Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal Representative Raul Grijalva Discusses National...  CSPAN  August 18, 2017 9:12am-9:46am EDT

9:12 am
d did, as commissioner. he did come down to southern in may and he only ent with the county commissioners and the governor, in ressional delegation prohofho are pretty much monuments. in fact, we were outside the utah and we never had a chance, he never gave us an as rtunity to talk to us tribal leaders and tribal members, so as far as the there was really dialogue that we established or even give us an talk, to go under walk the r tree to monument land, to have a cup of coffee or anything like that,
9:13 am
happened. host: james adakai, joining us window rock, rom navaho nation commissioner, intertribal coalition. we thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. us from tucson, arizona, is representative raul is speaking out on the issue. congressman, you are ranking ember of the house natural resources committee. you have been hearing the debate over the last couple of hours familiar e certainly with what is going on with bears ears, what is your point of view? guest: well, the whole issue at -- really now is the the authority under the antiquities act that president and all his predecessors, ormer presidents, all of them, have used antiquities act to monuments for a variety of reasons, all of them having cultural historic
9:14 am
preservation, conservation issue all the ears and monuments under review, the past that authority, all are justified and the ears, age of bears bringing into boundaries, the totality ith of what that area needs to be protected.nd the nexus for antiquities act native ys been the peoples, their sacred sites, accessl resources, their to these lands and i think what is going on in utah is very much an example of many other levels of on-slot on our public lands general. the monuments, being the issue here, antiquities act being the here, also attack on major species act. the attack on the wilderness act, the attacks on the nepa act insxut ows public
9:15 am
access, the limiting and denying the right to due process and to redress through are ourts, all these efforts that have been underway now for many years, but now you perfect storm. you have administration interior g that, department that is encouraging what are the about resources we can extract from ur public lands, it is not about conservation, not about preserving the areas, it is not protecting historical and archaeological and areas,mentally sensitive to protect wildlife and in those it is a profit-driven get aty-driven agenda to public lands using the overreach argument, which is false and also using the argument that
9:16 am
be the ones to control. you know, these are public owned by all americans across this country, whether hey are in arizona, grand canyon or bears ears in utah, and the list goes on. asked, we ask that -- from the secretary zenke he tell us what is the who are the review, stake holders that you are levelg with, what was the agreement omment and and disagreement with any changes to bears ears or any of four her monuments, monuments under review in arizona. on and this act to ery deliberate issue begin to minimize importance of marginalize importance of public and conservation and see possibilities
9:17 am
exist for industry on those lands. multi use ys been with public lands. yes, to derive resources from of the or the benefit american people, but also at the for time to conserve perpituity the legacy of these monuments, s, these these special places that are country. this it is going on. host: let me jump in, time list and ut out a arizona is number eight in terms of federal land ownership. map that theom the center part of the state, the is in orange and blue either national forest or wilderness or part of the national parks service. 38.6% is federally owned. s that the right balance in arizona? guest: i think it is. i think it is. state in na became a 1914, part of the decisionmaking to go t of the process
9:18 am
forward was exactly that, there perpituity, special places set aside to be made for the use of all americans and to made for the use of arizona. and arizona has done well, as utah, tourism, visitation to all sites that are on that map. consistent boom to the economy and to the revenue flow for the state of arizona. it has been a win/win, and than that would damage not only the economy, but harm to the rious eclogical balance and is part ion ethic that and parcel of the public land preservation for history of this country. host: president trump and interior department review rotected lands, federally protected land, we're focusing on that. our guest from tucson, arizona,
9:19 am
democrat on the house congressmanmmittee, mr. grijalva. go ahead, please. caller: just wanted to comment, like to make in idaho we've dealt with the same time and one ong thing that has to be done, groups have to get together and local people that the biggest d have stake in it, these people need itwork and stay working with for years because the issues take a long time to solve and we've had wilderness and issues and everything else here. all sites kind of get and their points of iew are done and that, so i just think that like when, if you get people, calling people
9:20 am
things, d different everybody has to learn everybody's point of view and i think they can work together and that's happened here and generally pretty successful. host: thanks for the call. idaho, 61 and a half percent of the land in your federal owned by government, this courtesy of time magazine and congressman? yeah. i agree with the caller. putting all the eople that have impact on the decision-making for land, hether a monument designation, or management of public lands, i think people should be at the table. those efforts, which -- that are with people coming in with a sense of consensus and to work toward a solution ave been very successful and that caller is absolutely right. though, caution i have,
9:21 am
is that going into that, no -- is a sense that local people, whether it is, you know, commissioners in a given county or another influence group, that are opposed to any ublic land protections or conservation or want to open hem up for full extraction of resources, they shouldn't have power. it is a collaboration with the collaboration comes give and take. should be either/or. ost: george from scranton, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning, i was wondering what the last epresentative that was on there, what kind of guarantee will he give for the people that ain't going to strip the land later on? back here in pennsylvania, we mines and stripping power lines and
9:22 am
stuff like that, so what kind of will he give them they won't do that later on? you, congressman? remo the undoing of the removal, regulation and from the administration, i think youn indication that it is, know, let's extract and do and ess as quickly unincumbered by legislation or theks and balances, that is danger, suddenly our public as s become a commodity, -- sed to what it has to be
9:23 am
no royalties. the mine that was done will affect a native ribe, ap ache and that area, all the copper and other recious minerals are for exporting out of the country and there is no royalties to be paid resource, that extraction, that valuable paid l and nothing to be to the american taxpayers or to the surrounding communities in once you are done after 20 years, what happens to the mitigation, the effects on aquifers, all those consequences that occur if it is unfettered, unregulated, development of public lands. those are checks and balances to be in place, too. for the caller, i think it's the environmental impact studies, the statements that
9:24 am
around how you use public lands for extraction purposes, whether it's gas, oil, to ng, etcetera, there has be intended and unintended onsequences of that process have to be transparent and for the public to know and understand. paul, joining to from shallow, arizona, what part in, paul?ate is that caller: right up in the left, toward the northeast corner, to the navaho reservation. host: thanks for phoning in, you re on the air with congressman mr. grijalva. caller: if you look at map of opulation settlement, back east, they don't have settlements, things have been up by private property owners. majority of people live in those only wide open, wild sort of places we have left are
9:25 am
that were appointed by in his act ofvelt come ando everyone can look at them and -- bears ears nd i've driven through the staircase areas and i've been and those thern utah developed, were where are we going to stop? where are we going to have you can go n, where out and park and have silence? host: thank you, paul. congressman? the : i don't differ with comment that the gentleman just ade, this is issue of perpituity, and yes, the west is where concentration of public is, the west is where landscape, majestic public landscape that needs to be preserved and conserved is.
9:26 am
efforts to undo that preservation is met with kind of opposition that the efforts with redoingan tick wittys act and protect the monuments and bears ears is met opposition being met with. the majority of the people in support the monument designation, support public protected ant them and conserved, that is public opinion. will and opinion is not the driving factor right now. 'm convinced and many are convinced that it's an industry-driven agenda to open to unregulate the process to the point where comes faster process the ut -- without
9:27 am
requirements of study and review input and no liability consequences after the fact. the agenda and that's why it is under the misnomer this is overreach, too much land is being taken, the fact lust for the is lands and the lust is to extract hat we can, make prove sxit move o. host: come back to this. two other issues congressman, as of the house natural resources committee, interior department, do you think the ryan zinke retary for a nod it retaliate vote on the health care bill back in july? understand it, the nspector general, the accountability office are looking into that very question. in aised that question
9:28 am
the senator. this is not ethical and a legal problem, but, you know, i refrain from a because that is -- that review and potential going on.ion is host: and the president, as you know, is traveling to phoenix campaign-style rally next week. the hill newspaper reporting former sheriff joe arpalo said he would be honored by a pardon, his conviction last month, criminal contempt for ignoring judge's order to detaining people for being being illegal in the u.s. what happens if the president pardon him? guest: we have now put
9:29 am
validation on what we saw in charlottesville and what the president, what we've seen in terms of his comments and ramblings, after charlottesville, virginia, equivalency where there is none and the comfort given to that were in s charlottesville, so you pardon him.convict convict him of contempt of court as consequence of racial profiling, selective persecution doing this ion and ased on race and so by pardoning him, unfortunately, he president is saying to the whole of america in a very raw is okay.way, that this the rule of law doesn't bend law way and the rule of
9:30 am
ays that sheriff is guilty and guilty of contempt of court and pardon, like it or not, sends a very clear message that we talk about identity olitics in this country, the driver right now of playing the race card in this country, the now of embolding and normalizing hateful groups that exist in ps this country is coming out of he president's mouth f. he pardons the sheriff, it is validation, these are no onger dog whistles, but full declaration on part of the president. articles of ng impeachment against the president, what is your view? uest: i am of the opinion that
9:31 am
mueller has to finish his job consequence of those findings are going to be moving forward, if any action being taken against the president. specific ile impeachment issues is something it is n be done, i think processing to let mueller finish what he's doing. does this mean the president censored for his comments after charlottesville? no. does this mean the president has lost his moral compass and leadership in this country? no. hose are issues i think congress can pick up and probably should pick up. but in terms of impeachment, a process going on and think that process, given the results that have come out, will in the -- for ss
9:32 am
ome uncomfortable position and the other one very weighty having to make the decisions down the road about that question. host: back to the issue of federal lands and again, audience, r radio we're talking with representative raul grijalva, arizona.s from tucson, democrats in that state. marie, oining from st. montana, go ahead, james. caller: good morning. to this listening since your utah rep was on and is glaringly apparent that the majority of people do not these are that already protected areas, it's federal land to begin with. and ust cannot go in there sxrich slash and burn and mine and everything else. you have to go through a very permitting process. nd the antiquities act was not designed or written for one hundreds of kup
9:33 am
thousands of acres and bypass review we have public lands in montana by dealsbeen decimated as a result of locking it up, up.king it and i found a forest service ign that actually stated the reason we having this issue is overgrowth and not so much global warming because we can't log anything anymore. host: james, thanks for the call. congressman? points.two i think the one issue i think is important, and the gentleman mentioned that protections protections, ory andated legal processes, environmental impact studies, studies, before permit is given.
9:34 am
ill, that's exactly the point made at the beginning, all those processes are under assault in expedite the extraction on the lands. it is a things, not only the attack of the antiquities the formulation of the agenda to open up and make available in expedited, unregulated way the extraction of land. that is where the ripping and s, destruction begins it is best and prudent for everybody involved to make sure protected processes are in place, those mandated processes are in place, those regulations are in place i know industry complains it is too burdensome, well, we have a consequence here. we are trying to conserve and very special areas in this country owned by every
9:35 am
land. taxpayer in this and we should be -- that process and has to haustive be scientific and it has to be factual. administration that is and eginning with e.p.a. going on, in full climate denial. we have administration that inimizes the role of science and scientists in public land discussions, in climate public ons and yes, our lands can be wonderful lab tories for adaptation, public can be wonderful places to protect our watershed, of the colorado river will threaten three or four it continues unabated. yes, there are serious issues and those issues around about how to protect land does adaptation on public land lend to the overall
9:36 am
that has to occur almost immediately to deal with real scientifically proven issue of climate change. host: our next caller is from arizona, suzanne, thank you for waiting, you are on the raul ith representative grijalva. caller: it would be nice if you put a real expert on. year lived 40 something of this man's political career, bad decisions, bad judgments, supervisor, cost money.ers a ton of i've listened to his lies and i really think it would do us a putting someone on who could actually have credibility. hypocrisy of this man followed him like the hill. am very upset with c-span because usually you do some research of the back dpround of to have some sed sort of credibility and this man on s it all, especially public land. really, the man has messed up so many thing necessary tucson over
9:37 am
decade and -- as well. thank you and please put someone who has credibility. host: suzanne, he is ranking democrat on house natural hopefully ommittee, you have been following the last have been , we hearing from all sides on this to get an idea what is going on states. give the congressman a chance to respond. well, i n a democracy, appreciate suzanne's -- i don't ppreciate, but i understand suzanne's bitterness as an my nent of my policies and philosophy. i got elected and i continue to be elected by constituency of my district. she might not like that, but reality.the we're dealing with the same realities now. and what is going on with the overnment as a whole at a
9:38 am
federal level, what is going on with our president, so while bitter about be what i do and how i to it, the remains that as long as i have the privilege and the upport of constituents, i'm going to keep doing it. fort worth, texas. caller: good morning, i want to to fight eople need for -- to preserve these lands. 'm so glad that the federal government is there to protect it. ou just need to learn from the lesson of the other callers that re calling in about losing -- ot only their lands, but their citizen rights like the coal miners from pennsylvania, texas and fort worth, we are experiencing the same it is sad that when we go out as a family to tour the they are being
9:39 am
stripped, oil industries are strippingand they are the land to enrich the pockets rich people like trump and his cohorts. surprised if he sold some of our land to putin then we're ians and going to regret it. people need to stand up and fight. something likeve mr. raul grijalva. please keep fighting for our people. thank you. eflin, thank you. -- er: i grew up guest: i grew up in the area around tucson. a ranch and on there is a legacy attached to and that ic lands egacy is one that now that i have the good fortune of having grandkids and others, it is a you pass on. as this debate is scientific,
9:40 am
debate is public, but to any people, like the caller, it's personal. because you would like to see would certainly like to see that we're talking about a generational conservation and of the lands and protection of the lands. generation, hree none of us are around anymore, the special places will still be still be americans that will thank those previous leaving it there for them. from we'll go to joel eagle, idaho, good morning, joel. morning.good representative, i think you ought to go back and take a 101.e in government i'm really surprised when i c-span, that i see our congressmen referred to as democracy. democracy. we're constitutional republic and there is a big difference.
9:41 am
democracy, you have mob rule. nd we elect representatives knowledge toth the make decisions. he other, it is states' rights issue. the tenth amendment talks about states' rights versus federal government. i'd like you to point out to me here in the constitution it says that the feds have lands?ction over state all right, thank you. guest: the jurisdiction is over lands and i have of the other movements going on is that all these federal, public lands in the west, primarily in the be turned over to the state for heir management and for their decision-making as to how these lands are to be used.
9:42 am
uses would be appropriate for those lands. completely against that, i hink there is an overarching american interest here, overarching, which would be that overarching protection, those rules and mandated lawshose federal part of the governments protection of these lands, they need to be in place. overarching goal is what eeps those lands public and what keeps those lands protected. turn those over to states for their use and their to risk-making would be them and so, i disagree. a federal role federal role nds, that needs to be protected and
9:43 am
importantly, it's a federal ole that has done well for the public lands of this country and there is no need to change. know, it's everything from uses on the land to the processes for uses of that land, be overarching issue and and that process is federal. ost: our last call is from ocl oclare, wisconsin, good morning. question, i may have missed this in the news or papers, whatever, what is reason he president of the administration has for reviewing these to what, sell them to open them up to mining and whatever else is around there? mean, i don't understand what is his reasoning or is it just because obama was for them, he be against whatever obama was for and for whatever
9:44 am
can the against, and congress, can't they do omething legislatively to prohibit this from happening? host: elizabeth, thank you for he question and good way to conclude with congressman raul grijalva. guest: yeah, congress can our public lands by making sure that the laws are on book, are indeed not changed, that the regulatory in place and the process in place are protected. a contrary ing in direction with majority of congress, they want to go a way.e different i think that, you know, all the buzz words about energy independence, job creation and local d for states and governments to have more say on how federal lands are used are the rationale trump used in terms of the review of the antiquities act. being the point of the sphere in this public land movession, i think if they
9:45 am
any change any of these monument designation by previous there is a very case, legal case against the president and case terms of trying to deny and undue previous president.nother having said that, i think at the same time, we have to understand is is an agenda that broader than the antiquities at the agenda that looks public lands as what short term commodity use can we get out of it, it is industry driven and i the y believe that motivation, both political and going on or what is with public lands and the assault we're feeling by administration comes directly from the profit-driven motive of industry. host: congressman raul grijalva, ranking member of the house


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on