Raúl Grijalva

You can't have it both ways. They can't complain about the Antiquities Act while neglecting legislation that seeks to accomplish the same objective.

Absent the reforms outlined today, monument designations must be constrained in size and solely limited to contiguous lands that are already owned by the Federal Government.

Sometimes conservation can't wait for Congress to act, which is why 16 of the 19 Presidents who have held office since the passing of the Antiquities Act have used it to establish National Monuments.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions other than a disagreement with your analogy example of taking all those barrels of waste, and it would be like 20 times the size of the House chamber.

I appreciate these answers about what the interpretation is and what it has been for the Park Service and all of its sites.

Many of us supported the Chairman's legislation and his efforts to move this legislation last Congress.

Unfortunately, it had become the means of a radical environmental groups to target private citizens by challenging in court their rights to natural resource uses such as livestock grazing.

And those are the trends that should be getting our attention at this point.

Science and fact-based decision-making hasn't always been the rule, in terms of legislation.

Absolutely. That is the end result of where this bill needs to bring us, because the bill before us is a pilot project to just prove that we can----

We will protect our environment better than the current regulations do.

There are two kinds of fires. There is coffee-and-bagel fire and beer-and-peanut fires.

I think that is important to keep reminding ourselves, and not overstate the issue.

I am stating that because of the management protections on the Federal land, and the restrictions on the Federal land, it has given extra freedom for the State lands to be managed with different priorities.

From what I have learned, the habitat conservation plan that allows the States to manage their lands for placing a priority on timber production.

We need to keep working and help manage our forests for all the reasons we have talked about: environmental, health and safety, watershed protection, keep jobs--what few jobs we do have, hang on to them.

Remove the Federal protections because the management plan for the State lands is based on those Federal protections being in place on those Federal lands.

If we would prevail in a case, yes, we seek our attorneys fees if it turns out the government was wrong.

Well, unfortunately, the fees are under seal and the public can't get to that amount.

If the issue is the price and the importation because of lack of harvest, then if we are harvesting Federal land, shouldn't that stay for domestic use?

That is one of the reasons why I put out that accelerated restoration strategy.

We are not managed to maximize revenues.

The assumption is that appeals and litigation are an impediment to the Forest Service doing more work on the ground.

There's a crisis in our forests. No one disputes this simple fact.

We failed to have a serious conversation about the future of management and what it should look like.