Raúl Grijalva

This legislation is an insult to Arizonans and the American taxpayers, an assault on the tourism industry in northern Arizona.

Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona.

May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time each side has? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes, and the gentleman from Washington has 5 minutes.

I thank my friend Mr. Flake. And you're right; this isn't the Jetsons doing this. I probably would feel a lot more comfortable if that were the case. Given the time we have left, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Let me, if I may, yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

May I inquire how much time remains? The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Arizona has 8 minutes and the gentleman from Washington has 13\1/2\ minutes.

There is a cost to the taxpayer, Mr. Chairman. I would consider the fact that this very valuable mineral is being extracted without any royalties and without any payment a cost to the American taxpayer. The issue about NEPA is not…

Isn't it true that the documentation requirements in place to receive compensation from the Claims Fund are much more inclusive than it would be in a court proceeding?

And so after 2013 if there are still impacts being felt or impacts that have developed in that interim the source of their making themselves whole in some way would be with the company?

If in fact there are those ticking environmental time bombs in the Gulf that may lead to longer term impacts on fish and result in future losses by fishermen and shrimpers, can they be compensated in the years to come if this ticking clock…

There are values opportunity, but I don't know how you quantify that.

It would benefit communities to keep as much public land in public ownership for their scenic and recreational value during these times.

So, the point being that additional budgetary resources would be required in order to meet----

Since we heard from one of the witnesses the very fate of the Nation rests with the passage of this legislation.

It is a significant hearing in that wilderness has been a bad word in the discussion before this Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, and it is refreshing and certainly a breath of fresh air to discuss wilderness in an open…

This labeled rhetoric and gross mischaracterization has made legitimate discussion of wilderness proposals difficult.

The Majority has categorized the designation of wilderness as an assault on the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment.

I cannot envision a scenario for Arizona's counties that doesn't involve the PILT program.

Well, thank you. It is a relief to have that question resolved once and for all. I appreciate it.

The designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has had little or no effect on the economic situation of the host counties.

We must reauthorize PILT and we must continue to provide the support these counties and communities need.

I will not ask you which party was in Majority from 1995 to 2006. I will leave that for people to figure it out.

And it appears that there was a period from 1995 to 2007 when the amounts appropriated to the program fell short of the authorized levels.

Our public lands provide substantial benefits to states and local counties from travel and tourism dollars.

And that would be a significant transfer of funds, would it not?