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from the destructive plan that's being promoted by the Republican majority. This Budget for All by the Progressive Caucus, we are providing the American people and this Congress with a choice and a contrast. Do we repeat the mistakes of the past and pass a budget that's being recommended by the Republicans that takes us down the same destructive economic path that we've been on? Or do we go in a direction that promotes equity, fairness, fiscal responsibility, and, more importantly, puts the American people back to work and offers their families the opportunities that we all have been able to benefit? The Progressive Caucus budget is a budget of choice, a budget of fairness and, above all, returns us to our values as America.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, reading from the remarks to the Natural Resources subcommittee from Thursday, September 15, by the sponsor of this legislation, he stated a recent appraisal valued the land at $815,000, which is more than $25,000 per acre. There is economic gain for the county, and waiving the disclosure only adds to the confusion that the public feels when we say we have a ban on earmarks and yet we are waiving rules that would disclose that and fully be transparent as to the kinds of decisions we're making with public lands. The CBO is unable to value what public land is worth. It's certainly here in the testimony of the sponsor of this legislation. The appraisal value is listed, and that, to me, leads to the conclusion that this is an earmark and that the rule that is presently before us should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, under current law, the county controls these 32 acres of Federal land, but the deed clearly states that the county may not sell or lease the land or use it for anything other than public recreation. The county received control of the land with those restrictions in 1976, free of charge. The underlying bill, H.R. 2087, will remove all restrictions from the deed. The county would be free to sell the land or lease it or do whatever it wants with it and pocket any and all revenue. This is clearly an $815,000 windfall for the county created specifically by this bill. Regardless of whether you agree the bill is an earmark, the proposal from the Rules Committee to waive the earmark disclosure rule should also be cause for concern. If H.R. 2087 contains no earmarks, why is the waiver necessary? Why have an earmark disclosure rule if you just waive it every time you bring a bill to the floor? Any Member who has ever claimed to oppose earmarks should insist that the rule waiving the disclosure requirement be rejected. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the majority frequently congratulates itself for adopting a policy ``banning'' earmarks. Republican leadership often points to the earmark ban as an important accomplishment in improving the legislative process. It should be noted, for the record, the provision requiring the disclosure of earmarks was inserted into the rules of the House during the 110th Congress, under a Democratic majority. The American people might be surprised to learn that, despite claims of strict opposition to earmarks, the majority is bringing a proposed rule to the House floor that would not only allow an earmark in the underlying bill, but even waives the basic requirement that such an earmark be disclosed. Clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House specifically states that it shall not be in order to consider a rule that waives the requirement to disclose earmarks, and yet the rule the majority is seeking to call up specifically states, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' And the question of whether the underlying bill, H.R. 2087, contains an earmark is critical. If enacted, the bill would transfer full ownership of Federal land to a county in Virginia. All parties agree the land has an appraised value of $815,000, but the bill would transfer this Federal land to the county for free. The county is in the congressional district represented by the sponsor of the legislation. This is not county land; this is Federal land. The county has been granted limited authority to control this land as long as it is used for public recreation. According to the deed, the county cannot sell the land or rent it or lease it or develop it. Only H.R. 2087 will give the county this land with no limitation. I suspect that every Member of this House would like to be able to pass legislation giving his or her constituents an $815,000 windfall. Mr. Speaker, either this is an earmark, and the majority should follow its own rules and not bring this rule or the underlying bill to the floor, or this is not an earmark, and the waiver should be removed from the rule. Either way, the proposed rule is a clear violation of House rules and should not be taken up by this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule seeks to waive House rules requiring disclosure of any earmarks in the underlying bill, H.R. 2087. Therefore, pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the rules of the House, I make a point of order against consideration of this rule.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the legislation. The Federal Lands to Parks program is one of the most successful parts of our National Park Service. For those parts of the country that are not blessed with the Grand Canyon or Sonoran Desert, this program provides local government with excess Federal lands at no cost, provided the land is used for recreational purposes. Over the years, nearly 1,500 parcels of land have gone to local governments for free but with deeds that ensure they are used for the public good. This land isn't foisted upon these local governments. Instead, local governments actively work with the Park Service to obtain land for ``historical, natural, or recreational interest.'' I should note for clarification, as we go forward with this debate, that this is not county land. This is Federal land. The county is allowed to control this land as long as it is used for the recreational purposes in the agreement. If this were county land, we would not be here. The county can't sell the land. The county can't lease the land. The county can't rent the land. The county does not own the land. This bill gives Federal land away for free. Examples of successful projects include: 195 acres that went to the City of Ogden, Utah, for the Ogden Nature Center, Rodeo, and Fairgrounds; 97 acres that went to Brigham City, Utah, for the Brigham Intermountain Golf Course; 103 acres to the County of Walla Walla, Washington, for the Fort Walla Walla Park; 307 acres to the City of Aurora, Colorado, for the Aurora Reservoir Park; and 2.57 acres to the Town of Hot Sulfur Springs, Colorado. All of these entities took the same deal as Accomack County in 1976. They expressed their desire for the land, advocated for the transfer, and freely agreed to a deed that ensured that the land would be used for recreation or revert back to Federal ownership. Over the years, as local governments have fought development pressures and budget shortfalls, the Park Service and the General Services Administration have developed a land exchange process to enable some flexibility for communities. They can enter into a land exchange that requires the replacement land be of equal recreation and fair market value. Alternatively, the county can return the land to the Federal Government and purchase it for fair market value through the GSA process. The sponsor of the legislation and the county involved have rejected both of these options. Instead, the county is actively promoting a development plan that includes these lands in question while waiting for an act of Congress to clear the deed. The enactment of this bill creates an unacceptable and dangerous precedent for every other project out there. The reason the Federal land management agencies refuse to give away Federal land is because Congress requires the agencies to seek legislation to sell or transfer Federal land. Do you know why? Because a pesky little document called the United States Constitution requires Congress to make laws with respect to the disposition of Federal land. This would encourage local governments to run to Congress and cash in on a gift the Federal Government shared with local communities. This legislation should be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am prepared to close. Mr. Chairman, as we have heard continually from my friends on the other side of the aisle, before us we have a seemingly innocent piece of legislation that would allow Accomack County to develop a mere 32 acres of land for an aerospace park. One might even wonder why we are taking up valuable time on the House floor in debating this measure. This is not innocent legislation. This is a Federal land giveaway that under any other circumstance would be considered an earmark. It is also the opening shot of a larger effort on the part of the Republicans to privatize our Federal lands. In 1976, Accomack County made a deal. They received 32 acres of Federal property free of charge. In return, they promised to use the land for public recreation purposes. Now they want a different deal, only they don't want to pay for it. The deal they want is to commercially develop the land they got for free and relocate the displaced recreation activity to a former landfill. While it is ``just'' 32 acres, it represents what appears to be the Republican platform: that our parks, forests, and wildlife areas are cash cows, assets to sell and develop during these tough economic times. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a Nevada newspaper that he doesn't know what the purpose is of public lands. While in Idaho, Presidential candidate Rick Santorum told the crowd that public lands in Idaho should go back to the hands of the private sector. This theme is not new. In 2005, then-chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Richard Pombo, proposed selling national parks to mining companies. Today, part of the Ryan budget was released. Again, it is proposing to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land. Most recently, an Energy and Commerce subcommittee chairman suggested selling off some of our national parks. We can't get through a meeting of the House Committee on Natural Resources without someone from the majority suggesting that lands need to be transferred to the States, or sold, or fully developed for gas and oil. My view, and the view of most Americans, is completely different. As renowned documentary filmmaker Ken Burns put it, our National Park System is America's best idea. Our forests and desert lands represent what is the best in America--a long- term view that we should protect and value the majesty that God has blessed our Nation with for this generation and the generations to come. I urge my colleagues to join with me to defeat this legislation. We need this Congress to affirm to the American people that we value our parks, our forests, and wildlife areas for their inherent value. We value them as places to recreate with our family. We value them as places to hunt and fish. Sometimes we value them for just knowing that they are there, in hopes that one day we can visit. I urge a ``no'' vote, a vote to protect our public lands from this precedent that is being set by H.R. 2087. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2087. This is a very simple amendment. It ensures that Federal taxpayers are compensated for the land that is moving out of public ownership and into private development. The Federal Land to Parks program provides Federal land to local governments with the agreement through the deed that the lands will stay in public use, primarily for recreation. Accomack County, Virginia, is actively marketing the development of the land in question to the aerospace industry for hangars and other types of commercial development. The land is valued at over $800,000. Meanwhile, the county is asking Congress to intervene so they can take the land they got for free and develop it without compensating the Federal Government. The underlying bill is the legislative equivalent of writing Accomack County a check for $815,000. It is only because this is cloaked through a deed amendment that it isn't called an ``earmark.'' My amendment simply requires the county to repay the Federal Government for the fair market value of the lands from the proceeds of the development. By ensuring the taxpayer is protected, we also send a signal to other local governments that are facing economic or development pressures that their parks, developed through the Federal Lands to Parks program, are not piggy banks to tap into when times get tough. I understand the challenges that Accomack County faces, but they want this land to not necessarily put unemployed people back to work; they want this land to attract the lucrative aerospace industry to the Eastern Shore, not to build a job-training facility. I urge support for the amendment. It assures that the taxpayer is protected. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.