Mr. Chairman, in my amendment, we are also talking about the Federal Government having the authority to buy land from willing sellers. And when you bar the Federal Government from trying to buy land, then what happens? The seller still wants to sell. So who steps up? Developers, other high-intensity uses around areas that should be protected. When you look at Uncle Sam as a buyer for political purposes, you empower developers and others that want the land for completely different uses; and before you know it, an area that you wanted to conserve and preserve is gone. This is bad policy. And to remove the authority from the Federal Government of being able to purchase land from willing sellers I think is a step too far. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Raúl Grijalva
Based on the OIG's findings in its September 2023 report on the National Park Service's (NPS) deferred maintenance management, please explain the primary reasons that NPS deferred maintenance costs have increased since Fiscal Year 2021.
Mr. Cole's bill would simply restore the Secretary of the Interior's authority to take land into trust for all tribes, regardless of their date of Federal recognition.
And study after study has confirmed the point that you are making, that there is a cumulative impact on public health, that there is a cumulative impact in the long run, and that industry and regulators bear a tremendous responsibility for…
I ask unanimous consent to submit reporting from 2014, 2016, 2018 alleging that Consumer Energy Alliance used people's names and addresses without their knowledge...





