Raúl Grijalva

I oppose the farm bill. It would hurt low- and middle-income families, take breakfast and lunch from children across this country, and fail hardworking farmers. It also undermines one of the Nation's most successful and popular…

I include in the Record a letter of opposition from Governor Kate Brown of Oregon, a letter of opposition to the legislation from Governor Inslee of Washington, 140 undersigned businesses from the region in opposition, the Nez Perce Tribal…

NEPA is effective in providing the public and public officials with the information we all need to make better decisions.

NEPA requires our government to assess threats to our environment and public health through consideration of alternatives and public input.

NEPA is not too burdensome and it doesn't lead to too much litigation.

It is NEPA that is under attack at this meeting.

Here we go again: another Republican attempt to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act so that companies making big private profits on our public lands can do so more quickly.

The National Environmental Policy Act is not a weapon, it is a shield.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the importance of preserving the National Environmental Policy Act.

It is long past time to comprehensively reform the Mining Law of 1872.

The West has developed. We don't need to continue to do that any longer.

I think it was President Ulysses S. Grant who passed the Mining Law of 1872, very liberal and very progressive.

The hardrock mining industry has no less of a responsibility than the coal industry.

To blame a fee hike on admission to the most visited national parks on veterans, people with disabilities and the elderly is uninformed, hurtful, and frankly unconscionable.

It is disgraceful to blame veterans and seniors who have already sacrificed and given so much to this country.

Secretary Zinke and the Trump Administration are blaming seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and even school children for higher entry fees at our national parks.

Do you agree the Department should have a permanent Inspector General, and that the IG should operate independently from your office, and that funding for that IG office should be sufficiently increased in the next budget cycle?

So, your intention is not to suppress scientific findings that you might disagree with, or to release sensitive scientific information in violation of your own rules in the Department?

In the specific case we are referencing, a USGS scientist resigned because he felt he was being demanded to see data before it was made public.

These reports have raised significant questions about your stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

I'm sorry to say, Mr. Secretary, that right now seems to be a good time to exercise our oversight responsibilities.

The policy changes in the secret report are almost as disturbing as the process in which it was generated.

The rationale provided does not withstand scrutiny, and cancellation would result in the waste of approximately $400,000 in taxpayer dollars.

I believe the public deserves a detailed accounting of these questionable expenses, particularly now that you are proposing enormous budget cuts across your Department.

While I am glad to see an interest in finding money to support our public lands, the proposal in the budget is backwards.