we continue to have the language being employed of the extreme antienvironmentalists, people who are talking about reckless. If it were truly reckless, my colleagues would be proposing alternatives to eliminate these as monument designations. They are not, and I think that that is prima facie evidence that it is, in fact, not reckless. These are reasonable approaches and are supported by the majority of the public. There is the notion of a land grab. As my colleague from New York pointed out, this is not a land grab. These are lands that are already owned and managed by the Federal Government. There may have been surrounded some parcels of private property as our colleague from Arizona pointed out, but they have always been surrounded by the Federal Government and that does not change it. What is changed under this antienvironmental rider is that you can no longer use Federal funds to manage them.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of federal monument designations and funding during a floor speech.
Share
More from Earl Blumenauer
This week we are having a public media summit in our Nation's Capital, with representatives from independent television stations from across the country. Thirteen years ago, the prospects were not particularly encouraging. We had just had…
Republicans used to believe in market forces. They were part of a bipartisan effort to reduce acid rain, which had a cap, which in the short term increased price, but drove innovation. We solved that problem for a fraction of the…
I just have to note that my dear friend from West Virginia, a woman I deeply respect, would have reliance on fossil fuel for energy security. In her own State of West Virginia, the cheapest sources of power are renewable energy sources…
We have $163 billion a year that is not paid by the top 1 percent of American taxpayers.





