Raúl Grijalva

Do you feel, I think it was asked, as a general proposition that Congress, after the fact, should feel free to unilaterally amend an Indian land or a water rights settlement without the consent of the tribe?

And so the settlement occurred almost at that period of time, and before--and I hope I have my dates right, because thee are about 28 lawyers in the audience, and I am sure they are checking that right now.

Let us walk back in history before we jump too far ahead.

In fact, isn't Section 203 of the Act entitled sales?

One of the things, according to official statistics, sir, at one time in the history of our Federal Government, our nation owned 1.8 billion acres in this country.

The second bill, H.R. 2852, would require the American people to give away 24 million acres of public land.

This approach will not work, but more important, it will not gain enough support to pass.

Unfortunately, the 109th Congress, under Republican leadership, allowed the program to expire.

H.R. 2852 is not an appropriate or workable solution to these challenges.

It is a special place that needs to be protected, and there shouldn't be any gas or oil development there because it belongs to all of us Americans.

I would say given their multibillion dollars in profits--I think they have almost a trillion dollars in profits over the last 10 years--I would say they don't need the incentives to drill.

There is no net return for the taxpayer if it was to happen.

We have been subsidizing the oil and gas industry for how long?

At a minimum though the predictions or the claim that designations of national monuments are harmful to the local economies, that isn't borne out in your research?

Without a doubt many of the 71 existing national monuments are extremely valuable natural and historic treasures.

The Antiquities Act was never meant to circumvent Congress and designate huge parcels of land as National Monuments.

The proponents of legislation to undermine the Antiquities Act... are on the wrong side of history.

This is a debate about whether we want to lose critical cultural and natural resources to unlimited drilling, unending road building, and unrestricted off-road vehicle use.

History has already affirmed the wisdom of previous national monument designations and history will judge new attempts to weaken the Act very harshly.

Those who support destructive amendments to the Antiquities Act either fail to realize the value of the resources the Act has preserved or the seriousness of the threats posed to the resources or both.

I believe my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue.

In many of the debates we have in this Committee I believe that my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue.

I didn't introduce the Montana Land Sovereignty Act to undermine the intent of the Antiquities Act.

I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed. The Committee will rise informally. The Speaker pro tempore (Mr…

I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the word ``socialist'' from his commentary. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).