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. {time} 1540 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.
Share & report
More from Raúl Grijalva
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear my Republican counterparts wax eloquently about their concerns for our national parks during this debate. They didn't say a word about the…
You are hearing that correctly. Any American, or notably, any American subsidiary of a foreign company could have the exclusive rights to our public lands for about $10 per acre per year.
Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation. I am disappointed that today we once again are discussing the continued Republican insistence that immigration is a Federal land…
Mr. Chair, in closing, we are having a debate on a piece of legislation that is not really the intent of the legislation. The intent of this legislation is to begin to continue to develop the narrative anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric…





