[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ESTABLISHING THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT BY
PRESIDENT CLINTON ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1996
__________
APRIL 29, 1997-WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-269 CC WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Steve Hodapp, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 29, 1997...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a U.S. Senator from Utah............ 16
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a U.S. Representative from Utah.......... 7
Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a U.S. Representative from Idaho...... 8
Cook, Hon. Merrill, a U.S. Representative from Utah.......... 9
Duncan, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from Tennessee...... 4
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a U.S. Delegate from the Territory of
American Samoa............................................. 3
Hansen, Hon. James, a U.S. Representative from Utah; and
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.. 1
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah............... 11
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice, a U.S. Representative from New York... 4
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota...... 10
Statements of witnesses:
Austin, Mark, CEO, Boulder Mountain Lodge.................... 87
Prepared statement....................................... 141
Babbitt, Bruce, Secretary, Department of the Interior........ 28
Prepared statement....................................... 123
Gill, Ruland J., Jr., Chairman, Board of Trustees, Utah
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
(prepared statement)....................................... 136
Harja, John, Vice Chairman, Utah School & Institutional Trust
Lands Administration, on behalf of Ruland J. Gill, Jr.,
Chairman................................................... 76
Judd, Joe, County Commissioner, Kane County, Utah............ 73
Prepared statement....................................... 132
Leavitt, Michael O., Governor, State of Utah................. 21
Prepared statement....................................... 109
Liston, Louise, County Commissioner, Garfield County, Utah... 72
Prepared statement....................................... 127
McGinty, Kathleen, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality... 26
Prepared statement....................................... 116
Roosevelt, Theodore, IV, Managing Director, Lehman Brothers.. 91
Till, Tom, Owner, Tom Till Photography....................... 89
Additional material supplied:
Text of:
H.R. 413................................................. 101
H.R. 596................................................. 103
H.R. 597................................................. 105
H.R. 1127................................................ 107
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE NATIONAL MONUMENT
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
Hansen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC
LANDS
Mr. Hansen. The committee will come to order. The
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes to
conduct oversight on establishment of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument by President Clinton on September
the 18th, 1996.
I welcome all our witnesses but especially welcome our
Governor, Mike Leavitt; Commissioners Louise Liston and Joe
Judd; other witnesses from Utah, Mr. Austin and Mr. Till. I
also welcome Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, Congressman
Cannon, Congressman Cook; Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt; and Kathleen McGinty, Director for the Council on
Environmental Quality. We welcome our witnesses.
This is a very important hearing for the Utah Delegation,
the people of Utah, and for all public lands States. As noted
on the agenda, we have listed the numerous bills that call for
amendments to the 1906 Antiquities Act.
This Act gives the President incredible authority to
instantaneously designate Federal lands as a monument. Today's
hearing will demonstrate how this Act can be abused and how
this Administration insists on conducting its affairs behind
closed doors and without public involvement or concern for the
affected people.
As many are aware, the unilateral action by the President
created a lot of contention in southern Utah which is already
the site of many polarized battles over the use of public
lands. I requested Secretary Babbitt and Miss McGinty to join
us to answer questions regarding the entire process and the
reasons behind the President's actions.
By way of the 1906 Antiquities Law, President Clinton
designated 1.7 million acres of southern Utah as a national
monument. Standing in another State, surrounded only by
celebrities and those privileged enough to be invited,
President Clinton locked
up the largest deposit of compliance coal in the United States
and took billions of dollars from the school children of Utah.
Moreover, President Clinton has denied the Federal Treasury
of billions in revenues from the resources locked up by the
monument designation. We will hear the impact this has had on
the school children, the people who live in and around the
monument, and impacts on the State.
I cannot stress enough what this action has done to the
State of Utah. Utah has been the hot bed of contention
regarding wilderness, RS 2477 roads, endangered species, water,
timber production, draining of Lake Powell, and the list goes
on and on. Although we, as a State, are working hard to solve
some of these problems, it is clear to me that this
Administration is not interested in solution but is only
interested in contention and photo opportunities.
Documents--and I stress that--documents we have received
make it clear that this new monument had very little to do with
preservation of lands but was focused on political advantage,
photo opportunities, and stopping a legitimate coal project. In
a memo authored by Miss McGinty to senior White House staff,
she goes into great length about the political advantages of
designation, where the most scenic site would be, and how
designation would give the Department of Interior ``leverage''
to stop the proposed coal mine.
These polarized issues are difficult enough to deal with
based on facts and opinions, but when politics, scenic
backdrops, and leverage drive natural resource management, we
are bound to reach the ``train wreck'' that Secretary Babbitt
refers to so often.
Secondly, it is not clear that the Administration used any
science or data to support this designation. From the documents
produced, the experts consulted were Hollywood celebrities, ex-
political officials, and elite interest groups. This is hardly
the type of science-based management our Federal lands deserve.
In fact, the Administration knew so little about the area
and its resources that they had a law professor from the
University of Colorado draft the proclamation for the
President. It is interesting that there are plenty of staff
available for political maneuvering, but we must contract out
for the real work.
For anyone who knows this area, the boundaries alone make
little or no sense. There are eight oil wells in the monument,
private lands, houses, and the boundaries are drawn right next
to towns. These are the type of decisions we get when the
managers on the ground and the public are excluded from the
process.
NEPA and FLPMA were completely ignored in this process, yet
the Administration always opposes the most minor waivers
contained in legislation. It is troubling that the public
process required by NEPA is good for Congress but can be
ignored by the Administration when it is politically
advantageous.
I want to be clear that I firmly believe there are lands
within the Kaiparowits Plateau that deserve protection. I
supported the ultimate protection of wilderness designation for
nearly 500,000 acres of this area, yet, once again, those on
the other side would rather continue the battles as opposed to
protecting the lands.
Secretary Babbitt and Miss McGinty, I did not request your
presence simply to demagogue this issue, but we have serious
questions
that the people of Utah, this committee, and Congress deserve
to have answered. I hope you can provide candid answers to our
many questions, and I look forward to your testimony and
exchange of information. I ask unanimous consent that the
documents submitted by the Administration be inserted into the
record as provided. Is there objection? Hearing none, so
ordered.
[Documents follow:] ???
Mr. Hansen. I further ask unanimous consent that the
Delegation from Utah and the Governor of the State may be
allowed to sit on the dais after their testimony. Is there
objection? Hearing none, so ordered. I will turn to my friend
from American Samoa for his opening statement, the ranking
member of the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are
having this oversight hearing on the important action taken by
President Clinton to designate the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. The designation has engendered strong
passions, to say the least.
While there may be disagreements on how the monument was
established, I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that this
great area contains significant resource values. Governor
Leavitt referred to this area as a treasure. The rugged scenic
beauty of the unique geology, the wealth of archeological and
historical sites combine to form rich in beauty and history.
I know there is a strong temptation to use today's hearing
to second-guess President Clinton's decision. I think we should
be wise to heed the actions of Governor Leavitt who has worked
constructively with the Administration since the monument was
established to see that the best possible management plan could
be put in place for the monument. I commend the Governor for
his efforts.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today on
how we can all constructively provide for the management of the
monument for the benefit of all Americans especially the good
citizens of Utah.
And, Mr. Chairman, I, as an alumni of one of the great
universities of the State of Utah, namely, Brigham Young
University, I would be remiss if I would not recognize and give
a special welcome to the distinguished members of the Utah
Congressional Delegation, certainly Senator Hatch, Senator
Bennett, Congressman Cannon, and Congressman Cook for their
presence here, and especially also to welcome personally
Governor Leavitt from the State of Utah.
And, Mr. Chairman, I also would be remiss if I did not give
a special recognition to a gentleman that has been a very
special guest of our people in my district where just a couple
of weeks ago or, to say more specifically, last week, we
honored the celebration of the raising of the American flag in
American Samoa for our 97th year now. And we were very honored
to have Secretary Babbitt join us as our special guest in the
territory. I say this more especially because he was there to
dedicate our national park.
It is a 9,000 acre national park, unique in the sense that
it contains the only tropical rain forest under the umbrella of
the administration of the United States.
And given proper recognition that from this tropical rain
forest in my district, Mr. Chairman, there are approximately
150 plants that are now being made a serious study for cancer
research at the National Institute of Health thanks to the work
and the leadership under the gentleman who is a botanist at
Brigham Young University, Dr. Paul Cox.
And I want to say that Dr. Cox has been a very avid
supporter of not only national parks, but certainly in this
tropical rain forest--unique only in that I think Puerto Rico
and American Samoa are the only areas that can make this claim
under the jurisdiction of the United States.
And I would say that I would like to offer my personal
welcome to Secretary Babbitt for his presence here in our
hearing this morning. And given the fact that he was privileged
to visit one of the most unique coral formations in all the
world, and it is in American Samoa. And I hope that in the
upcoming worldwide conference on the importance of saving coral
reef formations, I am sure that Secretary Babbitt's
contribution in this area will be very well received in this
world conference.
And, again, I want to welcome Secretary Babbitt and also
Miss McGinty who is Chairman of this environmental council that
we are going to be hearing from her testimony this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. We will turn to members of the
committee for brief opening remarks they may have. The
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DUNCAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TENNESSEE
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I have no formal opening
statement, but I did read with interest the statement by your
Governor that, ``The first reports of this that I or any other
elected official in the State of Utah had received were from a
story in the Washington Post only nine days prior to Mr.
Clinton's public proclamation.''
And I would simply say it appears that there was an
intentional effort made to cover up or hide this major event
from the people most affected. And I think that is terrible,
and I think it is very undemocratic. And I think sadly I would
say that that is something that I think would happen in the
former Soviet Union or some Third World dictatorship but surely
not in the United States of America. And I think it is a very
sad event that occurred in this country. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
Hinchey.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE HINCHEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to begin by joining you and our ranking member, Mr.
Faleomavaega, in welcoming the women and the men of this very
distinguished panel--Senators, Governor, Miss McGinty, Mr.
Secretary. We are grateful for your presence here today, and we
look forward to hearing from you.
I would like to also, Mr. Chairman, begin my statement by
quoting from a letter that I wrote to the people of Utah
through the Utah press last year regarding the issue of Utah
wilderness and the debate surrounding it in which I have played
a role.
It says as follows: ``I became involved in the debate over
the Utah wilderness and its future because I care about the
environment. I care about wilderness, and I care about Utah's
strikingly beautiful desert land. I introduced H.R. 1500,
originally Wayne Owens's bill, in the hope that it will be
seriously considered whenever Congress considers the question
of Utah lands, and of the hope that Congress will thoroughly
review the issues at stake. I hope the debate will always be
conducted in a civil and mutually respectful manner.''
The letter went on to say that, ``Congressman Jim Hansen's
position on the future of those lands is very different from
mine. But as Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Lands, Congressman Hansen has always treated me
and everyone else in this issue with great respect and allowed
me and others who support H.R. 1500 fair opportunity to present
our views at the hearings that he conducted on Utah wilderness.
``This issue can best be resolved if we debate the facts
and do not let personal attacks interfere with or cloud the
issues. In this regard, Congressman Hansen and I are on common
ground. We want a debate that honors the land, not one that
detracts us from the integrity that wilderness represents.''
Mr. Chairman, you were gracious enough to thank me for that
letter at the time, and I hope that today's hearing will
proceed in that same spirit of civility and respect.
Those of us who supported the President's designation of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument last fall know
that the designation was controversial. And we know also, of
course, that there was opposition. We know too that even some
of those people who believe this land should be protected
permanently did not like to see the President acting
unilaterally to designate it as a monument.
The bills placed before the Subcommittee today reflect
that. They aim to restrict the President's power under the
Antiquities Act to take such actions. We have seen some pretty
strong statements objecting to the President's power under that
law. I have collected a few from Utah newspapers.
From a State official quoted in the Deseret News, ``Locking
up this land is robbing the people of Utah of income from
mining and development.'' An elected official was quoted as
charging that the President's action ``robs Utah school
children of millions of dollars.''
The Vice President of the Utah Cattlemen's Association
quoted in the Salt Lake City Tribune said, ``I don't know
whether this action is vindictive or not, but Utah certainly
has a role other than being a playground for Easterners.''
Another representative of Utah's grazing industry added, ``This
act is going to cause further economic reductions and further
depletions of towns. We should have had hearings prior to doing
it in this manner. We just lost some more freedoms.''
An elected official called designation ``a slap at my State
of Utah,'' and complained, assuming apparently that the
Interior Secretary and the President who signed the order acted
as one, that the Interior Secretary acted ``with no notice
whatsoever without hearing any interested group without prior
consultation or discussion with the State officials.''
``Even a common criminal is entitled to a notice of a
hearing,'' he added, that the action was ``dictatorial and
arrogant, flaunting of the expressed wishes of the people of
Utah.'' The Tribune editorialized against it calling it
``arbitrary, a land grab that should not be allowed to stand.''
I am sure these statements sound familiar to all of us who
have followed the monument debate. But none of them concern the
Grand Staircase-Escalante designation. All of them concerned an
earlier ``outrage,'' and that was President Lyndon Johnson's
decision to expand Capitol Reef and Arches National Monument
back in 1969. Both of them are now national parks, and they are
among Utah's most popular tourist attractions and her most
prized possessions.
The Town of Moab, the place that was said to be threatened
with ``economic depletion,'' has grown and prospered.
Ironically, several of the people I just quoted went on to say
that the only saving grace in the President's designation--
President Johnson's designation--was that Arches and Capitol
Reef were monuments, not national parks, and so extractive
industries could be allowed there. I understand that today one
of our Utah representatives wants to expand Arches National
Park. So opinions do change with time.
Most of Utah's national parks, all but one, began as
presidentially designated monuments, not as the product of
hearings or consultations with State officials. I do not mean
that as a criticism of past officials in the State. I say only
that it took the imagination and foresight of Presidents acting
on their own beginning with those great Republicans, Theodore
Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, to see that these lands
merited protection, and that their highest and best use was not
mineral extraction or development.
Today, I think most Utahans agree that those lands deserve
protection and also understand the economic benefits of those
designations. Just recently, my colleague, Mr. Cannon, told me
that he expected the monument designation would bring millions
of new visitors to Utah. Presumably, they will bring some money
with them.
Many Utahans whom I know who are contributing to the State
were originally attracted to the State by its parks, monuments,
and wilderness areas. One of them is here today, Mark Austin,
from Boulder, Utah. Boulder is the town whose board voted in
1969 to rename itself ``Johnson's Folly'' in order to criticize
the President's monument designation. They said it would turn
the town into a ghost town. Well, of course, that hasn't
happened; quite the contrary.
We need to remember today that we are talking about Federal
lands, lands that belong to all the American people no matter
where they were born, no matter where they live now.
The Antiquities Act invested powers in the President
specifically so that he could rise above local interests and
temporary concerns to act in the long-term interests of all
Americans. Theodore Roosevelt did that with the Grand Canyon;
President Taft with Zion; Franklin Roosevelt with Capitol Reef;
and Lyndon Johnson with Arches and Capitol Reef again. Most
Americans and most Utahans thank them for their actions. I
think most Americans thank President Clinton for his actions in
this case, and I think that most Utahans either do now or will
eventually agree. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I would appreciate it if the members on their
opening statements should be as brief as possible. We have a
panel, and I am sure people are very busy. But thank you for
your statement. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to get to the
panel, and I will relinquish my time at this point.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No opening
statement. I would just like to welcome the panel.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon. Most of
this--in fact, all of this is in Mr. Cannon's district. We will
give you the full five minutes, Mr. Cannon.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. I represent
Utah's Third District, and the entire Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument, all 1.7 million acres of it, is in my
district.
Last fall, on September 18, under the authority of the 1906
Antiquities Act, President Clinton, with a few quick words and
the stroke of a pen, created this incredibly massive national
monument. The issue is not really what should happen with this
land; the issue is process.
Utahns are angry. If this had been done through an open and
thoughtful process, I think Utahans could have embraced
something in the area. But that is not what happened. Instead,
this monument was created without discussion, without
consultation, and apparently without consideration, although I
hope we will learn a little bit more about that today.
Essentially, the President chose to deliberately circumvent the
democratic process.
Over the past decade, the debate over Utah wilderness has
been a vigorous one. In the area that is now the new monument,
there were strong conflicting opinions over how much land
should be set aside and protected as wilderness.
Some suggested as few as 300,000 acres, while others
proposed as much as 1.3 million acres. Although it was
difficult, the two groups were voicing their opinions in the
public forum. The process of reaching a compromise between the
two sides was a public one with give-and-take between
conflicting viewpoints.
President Clinton entered the debate with a complete
disregard for the public political process underway. He took
the most dramatic action possible, one beyond the bounds of the
public debate, by setting aside 1.7 million acres, far more
than had been talked about publicly.
Today, we have the chance to revisit this action. The key
question is why President Clinton, Secretary Babbitt, and Katie
McGinty attempted to solve the issues in southern Utah under a
cloud of secrecy, behind closed doors. And, more importantly,
why those in Utah who would have been affected the most were
entirely ignored. I have come today, along with the rest of the
Utah Delegation, to get some plain and simple answers.
The first time anyone in Utah, including my Democratic
predecessor, ever heard about the possibility of such an action
was in the pages of the Washington Post, a mere 11 days before
the creation of the monument. During the week before September
18, Utah's congressional delegation and Governor were told
repeatedly that ``nothing was imminent.'' Of course, something
was.
This monument's designation has brought a great deal of
concern to my constituents across the State. As this massive
national monument becomes a part of their daily lives, they are
confronted with the changes that accompany it in their
counties, towns, schools, and individual homes. I have been
repeatedly asked by my constituents: ``Why was this monument
created? How was it done? What was the process? Why were
Utahans not consulted with beforehand? And what will it mean to
our future?''
I am pleased that we are holding these hearings today. I
hope to get some answers to take back to my constituents. I am
sure you will agree they deserve it. I thank the Chairman for
holding these important hearings and for allowing me and my
fellow members of the Utah Delegation to participate.
Let me just say in addition that I am deeply concerned
about the tone of these hearings. As a practical matter, in the
audience today we have people with very different views about
the land in Utah and how it should be used. I thank the
Chairman and appreciate Mr. Hinchey's words about the civility
that has existed in this committee in the past. And while I
expect that we will have some very direct questions, I hope
that this hearing can go forward with clarity in answers and
civility. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. The gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to
welcome the distinguished panel here today. And with the hope
of getting to them sooner, I will relinquish the remainder of
my time as well. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Pombo. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I do have a statement, but in
the essence of time, I would like to just submit it for the
record. Thank you.
[Statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]
Statement of Hon. Helen Chenoweth, a U.S. Representative from Idaho
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on
President Clinton's action to establish what has become known
as the Utah Monument. I, too, have grave concern about the
President's unilateral action. Not only did he clearly violate
the procedure of public participation as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but he abused the
intent behind the Antiquities Act.
To ensure that this never happens again, I have introduced
two bills, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your willingness to
hear them today. The first, H.R. 596, would prohibit further
extension or establishment of any national monument without an
express Act of Congress. The second is H.R. 597, the same bill,
but only applicable to Idaho. Wyoming and Alaska are already
protected by statute from such arrogant actions as occurred in
Utah. My intent is to work to stop this from happening to my
constituents in Idaho, which is the reason for two versions of
my legislative proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly outline what exactly it is
the President did. With the stroke of his pen, and without any
public or local input, President Clinton locked up 1.7 million
acres of land in Utah. Not only did he not take public comment
as required by NEPA, numerous BLM officials have told me, both
publicly and privately, that they were not informed. Imagine,
Mr. Chairman, the amount of arrogance it takes for an
Administration to lock up so much wealth.
Was the impact to Utah considered? Was the impact to the
taxpayers considered? We'll never know, because the President
violated the public input procedures required by NEPA. The
United States Geological Survey (USGS) tells us that there are
approximately 62 billion tons of coal locked up by the
designation, including one billion tons owned by the Utah
school trust. This represents $1.1 billion to Utah's school
children, $2.0 billion to the State of Utah, and $5.0 billion
to the U.S. Treasury. All of this was done with a mere stroke
of the pen. The problem, however, is that it turned out to be a
devastating loss for the Utah school children and the U.S.
taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, this simply can never happen again. We must
take steps to remove the ability of one person to take such an
arrogant, expensive and economically damaging action. My bills,
H.R. 596 and H.R. 597, do just that. I will continue to work
with you to ensure that they become law.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Hansen. We would ask our colleague from the Second
District in Utah to join us, Mr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF HON. MERRILL COOK, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH
Mr. Cook. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do
appreciate the invitation to be here today, although I am not a
member of the House Resources Committee. I think the opinion of
the monument in the district that I represent and throughout
the State of Utah is varied--and it is wide--from those who
believe strongly in it, that are very grateful for it, to those
who think it is not a good thing at all for the State.
But regardless of where people are on the issue, I think
there is almost unanimous feeling among the citizens of the
State of Utah that the method, the process by which the Grand
Staircase-Escalante Monument was created was seriously flawed.
And it was flawed because the people of Utah, the elected
officials were simply not consulted in the process, and that
was, I think, an insult to the feelings and went right to the
heart of trying to restore trust in the Federal Government on
the part of the people of this country and particularly the
people of the State of Utah.
For someone who feels as I do, that the monument presents
great opportunities, and if it could be a scaled-back version,
if the amount of acreage were less than was created by
presidential fiat, that it could be a very beneficial thing to
the State of Utah. I just can't stress enough the importance of
prior consultation.
In that connection, I am co-sponsoring an amendment to the
Antiquities Act that would require the President of the United
States or the Administration or the Secretary of the Interior
to give at least 90 days' notice to the Governor anytime
something like this would happen in Utah or any other State.
And I do feel that many of the issues that obviously will
be a part of this hearing today and the questions and the real
concerns and the answers--a lot of it could have been avoided
if we had just followed those steps. So I am very interested.
I am particularly interested in hearing whether there is a
chance for scaled-back acreage in the monument. What is going
to happen to existing property rights? The President was very
clear in his statements in Arizona that they would be
protected, and I would like to hear something about the
assurance of those protections, and also on the general
multiple use issues that affect the areas contained within the
1.7 million acres, and whether or not those multiple use issues
could be better satisfied and preserved if we scaled back the
acreage in the monument.
Again, I want to thank the Chairman for the opportunity to
be here, and I want to commend Representatives Cannon and
Hansen for the solid work they have done regarding land issues,
and certainly our two Senators, Senator Bennett and Senator
Hatch, for the real leadership this entire delegation has shown
on this very important issue.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Now, I am embarrassed that
so many folks are standing there. It has been the custom of
this committee, if you so desire, you can take this lower tier.
If you would like to sit down, feel free to do so. I recognize
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Southern Utah,
the red rock country, the Escalante National Monument--this
area has been the focus of study and recommendations for 60-70
years, going back to the 1930's and then Secretary of Interior
Ickes, and recommendations to make the entire area a
conservation designation or a park. And to suggest that it
hasn't been considered or studied, I think, obviously, is at
odds with some of the analysis and recommendations.
I understand that the land use process in Utah has
polarized, in my judgment, for a lot of reasons. I think we
were on the right path when we did some work on Forest Service
wilderness and made some modifications. And I think it started
with the BLM wilderness study and the disagreements that
occurred over what was appropriate for study at that time.
And so I think that if we want to take the action by itself
last year and look at it unconnected to the threat of
consideration that had existed, we would have to realize we
missed an opportunity with then Governor Scott Matheson in his
discussions about the ability to try and consolidate Federal
landownership and to eliminate some of the problems, as you
know, within Utah and perhaps without. There was a resistance
to, in fact, move in that direction. I was there and we did
hearings with other members on topics of that nature, but
things had become polarized.
And I had hoped that this year after the President took the
action precipitated by his concern that we were not able to
move, and we can point fingers at one another--we all observed
the problems we had in the House last year and the problems
that our two friends or colleagues in the Senate had with
moving a Utah wilderness bill.
So I think we have to go back and look at that. I hope that
this hearing will be the beginning of setting a new tenor with
regards to working out that BLM wilderness bill and addressing
the monument and the concerns the President had in terms of
this designation.
We have worked out literally hundreds of bills in the years
that I have served on this committee which were very
contentious. I know the monument designations from time to time
have been used for other purposes. I think this by any
definition has the characteristics. I don't think the answer
lies in stripping the President of this extraordinary power. I
think usually it has been used very prudently.
But I think we do have the opportunity to come back and
work with this President on dealing with this monument and
dealing with a policy path for the land use of the BLM
wilderness and other areas in Utah. And I hope that this
hearing will rather than accentuate that polarization and
continue with it, we will be able to come to find some common
ground today with the principals.
I certainly welcome our Senators, Senator Bennett and
Senator Hatch, my classmates, and the Governor, and, of course,
Secretary Babbitt, and Chairwoman McGinty. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Jones.
Mr. Walter Jones. Mr. Chairman, I will relinquish my time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Montana, Mr.
Hill.
Mr. Hill. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get on
with the hearing.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada. Thank you. Well,
thank you so much for your opening statements. We are very
grateful for the panel that is here. We will start with Senator
Orrin Hatch and then go to Senator Bennett and Governor
Leavitt, Kathleen McGinty, and Secretary Babbitt. Senator
Hatch.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here with all of you here at the dais--at the table here,
especially my colleagues, Governor Leavitt and Senator
Bennett--on a matter of great concern to the people of Utah and
of growing interest to the people of the United States.
This, of course, involves the unilateral creation of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by the President by
means of a process in which the elected representatives of Utah
were not consulted and, thus, played no role in the decision.
Consequently, the people of Utah had no say in the matter, even
though the Escalante region is of great scenic, archeological,
cultural, and economic interest to the State of Utah.
On September 18, 1996, President Clinton invoked the
Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. The 1.7 million acre monument, larger in
size than the States of Rhode Island and Delaware combined,
locks up more than 200,000 acres of State lands, along with the
vast energy reserves located beneath the surface.
What was particularly and still is particularly galling to
me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that both Secretary Babbitt and
CEQ Director McGinty assured myself and Senator Bennett in a
meeting just a week prior to the President's announcement that
the leaks concerning a designation of a monument in Utah were
not true, and that no such action was contemplated. If it were,
we were told, the Utah Delegation would be fully apprised and
consulted.
But as we all know, this promise was not kept. The biggest
presidential land set-aside in almost 20 years was a sneak
attack on the State of Utah--as I have said before--the mother
of all land grabs. Without any notification, let alone
consultation or negotiation with our Governor or State
officials in Utah, the President set aside this acreage as a
national monument by the stroke of his pen.
Let me emphasize this point. There was no consultation, no
hearings, no town meetings, no TV or radio discussion shows, no
nothing. No input from Federal managers who work in Utah and
manage our public lands. And as I stated last September, in all
my 20 years in the U.S. Senate, I have never seen a clearer
example of the arrogance of Federal power than the proclamation
creating this monument.
This President has a propensity to bypass Congress and the
States and rule by executive order; in other words, by fiat.
Although acting pursuant to the authority designated him by the
Antiquities Act, President Clinton, by not consulting Utah's
elected Federal or State representatives, ignored our tradition
of due process of law.
Due process of law, originally termed law of the land,
derives from Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta of 1217. This
provision was intended to ensure that only those convicted for
a known statute could be punished, not punished at the mere
will or whim of the king. This principle was codified and
extended to require hearings for deprivations of rights by the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The purpose of due process, therefore, was to prevent
arbitrary executive behavior. It was also designed in no small
part to guarantee that only the legislature could pass a law,
that there would be government by consent. By not consulting
with the representatives of the people of Utah or with
Congress, President Clinton's proclamation is akin to a royal
edict.
Now, I am not necessarily contending that the proclamation
was totally unlawful, after all, it was promulgated pursuant to
the power delegated to the President by Congress. But I am
saying that consultation with interested parties would have
made the national monument designation more efficacious and
perhaps avoided the legal and other pitfalls that may yet arise
from this designation.
If there was proper and sober consultation, the
Administration would have learned that Utahans and their
representatives have two chief concerns with the President's
proclamation in addition to the manner in which it was made:
first, there were 200,000 acres of school trust lands, set
aside for the benefit of Utah's school children, captured
within the monument boundary; and, second, the President has
locked up more than an estimated 11 billion tons of
recoverable, low-sulfur, clean-burning, environmentally sound
coal.
Indeed, the monument designation will basically withdraw
from future development the largest untapped energy resource in
the United States, or reserve in the United States, the
Kaiparowits Coal Basin. This reserve has been valued at over $1
trillion, comparable to 20 to 30 billion barrels of OPEC oil.
Designating this area as part of the monument will deprive the
Treasury and thus the American taxpayers of approximately 6 to
$9 billion in lost Federal royalty tax revenues.
Under the monument designation, this resource will not be
available for our posterity. It is beyond question that the use
of this environment-friendly coal could have had beneficial
impact on our air pollution problems in this county. Yet, no
interested parties or outside experts were consulted before the
proclamation was made. Where is the rule of law here? Where is
government by consent?
With regard to the school trust lands, it is important to
remember that at the time Utah became a State, certain lands
were deeded to the State of Utah by the Federal Government to
be held in trust specifically for the education of our Utah
school children. The inability to access the natural resources
contained on these lands will have a devastating impact on our
State's ability to provide crucial funds for Utah's public
school educational system.
The Utah Congress of Parents and Teachers has indicated
that ``the income from the mineral resources within the
monument could have made a significant difference in the
funding of Utah schools now and for many generations to come.''
It remains to be seen the manner in which the President will
fulfill the promises he made to the children of Utah last
September when he created the new monument.
Specifically, he said, ``Creating this national monument
should not and will not come at the expense of Utah's
children.'' He also added that it is his desire to ``both
protect the natural heritage of Utah's children and ensure them
a quality educational heritage.''
However, Lee Allison, Director of the Utah Geological
Survey, recently testified that, ``It is questionable whether
the Federal Government has sufficient coal and other resources
in Utah comparable to the school trust's coal in the
Kaiparowits coal field, let alone the trust's other energy and
mineral resources within the monument.''
This is not encouraging. Everyone wants to know how the
Administration expects to compensate Utah's school children for
the lost revenues contained on the trust lands within the
monument. And I am very hopeful that we will learn about the
Administration's plans in that regard today.
Remember, our wilderness bill considered last year proposed
designation of approximately one-quarter of the monument-
designated land as wilderness. This wilderness designation
would have given greater environmental protection to the scenic
Escalante region. Monument status, on the other hand, allows
buildings of roads, tourist centers, rest rooms, and eateries.
This is the great irony: the stated purpose of the
President's proclamation was increased environmental
protection. Yet, our wilderness bill would have provided much
greater protection to the most scenic and historic areas of the
Escalante region. But we were not consulted; we were not asked;
nor was our opinion sought. Rather, in an effort to score
political points with a powerful interest group 48 days before
a national election, President Clinton unilaterally acted.
In taking this action in this way, the President did it
backwards. Instead of knowing how the decision would be carried
out and knowing the ramifications of its implementation and the
best ways to accommodate them, the President has designated the
monument and now expects over the next three years to make the
designation work. The formal designation should have come after
the discussion period. It is how we normally do things in our
country.
Unfortunately, however, the decision is now fait accompli,
and we will have to deal with it as best we can. I hope the
President will be there to help our people in rural Utah and
our school system as the implementation of the designation
order takes place.
When an area the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument is withdrawn from public use and given the
special designation, there are many ramifications, both
economically and socially, that need to be addressed, the
burden of which falls primarily on the shoulders of the local
community.
These include amending county land-use plans to be
consistent with the new monument; improving the infrastructure
so as to prepare the existing inadequate transportation system
for the massive inflow of new visitors to the area; and
improving services provided by local government, such as law
enforcement, emergency, search-and-rescue, solid waste
collection, and disposition of water and other natural
resources, in anticipation of greater visitation to the area.
These are just a few of the items that are currently being
discussed and reviewed by local leaders in the area of the new
national monument. These are not trivial matters; they are
critical to continuing the livelihood of the cities and towns
in the area. So no one should think that creating a new
monument of this size, as endearing a concept as that is, does
not create significant problems that must be addressed.
Now, I could go on but let me just say this. As you know,
Mr. Chairman, I filed a bill that would give the President--
would allow him to retain his unfettered authority under the
Antiquities Act over monument designations of 5,000 acres or
less. The 5,000 acre limitation will give effect to the
``smallest area compatible'' clause, contained within the
current Antiquities Act, which both the Courts and the past
Presidents have often ignored. And I could go on on that. I
will ask that the rest of my remarks in that regard be placed
in the record.
Mr. Chairman, today we will lay the groundwork for reform.
Secretary Babbitt and CEQ Director McGinty will answer
questions concerning the monument designation. And I look
forward to finding out the true reasons why the designation was
made and why it was made in such a secretive fashion.
I also want to ensure that a fair and thorough process is
followed on any future large-scale monument designations under
the authority granted in the Antiquities Act. Since Utah is
home to many other areas of significant beauty and grandeur, I
am concerned that this President or others within his
Administration, or a future President or Administration, might
consider using this authority in the same manner as last
September. In other words, it would be deja vu all over again.
And we cannot afford to have the entire land area of our
State subject to the whims of any President. Many have proposed
plans, including myself, for these areas, that have been the
subject of considerable public scrutiny and comment. The
consensus building process must be allowed to continue without
the threat that a presidential pen will intervene to destroy
the progress and goodwill that has been established or that may
be underway among the citizens of our State.
In short, we must ensure due process of law and government
by consent. So I am very grateful for you and the other members
of this committee in holding these hearings, and I have
appreciated the comments that have been made here today. And we
will look forward to getting to the bottom of this and seeing
what can be done to resolve some of the tremendous conflicts
and problems that exist as a result of this unilateral
declaration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Remainder of statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Remainder of Sen. Hatch's Statement
The lack of consultation and all the problems this matter
has brought about has led to the introduction of several
legislative proposals in the 105th Congress to amend the
Antiquities Act, including my own bill, S. 477, the National
Monument Fairness Act. This bill is designed to correct the
problems highlighted by the Clinton Antiquities Act
proclamation in Utah in two significant ways.
First, under the Act, the President would retain his almost
unfettered authority under the Antiquities Act over monument
designations 5,000 acres or less. The 5,000 acre limitation
will give effect to the ``smallest area compatible'' clause,
contained within the Antiquities Act, which both the courts and
past Presidents have often ignored.
For areas larger than 5,000 acres, the President must
consult with the Governor of the state or states affected by
the proposed proclamation. This consultation will prevent
executive agencies from rolling over local concerns--local
concerns that, under the dictates of modern land policy laws
such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act, certainly
deserve to be aired.
Second, the National Monument Fairness Act allows all
citizens of the United States to voice their concerns on large
designations through Congress. The Act provides that Congress
must pass into law a proposed designation over 5,000 acres and
send it to the President for signature before the proposal
becomes final and effective. Thus, the nation, through its
elected representatives, will make the decision whether certain
lands will become national monuments. This is the way our
democracy ought to operate. Indeed, it furthers the intent of
the Framers in the Constitution who anticipated that laws and
actions affecting one or more individual states would be placed
before the legislature and debated, with a state's
representatives and senators able to defend the interests of
their state.
Would the citizens of other states balk at a presidential
order declaring such an enormous portion of their own states
out of circulation without even the opportunity to register
their views on the subject? I daresay they would.
Enactment of this bill will restore the rule of law and
government by consent. It would reform the Antiquities Act,
which is itself antiquated and subject to abuse.
But today, we will lay the ground work for such reform.
Secretary Babbitt and CEQ Director McGinty will answer
questions concerning the monument designation. I look forward
to finding out the true reasons why the designation was made
and why it was made in such a secretive fashion.
I also want to ensure that a fair and thorough process is
followed on any future large-scale monument designations under
the authority granted in the Antiquities Act. Since Utah is
home to many other areas of significant beauty and grandeur, I
am concerned that this President or those within his
Administration, or a future president or Administration, might
consider using this authority in the same manner as last
September. In other words, it will be ``deja vu all over
again.''
We cannot afford to have the entire land area of our state
subject to the whims of any president. Many have proposed
plans, including myself, for these areas, that have been the
subject of considerable public scrutiny and comment. The
consensus building process must be allowed to continue without
the threat that a presidential pen will intervene to destroy
the progress and goodwill that has been established or that may
be underway among the citizens of our state. In short, we must
ensure due process of law and government by consent.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here and join with my colleague, Senator
Hatch, and always delighted to be with the Governor. I am glad
that Secretary Babbitt and Chairman McGinty are with us so that
we can maybe begin to have a kind of dialog on this issue that
I think we should have had prior to the designation of the
monument.
I won't go through the entire chronology--it is familiar to
most--about how we first heard about this in the Washington
Post on the 7th of September. On the 11th of September, I
called Bruce Babbitt and said, ``Bruce, what is going on?''
And I must say that the Secretary was as forthcoming as I
think he was able to be under the circumstances that he was in
the Administration, and I have always appreciated his
willingness to be candid with me.
He told me on that occasion that the ultimate decision was
not in his hands, that this was something that was being
handled at the White House. We had subsequent meetings, and
they have been referred to here. I won't reiterate those.
But I do remember meeting on the Monday in which the
announcement was made in the Senate in our offices in which
White House representatives told us that this was an Interior
Department decision. And I said, ``Well, the Interior
Department says the White House is in charge. The White House
is saying the Interior Department is in charge. I wish somebody
would step forward and admit to being in charge.''
On that occasion, we asked for maps to know what was being
considered. We were told, ``No maps are available because no
decision has been made. Once the decision has been made, then
we will be able to give you a map.'' That was on Monday. On
Wednesday, I read an editorial in the New York Times praising
the creation of this monument covered complete with a map. They
had maps available for newspaper reporters but not maps
available for Members of Congress.
Well, I received a phone call on that day, the 18th of
September, from Leon Panetta. And he outlined for me what the
President would be saying at the Grand Canyon that afternoon. I
was not at all surprised to get that phone call, even though we
had had all of the assurances that no decision had been made
and that we would be consulted.
As he went through the various points of the President's
statement, Mr. Panetta summarized that those who held valid
mineral leases in the area of the monument would receive
appropriate compensation in the form of swaps; that is, land of
equal value would be swapped with the land that they had in the
monument.
I said to Mr. Panetta regarding the coal, ``There is no
equivalent land outside of the monument,'' to which he replied,
``I am beginning to find that out.'' I find that a very
compelling kind of statement. Here is the Chief of Staff of the
White House who on the day of the announcement is just
beginning to find out the value of the resource that is being
dealt with here. Well, we talked back and forth, and he
concluded that conversation with this statement, as best as I
can recall it. He said, ``Well, Senator, at least we have three
years in which to pick up the pieces.''
After that announcement and comment by Leon Panetta, I have
engaged in an effort to find out exactly what did happen in the
process of creating this monument. Miss McGinty and I have had
some exchanges in the hearing process, as she has come before
various committees with the Senate defending her appropriation,
and I have asked her repeatedly to give me information about
how this was done and names of people who were involved.
She assured me absolutely she would do that, but nothing
was forthcoming. So I wrote her a letter. Her staff responded
to that letter and said, ``This was an oversight, and we will
send you everything relating to the monument,'' after which I
received a very slim package with a very few documents, none of
which, with one possible exception, in my opinion, was
responsive to my request.
And so I repeated the request while she was before the
Senate Appropriations Committee seeking approval for her
budget. In response to that, she contacted the Salt Lake
Tribune and notified them that I had received everything I had
asked for. She even put that notification in writing saying
that Senator Bennett had been given everything he had asked for
and everything he needed.
We made it clear that we did not consider that I had
received everything I had asked for, and perhaps in response to
that continued pressure from my office, we then received the
following box. This is in addition to everything I had asked
for according to her statements to the Salt Lake Tribune.
My staff has sacrificed their weekend getting ready for
this hearing and has gone through these documents. They tell me
that this constitutes about 20 or 30 percent of what I had
asked for, but it is a good start. And I would like, Mr.
Chairman, to get into these documents for a few quick
references.
In these documents, we have found, among other things, the
following--I will not take the time to go through every page
that is yellow-tabbed. My staff considered every yellow tab to
be something of a smoking gun, but I will just talk about a few
of them.
We found a letter from the Solicitor of the Interior
Department, Mr. Leshy, to Charles Wilkins. He is a professor in
Colorado who actually drafted the proclamation. In that letter
Mr. Leshy says, ``I can't emphasize confidentiality too much.
If word leaks out, it probably won't happen so take care.''
A memo from Miss McGinty to Marcia Hales at the White
House, ``Leon Panetta asked that I prepare talking''--first,
let me give you the dates. The date of the first one from Mr.
Leshy is the 26th of July. On the 5th of August, Miss McGinty
sends a memo to the White House in which she mentions the
following: ``Roy Romer, Governor Miller, Mike Sullivan, former
Governor Schwinden, Senators Reid and Bryan, and Representative
Richardson to test the waters.'' No mention of anyone in Utah.
And this comment, ``Any public release of the information will
probably foreclose the President's option to proceed.''
On the 26th of August, an e-mail from Mr. Brian Johnson to
Mr. Tom Jenson, lower level officials but important officials
involved in this. Mr. Jenson apparently asks why a Mr.
Kenworthy had called. Brian Johnson replies he was just
checking around. ``No idea where the Sierra Club thing came
from, but we can ask Katie''--the indication that while no one
from Utah was being consulted, people from the Sierra Club were
in on this conversation. I could go on and perhaps will during
the questioning period. I have a number of examples of that
kind.
Let me summarize my concern here. This is as serious a
decision as we have made respecting public lands in this
country. It was done entirely in secret with deliberate attempt
to keep it secret right from the beginning. The issues that
should have been raised in any kind of public exposure of this
conversation have been swept aside, and, in the words of Mr.
Panetta, ``We have three years in which to pick up the
pieces,'' after the fact.
Issue number 1, from my point of view: we can't have it
both ways with respect to the economic impact of this land.
Either it is going to produce millions and millions of tourist
dollars, thereby making sure the land will not be wilderness
because millions of tourists and wilderness are not compatible,
or the promises of the economic benefit from those tourists
will not be met.
We must have an open discussion in this three-year period
of exactly how many tourists we really want in this land. If it
is as magnificent as the President indicated and should be
preserved and kept in pristine fashion, we don't want any
tourists there. As I said in my conversation with Secretary
Babbitt, national monuments means paved roads, visitor centers,
money for law enforcement, all kinds of things that are not
necessarily--indeed, that are inimical to the wilderness
proposal.
Next, of course, is the school lands issue. Senator Hatch
has already addressed that. The clear question is how is the
President going to keep his promise that Utah's school children
will be made whole. Are we going to have direct appropriations
in Congress to compensate Utah school children? We don't know.
Those are some of the pieces we have to pick up in this three-
year period to which Chief of Staff Panetta referred.
Finally, of course, there is the issue of minerals on this
land. We have already talked about the coal and the fact that
there are no comparable lands to swap. But since the
designation has been made, we have discovered that there is
possibly oil in this area. Conoco has been given clearance to
go ahead and drill a test well inside the monument on the piece
of land owned by the State of Utah School Trust, not Federal
land.
What happens if Conoco hits in the deep well they are going
to drill and we find that there is oil of worth comparable to
the coal in this land? And how do we deal with that as we go
through the three-year period in which we pick up the pieces?
Those who draft legislation in secret, those who draft
proclamations without an open process run the risk of being
surprised when new information becomes available to them, and
that is what has happened in this circumstance.
My concern is that as we go through the three years in
which to pick up the pieces, we now do so in an atmosphere of
enormous distrust created by the process through which this
monument was made. A more open process at the front end would
allow us to have greater trust, negotiation, and solution on
the back end. But the atmosphere of distrust has been created.
It is all pervasive, and it is not getting any better.
I sat there on my birthday, the 18th of September, and
heard the President of the United States use my name on
national television--every politician's dream of having the
President identify him on national television. The President
promised that I would be appointed to some kind of body or
commission to discuss and ultimately resolve the issue of
Utah's school lands.
That has been well over six months ago--over half a year.
We have only three years in which to pick up the pieces. One-
half of those three years is now long gone. I am still waiting
for my phone to ring. I am still waiting for somebody to call
me and say, ``That commission to which the President appointed
you by name on national television is going to meet next
Tuesday. Can you please come?''
In this atmosphere of distrust, spawned by the method in
which this monument was created, I have great concern that that
commission will not come to pass, that the issue of swapping
out the school lands will not be addressed, and that once again
the school children of Utah will be shortchanged.
One final note on history. We have been told that the
President's action is in the historic pattern of past
Presidents, going all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt. We
have checked Theodore Roosevelt's designation of the Grand
Canyon as a national monument. And we have found that prior to
making that designation, Theodore Roosevelt had full and open
consultation with the governors of every State involved, that
it came at the end of a consultation process and not at the
beginning.
Theodore Roosevelt's White House did not have boxes of
documents that they were hiding that had to be pried loose from
them after the fact in order to find out what he had on his
mind. Had this monument been created in the same process and
the same way that Theodore Roosevelt created the Grand Canyon,
I would be sitting here today applauding it and saying that it
will be wonderful for our children and future generations.
As I sit here waiting for my phone to ring for the
President to fulfill his promises, I am filled with great
concern that the three years in which we have to pick up the
pieces is rapidly slipping away from us, and the pieces are
still scattered all over the landscape. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[Statement of Senator Bennett follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert F. Bennett, a U.S. Senator from Utah
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to participate in today's
hearing to discuss the process by which the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument came into being. I look forward to
your questions on this important event.
On September 7, 1996, the world was informed that the
President was considering creating a national monument in the
State of Utah that was somewhere around two million acres in
size. This came as unexpected news to members of the Utah
delegation. When we began to ask questions, we were told ``Oh
no, nothing is really under consideration. These are just
discussions taking place in the White House and they probably
should not have been leaked. There shouldn't be any
speculation, because nothing is really going to happen.''
But rumors persisted. After a meeting held with our staff
and Katie McGinty on September 11, the Administration's intent
became even more clouded. That night, I called Secretary
Babbitt myself. Again, I was assured that nothing was going to
happen, that he knew very little and he would certainly let me
know if some thing was to happen. Just to be safe, after our
conversation, I drafted a letter to him asking three important
questions about the Administration's positions on mineral
leases, water and the school trust lands. The response was less
than satisfactory, it essentially stated: ``I look forward to
discussing these issues with you further.''
During that week, some speculated this was just the
Administration getting back at the Republicans in Congress. One
problem with that speculation: The Democratic Congressman who
represented the Third Congressional District where the monument
was located was uttering the same concerns. He expressed
amazement that he had not been consulted and came away from his
meeting with the Secretary saying ``I have been assured that
there is nothing imminent going to happen.'' Unfortunately for
Congressman Orton, this event had been planned well in advance,
despite the assurances he had received.
On Saturday, September 14th, Senator Hatch and I were
summoned to Secretary Babbitt's office for a meeting to ``calm
our fears'' and to lay out a full statement of what was going
on. Imagine my surprise when Secretary Babbitt began the
presentation by saying, ``We're here just to listen to your
concerns.'' We thought we were there to learn about the
proposal. At that meeting, Senator Hatch and I registered our
deepest concerns that an action as significant as this would be
taken without consultation with Congress, let alone members of
the Utah delegation.
Congress as a whole, having historically played a
significant role in the creation of National Monuments was
being entirely cut out of the process. At that meeting,
Secretary Babbitt told us ``I can tell you categorically, no
decision has been made with respect to this proposal.'' When
confronted by the press, again, he reiterated: ``No decision
has been made.''
I went away from that meeting convinced that in spite of
the assurances that had been made to us that no decision had
been made, in fact, we were on track toward a certainty of an
announcement. Of course, this came just four days later.
Now, the documents finally provided to us almost six months
after the fact, prove that numerous individuals, ranging from
members of environmental groups to members of the media, and
elected officials from the Democratic party outside of Utah
were all privy to information regarding the establishment of
the monument far in advance to any notification of the Utah
delegation--despite the personal assurances of both Ms. McGinty
and Mr. Babbitt to the contrary, that no decision had been
made. There appears now an intent to deceive the people of Utah
and this should disturb the members of this Committee.
On Wednesday, September 18th, I received a phone call from
Leon Panetta. I was not surprised when he told me that the
President would announce the creation of a new national
monument. This was not necessarily news, because the rest of
the world was tipped off on Monday when CNN announced that the
President would travel to the Grand Canyon to make ``a major
environmental announcement.''
That morning, both the New York Times and the Washington
Post published editorials in favor of the new monument. The
Times editorial was entitled ``A New and Needed National
Monument.'' The fact that this appeared in the New York Times
the day the President made his announcement illustrates that
almost everyone with close ties to the Administration was
informed of this far in advance of our official notification by
the White House.
In my conversation with Leon Panetta, it was revealed to me
that the issue that impacted the State of Utah the most--School
Trust Lands--was merely an afterthought to this administration.
I informed Mr. Panetta that he would be hard pressed to find
anywhere in the State of Utah, or in the nation for that
matter, an energy reserve large enough to make the school kids
of Utah whole again. His reply to me ``I am beginning to find
that out.''
And that afternoon, the President made a lovely speech on
the Rim of the Grand Canyon. He signed a Presidential
Proclamation creating a 1.7 million-acre National Monument in
Utah. One hour later, he was back on Air Force One, off to
another campaign event.
Unfortunately, Utahns were left to pick up the pieces. We
were given a vague promise of an unprecedented three-year
planning process, which would solve all of the problems that
arise with the monument's creation. ``Trust me,'' he said. But
after receiving additional documentation, Mr. Chairman, given
the history leading up to the announcement, it is fairly
difficult for many people in Utah, to trust the administration
on this one.
Throughout this whole process, the Administration adopted a
``Trust Me'' attitude. The Administration took the approach of
``We are going to turn the process completely around. Instead
of going through the development of the Monument proposal and
then creating the monument, we will create the monument and
then develop the plan after the fact.... but trust us.''
``We will take care of all your concerns.'' We were told.
But when it came to even trying to learn the names of those
involved in the process and the development of the monument, to
have further discussions with those individuals, our requests
for information were refused.
Ms. McGinty and I participated in a rather pointed exchange
on September 26, where she promised to provide a list of those
participants in the process as well as full documentation of
the decision making process. She claims she did provide that
information. The Record shows clearly now, that she did not.
And this is why we find ourselves here today. Were it not
for the reluctance of this administration to provide us
information early on, to bring us into the decision making
process, we would have had answers to our questions.
Now, after several requests, information has finally been
provided. It is my expectation that today's hearing, members of
this committee will see how distorted this unfortunate process
had become. The fact that we are here today is a testament to
how the public process should work. Unfortunately, it is a
luxury that the people of Utah were never afforded by this
Administration. I thank the Committee for this opportunity to
participate in the public process and I welcome your questions.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator Bennett, and I assume your
phone will ring this afternoon, however. We are always honored
to have Governor Leavitt with us. Governor Leavitt, we will
turn to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MICHAEL O. LEAVITT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
Governor Leavitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my
esteemed colleagues, I express appreciation of the opportunity
to be here to represent the people of our State. And my formal
remarks, I will detail the events as they unfolded with respect
to my office. I will make a short version of those and will
make some comments at the end with respect to my feelings about
the needs for the Antiquities Act to be amended in significant
ways.
We in Utah have worked hard to build relationships and to
forge partnerships and to lay groundwork for interagency
cooperation unmatched by other public land States. For these
reasons, the chain of events that surrounded the establishment
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument have caused
me and others in Utah great concern and have created a greater
distrust, regrettably, of the governmental process by many of
the people who live in the State of Utah.
On September 18, when the President invoked the provision
of the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate 1.7 million acres of
southern Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument, the first reports of which I heard, as been referred
to earlier, was an article in the Washington Post some nine
days earlier.
The following day, on Monday, September the 9th, I called
the Secretary and had a conversation where he told me that he
was currently not involved in the discussions and that I should
call the White House. When I called the White House, I spoke
with Marcia Hales, who is the Director of Intergovernmental
Affairs. She told me that she too had seen the story and that
she was not certain where it had come from, but she would get
back to me to tell me how serious a proposal it was.
On Wednesday, September the 11th, a few days later, Ms.
Hales called to report to me that while there had been a
discussion, no decision had been made. I asked, ``What is the
timing on this matter?'' She said, ``Well, that is what the
decision is.'' I said, ``That doesn't sound to me like a
decision that hasn't been made. It sounds to me a decision has
been made, and you are just trying to decide when you should
announce it.''
``Well,'' she said, ``I think we are a little ahead of
ourself on that piece,'' but I said, ``It seems very clear to
me that I need to speak with the President on this matter, or
if he is unavailable, I would like to speak with Mr. Panetta.''
Later that week, an appointment was confirmed with Mr. Panetta
for the following Tuesday.
On Friday, September the 13th, my office became aware
through the news media that there was an important
environmental announcement planned for the Grand Canyon the
following week. Preparations were already being made by
environmental groups for transportation to the Grand Canyon for
the announcement. Local governments in Utah were becoming more
and more concerned.
On two occasions during that week, again I spoke with Mr.
Babbitt's office. As was indicated, we were referred to the
White House. When we called the White House, we were referred
to the Interior Department.
Late Friday afternoon, the Secretary called again and
invited me to an emergency meeting in his office the next day
on Saturday. The congressional delegation was invited. I was
not able to attend because of my travel schedule earlier, going
out the next day, and others have referred to that. But a sense
of inevitability just continued to grow.
On Monday, after a weekend that was just a blur of phone
calls and meetings with local governmental officials, despite
the fact that the buses were being organized to take Utahans to
Arizona for the announcement, when the Governor's office would
call to get confirmation, we would not even be given a
confirmation of where and when or if an event was going to be
held.
I traveled then to meet with Mr. Panetta. On Tuesday, the
17th, I met with Mr. Panetta. I was told that he was
responsible for making a recommendation to the President. Mr.
Panetta said he set aside the afternoon to prepare that
recommendation. Miss McGinty and also Marcia Hales and another
member of the White House staff were present for that meeting.
My presentation focused primarily on the problems that
would be caused by the complete abandonment of public process.
I explained that it was our deep desire as a State to have many
parts of this land and this region protected. I detailed for
them a proposal that ironically we called ``Canyons of the
Escalante: A National EcoRegion.'' I described for them that,
you know, proposal that had resulted from an intergovernmental
public planning process that I had initiated three years
earlier to protect this very beautiful area.
The concept was developed by State and local and Federal
land managers working together for over a year. It would have
provided flexibility, and yet it gave more stringent protection
for some of its more pristine areas even than that which was
ultimately proposed.
I also spent considerable time that day discussing our
school trust lands. Mr. Panetta asked me to explain the status
of those lands. Prior to our discussion, he told me that he was
unaware of their existence or their importance and asked me to
explain our relationship with them and the relationship with
the school children in our State.
Our meeting lasted just under an hour. Mr. Panetta told me
that it was the first time that he had had a chance to really
focus on the issue. He reiterated that he would make a
recommendation to the President that afternoon. He told me that
he didn't like making decisions in a vacuum like this.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Panetta said,
``You have made a compelling case,'' to which I replied, ``If
this is compelling to you, then before the President sets aside
a piece of land equal to the State of Rhode Island, Delaware,
and the District of Columbia combined, he needs to hear the
same information directly from the Governor of the State.'' I
was told that Mr. Clinton was campaigning in Illinois and
Michigan, but that he would call me later in the evening.
Wednesday now, September 18, the day that the monument was
to be declared, at 1:58 a.m. Washington time, my telephone
rang. It was the President. The President told me that he was
just beginning to review this matter and the recommendations. I
restated in short form the material that I had discussed with
Mr. Panetta.
The call lasted nearly 30 minutes. At 2:30 a.m., we were
both very tired, and I offered to write a memo to the President
that he could read when he was fresher in the morning. He
requested that I write the memo.
I sat at my desk in the hotel room and prepared a
handwritten two-plus-page memo to the President. It was faxed
to him at his temporary quarters in Illinois at four o'clock
that morning. The memo told the President that if the monument
was to be created that he should create a commission that
included State and local officials to recommend boundaries and
to solve a number of the management questions.
I told him that he should work toward a policy that
protects the land but also preserves the asset and maintains
the integrity most importantly of a public process. I knew that
the local government leaders in that area would welcome such a
process. I knew that from having spoken with them many times.
At 7:30 in the morning, I spoke with Mr. Panetta. He had
also reviewed the memo that I had written for the President,
and, again, he indicated that he felt my ideas had merit. He
said he would be reviewing the matter again with the President.
The President had to leave shortly to fly to Arizona.
Later in the morning, Mr. Panetta called to inform me that
the monument would be announced. He detailed the conditions of
his action which gratefully incorporated some of the
suggestions that we had made relative to water and wildlife
access and the planning process with local and State
participation.
At two o'clock eastern time, the President stood at the
north rim of the Grand Canyon to announce the creation of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and its 1.7 million
acre expanse of Utah's Garfield and Kane Counties. As has been
mentioned, no Member of Congress, no local official, or had the
Governor ever been consulted, nor had the public.
As the Governor, I had not seen a map. I had not read the
proclamation, or, for that matter, was I even invited. This
isn't about courtesy, it is about process. It is about public
trust. A major land decision, perhaps the biggest land decision
that has been made or will be made in the next two decades, had
occurred. Obviously, this is not the way public land decisions
should or were ever intended to be made.
In 1976, this nation made an important public policy
decision. Congress passed landmark legislation, FLPMA,
requiring that we have great deliberation and that we take
great care in making decisions about public lands and how they
be used.
That act, and other related legislation, contained
protections for State and local governments. It is going to be
the policy of this Administration and is currently that we will
not be denied those protections, and we will do all that we
have to do to assure that we are afforded them.
The President's use of the Antiquities Act to create a
monument was a clear example of inadequate protection. Our
system of government was constructed to prevent any one person
from having that much power. The law was originally intended to
provide emergency power to protect Indian ruins and other
matters of historic importance.
Over the past 90 years, the Federal Courts have allowed the
gradual expansion of those powers. The President's recent
proclamation was a classic demonstration of why the founders of
this nation divided power. Power unchecked is power abused.
Utah and other States need protection from further abuses of
the 1906 Antiquities Act. My Administration and other States I
hope will join with us in supporting appropriate amendments.
Land preservation decisions must be considered in
relationship to the land and the local economy. And the State
of Utah intends to intensify our efforts to assure that that
occurs. Historically, whenever the Federal Government has
determined that a local interest is subordinate to a national
interest, then some kind of Federal assistance is afforded. We
should all focus on how that should be done.
Mention has been made already of the school trust lands and
their importance. And more will be stated, and my formal
testimony includes more. And I will, in the interest of time,
not mention those except how deeply we believe that the
national government owes us compensation and must do as the
President suggested in making compensation in favor of the
school children.
I want to say that I appreciate the President's remarks
concerning the trust lands that he made at the time he signed
the declaration. And I appreciate his decision to resolve any
reasonable differences, as I have suggested, in their favor.
But I will also like to point out that there is
considerable expense involved in going through this process. We
estimate it may be as much as 5 to $10 million on the behalf of
our school trust just to go through these negotiations. And we
would ask that the national government compensate our school
trust for those particular expenses.
I would also like to emphasize in that we are now into this
three-year period to pick up the pieces, the State of Utah is
committed to being a full partner in this process. Promises
have been made by the President and the Secretary to ensure
that the State has a prominent role, and to this point, those
have been kept.
I did ask, however, that the proclamation be amended to
include the President's promises to me directly and those that
he made to the American people on national television. That
proclamation has not been amended, nor have they indicated a
willingness to do that. There is legislation pending before the
Congress that would memorialize that language. I would urge its
adoption.
In closing, may I just like to reiterate again that we
believe that some kind of protection to this sensitive and
spectacular lands of the Escalante area needs to occur.
However, I deeply regret that President Clinton didn't keep
public trust by choosing to follow the process in protecting
this area.
Had Mr. Clinton been willing to discuss his ideas with
those in Utah, he would have found that we were anxious to do
so, that we would have worked closely with them, and local and
State representatives were ready and willing to work with his
staff to make the best protection possible. Obviously, this
didn't happen.
President Clinton was unwilling to reveal his plan to any
elected official. Perhaps the only thing more disappointing to
me in this whole process is the fact that while he was not
willing to consult with us, he was willing to consult with
other western leaders, as Senator Bennett has suggested. My
colleagues in other States were consulted. Former governors
from other States were consulted long before this. Members of
Congress in other States were consulted. The Governor of the
State, nor local officials were not.
The memo that Senator Bennett refers to causes me great
distress. It makes reference to the clear fact that if, in
fact, this became a matter of public knowledge, it might change
the course of it. And I think that is an absolute certainty.
The events constituted a partisan political rally that had
been planned and executed to be an under-the-cover-of-darkness
event--a surprise. I find it regrettable that someone that we
have entrusted to the highest office of the United States would
be willing to undertake a process that was purely partisan on a
matter of such importance.
We as a nation need to examine the power that is given to a
single person in this case. It is too late for residents of
southern Utah living in the area of the Grand Staircase, but it
is not too late for other areas of Utah or of the United
States. And, Mr. Chairman, we urge consideration of the
amendments that are being proposed.
[Statement of Governor Leavitt may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Governor. We appreciate your
testimony. Kathleen McGinty, we appreciate your attendance
here. We will turn the time to you now.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN MCGINTY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Miss McGinty. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members
of the Subcommittee, thank----
Mr. Hansen. Could I ask you to pull that mike up just a wee
bit closer if you would please? Thank you very much.
Miss McGinty. Thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony concerning the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument. As I have testified on previous occasions, I was
directly involved in the President's decision to establish the
monument.
I understand that different people have different views of
these lands. For my own part, I have never seen a place as
beautiful, as wild, as close to the hand of God. The earth's
own history is openly told as nowhere else in the canyons and
plateaus, the slickrock, and the sandstone.
The history of courageous, resourceful people graces this
land. In a continent of rising noise, urbanization, and
busyness, I think this rural, remote, quiet, often austere
Federal land deserves protection. But I do respect the views of
others, including some here today who saw other values in the
land.
I also understand that different people have different
views about the President's proclamation itself. For my part, I
think the establishment of the monument was one of the most
profound and appropriate acts of land stewardship ever taken in
this nation.
It is an understatement to say that the lands contain
objects of scientific or historic interest as the Antiquities
Act requires. Conservation of the lands has been hotly debated
for decades and by last year the lands were in real jeopardy.
The President exercised his authority, despite potential
political risk, to assure their continued protection.
He protected the land and traditional uses, the multiple
uses of the land such as grazing and hunting that are central
to the area's rural values and quality of life. I think the
President did exactly the right thing. But, again, I respect
the views of those who see this differently.
You have asked me to describe how the monument proclamation
came to be, and I am pleased to do so. The record on this
matter tells a simple and straightforward story. Protection of
Federal lands and resources has been a priority for this
Administration since our first days in office. Their protection
remains a priority today.
Federal lands in Utah were not often in the national
spotlight during the first two years of the Administration.
That status changed, however, with the advent of the 104th
Congress. Throughout late 1995 and early 1996, Congress and, in
turn, the President personally brought increasing attention to
public land issues in Utah largely in connection with
congressional efforts to enact legislation that would have
removed Federal lands from wilderness protection.
Indeed, by November of 1995, the Salt Lake Tribune covered
the emerging debate in a story headlined, ``Utah Wilderness
Battle Becoming a U.S. Issue.'' Editorials ran in many national
and regional papers sharply condemning the proposed
legislation.
In this context, the Interior Department repeatedly
testified that the agency would recommend that the President
veto the Utah Delegation's proposed legislation. In December
1995, the Office of Management and Budget and the Executive
Office of the President elevated the issue by sending a
statement of Administration policy that conveyed the
Administration's many objections to the bill and made clear
that if presented to the President, the Secretary would
recommend a veto.
The President's concern intensified. In March, the Office
of Management and Budget again advised the Congress the
Secretary would recommend a veto even of the Omnibus Parks
bill, pending legislation that this committee is aware
contained essential priorities of the President. But if that
bill contained the pending Utah legislation, the Secretary
would recommend a veto. In that same month, the Vice President
issued a statement underscoring once again the President's
determination on this front.
The President's focus on southern Utah lands also reflected
widespread and building concern that proposed coal mining in
the area could irreversibly damage Federal lands and resources.
This concern was reinforced by provisions within the proposed
legislation that promoted mining on the Kaiparowits Plateau.
In light of these pressures, in June of 1996, the President
decided to ask the Secretary of the Interior for advice on
whether there were Federal lands in southern Utah that were
eligible and appropriate for protection under the Antiquities
Act. I relayed the President's request orally to Interior
Solicitor John Leshy in a meeting in my office on July 3, 1996,
and the President spoke directly with Secretary Babbitt over
the July 4th weekend. This request was restated by the
President in writing on August 7.
In response to the President's request, the Interior
Department conducted an extensive analysis and prepared a
recommendation. The Department's recommendation was transmitted
on August 15 and was supported by extensive documentation. I
strongly supported the Department's recommendation.
The Antiquities Act has been used more than 100 times since
its inception. For example, the Grand Canyon, Grand Teton,
Arches, Capitol Reef, Cedar Breaks, Dinosaur, Natural Bridges,
and Zion were all originally protected by Presidential orders
issued under the Antiquities Act. In fact, since this century,
every President except three has established national
monuments.
In late August and early September 1996, at least two press
accounts emerged that reported, in essence, that the President
was reviewing the Department's recommendation. During the same
period, the President and many of his senior staff and cabinet
had numerous conversations with Members of Congress and their
staffs, governors, and other interested parties. These
conversations continued until September 18, 1996, the day the
President issued the proclamation establishing the monument.
The President made his decision only after speaking
directly with or otherwise being made fully aware of the
perspective of Utah officials and many others. The President's
proclamation reflects the broad range of advice he received,
considered, and balanced.
For example, in establishing the monument, the President
protected State water rights. In order to ensure important
rural values, the President directed that hunting and fishing
would remain top uses of the land. He also directed that
existing grazing permits, leases, and levels would not be
affected. And he called for an extensive public planning
process that would directly involve local communities.
The President committed his Administration to land exchange
measures benefiting Utah's schools, and he directed the
Secretary of Interior to establish an unprecedented partnership
with the State of Utah. The President has followed up each one
of these commitments with the funding and budget requests that
are necessary to get the job done.
Members of this committee know well that for decades people
of goodwill and divergent opinions have debated the proper
management of Federal lands in Utah. Questions have remained
unresolved for two generations or more.
The President's establishment of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante assures Americans from Utah and elsewhere that they
can continue to use and enjoy the area essentially as they
always have. In addition, the President has put forward the
mechanism finally to break loose a large and important area of
Federal lands in Utah from the gridlock that otherwise has
prevailed for nearly 100 years.
Today, this Administration, the State of Utah, Utah
residents, and interested Americans from around the country are
commencing the critical work of deciding how the lands are to
be managed. The collaborative intergovernmental planning
process led by Secretary Babbitt is a fair, open venue
reflecting the breadth and balance of the President's
proclamation. This process has ample room to safeguard rural
community values and the land itself.
In this regard, I would like to commend and acknowledge the
leadership of Governor Leavitt, who is personally engaged in
this effort and has committed his own time and top staff
resources to ensure that this effort gets underway and engaged
in a very positive manner indeed. It is good news that now in
the final years of the 20th century we are finally moving
forward and moving away from the gridlock that otherwise has
held sway.
The President's leadership means that gridlock has been
replaced by dialog, deadlines, and deliverables. The President
set the foundation for progress, and people of goodwill are
coming together to build on that foundation. We are proud of
this effort, committed to it, and we will work to see it
through to a successful conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to
your questions.
[Statement of Miss McGinty may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Secretary Babbitt, it is an honor to have you here, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will submit my
prepared remarks for the record and just see if I can fill in a
few items with respect to the events leading up to the
proclamation and then see if I can talk just a bit more about
the process that is now underway in partnership with the State
of Utah and the local community.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Babbitt, let me just interrupt you to say
all of the records, the documents will be included in the
record. And anyone who is so inspired to reduce their remarks
is encouraged to do so.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Just
a word about the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act is 91
years old. It has been one of the most successful environmental
laws in the history of the United States of America. Every
President in this century since Theodore Roosevelt, with three
exceptions, has used that Act, and Congress has inevitably
validated and confirmed the presidential exercise of authority
under that Act.
I would personally oppose any attempt by this Congress to
undo 91 years of unparalleled success, and I strongly urge you
to turn away from any movement to again try to undermine the
structure of existing environmental laws and to more
appropriately devote our energies toward the issues that we now
address in the management of this extraordinary national
monument.
Secondly, let me just briefly say that I understand there
are questions about the nature of the debate that preceded the
President's proclamation. I would only say that the future of
these lands in southern Utah is, without any possibility of
contradiction, the most extensively and publicly debated piece
of turf in the history of the United States of America.
This debate I think really began when Clarence Dutton wrote
a report back in the 1880's as part of the Powell Survey. It
extended along into the 1930's with proposals by my
predecessor, Secretary Ickes. It has recently flowered once
again in the debate over the wilderness legislation. Chairman
Hansen and I have had a debate about wilderness inventories. It
came up again in the parks legislation in the past year.
And in that context, I think it is very important to not
get carried away with this notion that somehow this was an
unanticipated and sort of act that just appeared out of
nowhere. It is a culmination of a long, intensive debate as
indeed happened with most of the other exercises of
presidential power under this extraordinary environmental law.
Now, let me briefly say a word about the process that we
are embarked upon, and I take note at the outset that Governor
Leavitt has conceded that the process is working in that we
have produced on our commitments.
Just a word about the origin of those commitments. I was in
Las Vegas the night before the President appeared at Grand
Canyon. He called me at some incomprehensible hour of the
night, awakened me, and told me that he had been talking with
Governor Leavitt, and that he had a number of issues that he
wanted to go over with me at that point.
He asked me specifically about hunting, fishing, valid
existing rights. I explained that there is a body of law that
protects all validly existing rights. He asked me about the
issue of water rights, which obviously is a sensitive issue. I
said that the proclamation is drafted to exclude any
reservation of any kind. It expressly leaves the issues of
water rights to the State of Utah.
He asked me about private land. I indicated once again that
private land is entirely unaffected by the proclamation that he
was then looking at. He told me that he had discussed the
school lands issues with Governor Leavitt, and he asked me to
explain what that issue was about.
I began by explaining that I was familiar with the issue
because during my tenure as Governor of Arizona, the Arizona
school trust had been involved in this issue, and we had
exchanged more than 2 million acres of land with the United
States and the Secretary of the Interior in a situation exactly
analogous to the issues that have been put forward by the State
of Utah.
I reminded the President that in 1993 he signed a bill
called the Utah School Lands and Exchange legislation which was
designed to facilitate land exchanges that were already at
issue because of inholdings in national forests and national
parks in Utah. And I explained to him briefly that that process
was underway, that we were working cooperatively with the State
of Utah to facilitate those exchanges, and that it was my
opinion that the State inholdings in any new national monument
could very appropriately follow an identical track.
We also talked about a management plan and the issue of
interim provisions until completion of the management plan. As
a result of all this, he asked me if I would write some
language. I said, ``Mr. President''--I finally kind of cleared
my eyes and looked at the clock, and it was I think about 2
a.m. in Las Vegas, and I said, ``Well, yes, I will try to do
that.''
I then went over to Grand Canyon the next morning and spoke
to him while he was on the way from Chicago, once again went
through these issues, sent him some language for his statement,
and then reviewed it again with both him and the Vice President
when they arrived at Grand Canyon.
I take you through that just to emphasize that these issues
raised by the Governor, raised by Senator Bennett in a letter
to me, raised in my discussions with the delegation on the
Saturday prior to the announcement were heard, very seriously
were reflected in considerable detail in both the proclamation
and the President's statement. And we are, in fact, well
underway, as Governor Leavitt acknowledged, to the
implementation of those commitments.
Very briefly, the first thing we did was to appoint a
widely respected Utah BLM manager, Jerry Meredith, to be the
monument manager. With the assistance of Governor Leavitt, we
have appointed a 15 member planning task force of
professionals. Five of those are State of Utah officials
designated by the Governor of Utah.
I have issued interim guidelines for management of the
monument. They are of public record. They are available. They
have elicited, to my knowledge, no negative response of any
kind. But we have sat down with the two counties principally
involved, Kane County and Garfield County, to see if we could
help with their local planning needs. That resulted in a grant
from the Department of $200,000 to the Kane County Commission
to get their efforts started. I am confident and hopeful that
we can get a similar agreement with Garfield County.
With respect to the school lands, the process laid out in
the 1993 legislation continues. The appraisal process that was
put together jointly by the State of Utah and the Interior
Department has produced appraisals on approximately 500
sections of school inholdings.
These go back, Mr. Chairman, many decades. It was in this
Administration that the Governor, the Interior Department, and
the Congress decided that it was time to resolve this issue.
Those appraisals are back. The Department has accepted
approximately 400 of the 500 section appraisals.
Now, let me stress once again that those sections are
identical in terms of their import to the school trust. They
arise out of the same kind of process, and it is my
anticipation that the school sections within the Escalante
Monument, in an acreage about equal to the ones that are
already in process from all of the accumulated land history of
Utah, can and will be processed.
They are premised on equal value exchanges because that is
the Federal law. It always has been, and that takes a fair
amount of work to get these appraisal processes agreed upon, to
iron out any differences. We did it for 2 million acres in
Arizona during my time as governor. The acreage involved here
is less than half a million acres. I am absolutely confident
that we can proceed to get that done.
In summary, the President meant what he said. Items in his
statement relating to the management of this new partnership
were constructed in response to issues raised by Senator Hatch,
Senator Bennett, and Governor Leavitt. It has the makings of an
unprecedented partnership--Federal, State, local. It is
working. It is now backed up by a $6.4 million line item
request in our 1998 budget, and we are prepared to bring this
to fruition as a model for how this kind of process can be
done. Thank you.
[Statement of Secretary Babbitt may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Secretary Babbitt. I will allow each
member to take five minutes to question the panel. I will break
with my tradition and start myself. When this was announced,
this sent shock waves through Congress. I can't tell you, Mr.
Secretary, how many calls I got from Members saying, ``I don't
want this to happen to my State.''
As you know, Wyoming and Alaska are excluded from the
Antiquities Law so I would hope I could talk you into softening
your position and think this through a little bit before you
unequivocally say you would go against the Hatch-Hansen bill,
which basically would not do away with the Antiquities Law for
many States, it would just limit it to 5,000 acres. And then on
top of that, the Governor and the Congress would have something
to do with it.
But I think we all realize that since 1906 we have had the
Wilderness Act, the NEPA Act, the FLPMA Act, and all of those
make a difference on it. So why don't you give it some
prayerful thought. You may come up with another conclusion if
you think about it and read our bill extensively. I would like
to ask Governor Leavitt as the Chief Executive Officer of the
State of Utah, what seemed to be the reaction of the folks in
southern Utah, and what do you see?
Governor Leavitt. Mr. Chairman, it was not just the people
in southern Utah, it was the people of Utah who believe that
the process was inadequate, and that we were not considered or
consulted, and that, again, I would restate what you have
suggested, that it is not the protection of the lands because
we were moving forward with concrete proposals that had been
coordinated with Federal, State, and local officials, it is the
complete lack of process. It was the fact that it was done
under the cloak of secrecy.
As I suggested in my testimony, we made a very important
public policy statement in this country in the late 70's when
we decided that decisions like this would be made in an open
way. We are often required--in fact, always required--to follow
that process in everything that we do. And sometimes it becomes
quite a burden, but we follow it. And so there was considerable
both disappointment and outrage.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Miss McGinty, you know, I have been
trying to figure out who wins on this deal. In my humble
opinion, the environmentalists shot themselves in the foot,
that things now will be open to be seen. More roads, airports,
railroads, the whole nine yards could go in there.
Already in this morning's paper there was a thing about all
of the people now coming to look at the Escalante area. Right
here--``The visitors are flocking to Escalante.''
You have all alluded to the idea of other monuments being
created, and I concur with that. I think Theodore Roosevelt did
a super job on it. And like Senator Bennett, we too have looked
into how these came about. Have you ever been on the land? Have
you ever been on that 1.7 million acres?
Miss McGinty. I have indeed, sir.
Mr. Hansen. You have traveled around it and seen the whole
thing?
Miss McGinty. Well, I couldn't attest that I traveled on
every part of 1.7 million acres, but I have traveled through
the area. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. You know, it kind of amazes me, and no
disrespect to anybody here, but it is like the Nicaragua War.
People used to go down and say that they have seen it, and they
flew over it in a DC-10 and turned around and came back and
said, ``Gee, we have seen it. We have great knowledge of it.''
And I am not saying that that is the case here.
We can't see really who gained from this thing. Now, it
will be an open area, absolutely--I don't think--I think they
extinguished wilderness on the monument. There is quite a bit
of difference between a monument and wilderness. And monuments
are to be seen. I think Senator Bennett is right on the things
that he is coming up with in his bill, and I hope you have
taken a look at that bill. The Democratic party lost a member
over it. I just have a hard time seeing where is the win-win on
this.
And for someone who was raised in the West and probably--I
dare say I sound a little presumptuous on my part that I
probably spent more time in the outback than probably anybody
in this room and made a life of doing that. If the
Administration had come to us and said, ``Let us reason this
out,'' I would have agreed wholeheartedly that Waterpocket Fold
should be a monument. I would agree that the Escalante Canyon
should be a conservation area.
But I can hardly believe that the areas around Big Water
and Andalex and those areas that they were talking about ever
qualifies whatsoever. If they had taken the time to do that, I
think we would have worked out something that could have been
done. Any reason why we didn't do that?
Miss McGinty. Well, let me say, sir, first of all in terms
of the values that are protected here, the Antiquities Act
looks at objects of scientific and historic value. So in terms
of the definition or the boundaries of the monument, they are
informed by a scientific and technical analysis that identifies
where those objects are, and that is what was at issue here.
In terms of the ultimate use of the land, the reason the
President feels so strongly about the three-year process that
is now in place is exactly so that there is a process where
local communities can and will be involved, the State is
intensively involved, to work our way through the issues as to
how the land should be managed.
We have great confidence based on the start we have already
had in these discussions that this is a process that can handle
and bring to fruition these issues that, again, had defied
resolution for generations.
Mr. Hansen. But we haven't seen any of those objectives
catalogued. In a memo from Marcia Hales to you dated August 5,
1996--I see my time is up, and I am going to hold everybody to
their time--I will hold myself to my time--but I have a number
of questions I would like to ask you and other members of the
panel. And if any of my colleagues are so inspired to yield to
me when they get their time, I would be very appreciative. But
I will turn now to my friend from American----
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one comment?
Mr. Hansen. Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Yes. I listened to Miss McGinty and her
comments, and I am sure she is very sincere. But she said there
has been a process here because they did discuss this with the
two Nevada Senators, as I recall, Senators Reid and Bryan. They
discussed it with Roy Romer, who was Governor of Colorado and
now is head of the Democratic National Committee. And she said
they discussed it with people in Utah.
Unfortunately, they didn't even discuss it with the sole
Democrat in the delegation, Bill Orton, and they certainly
didn't discuss it with us. And above all, they didn't discuss
it with our Governor, who is a reasonable person, who is well
respected, who is one of the leaders of the Governors
Association. And now they are saying that the process is going
to be fair because we will have three years in which to rectify
these problems.
I hate to say it, Miss McGinty, but that is exactly wrong.
It is exactly opposite of what you should have done, and,
frankly, to come here and make these comments like you are
really following a wonderful process--due process, if you will,
I think is totally false. I apologize for interrupting, but I
sit here and I think, ``How can she even make those
arguments?''
Miss McGinty. Mr. Chairman, might I respond briefly?
Senator Hatch. I would like her to respond.
Mr. Hansen. I will give you a minute to respond, and then
we will move on.
Miss McGinty. Thanks very much. The three-year process we
are engaged in now will answer questions as to the management
of the lands in question. However, what I laid out in my oral
testimony was a history, at least dating since December of
1995, where the President--the Executive Office of the
President--put the Congress very clearly on notice of the
President's very strong concerns and his determination to see
wilderness protections not be taken away from these lands.
That continued in a series of statements from the Executive
Office of the President and indeed from the Vice President
himself on this. The Secretary paints an even longer history
around these issues. These issues have been debated. These
issues have defied resolution. We now have the opportunity to
move forward, and the President is committed to doing just
that.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I sit here
listening to the testimony, I am reminded of a little Samoan
proverb that says you cut the banana down, and then you ask
permission. I am a little concerned because there definitely is
a very strong difference of opinion in terms of not only the
process, but what has happened.
I asked staff earlier why the State of Utah did not take
the Federal Government or President Clinton for that matter to
Federal Court if there were any ambiguities about the
Antiquities Act itself since this was enacted and since 1906.
And I was told that there was really nothing the State of Utah
could have done. And I was as curious if there was any
possibility that this matter could have been taken to Court.
My question here is not so much the legalities or to say
whether or not the President has the authority. The President
does have the authority. But I think, Miss McGinty, at least
what I am hearing from three of the top officials of the State
of Utah is just the question of consultation, the question of
courtesy as Governor Leavitt had alluded to earlier.
It is not even the question of courtesy. It is the question
of how the process could have been improved, I suppose, before
the President made his decision. Apparently, the recommendation
of the Department of the Interior was made in August of last
year, and the process started evolving around that
recommendation.
But my question is has the President ever sent a letter or
even an oral communication to any of the top officials of the
State of Utah, ``Hey, I am going to dedicate 1.7 million acres
that is owned by the Federal Government as wilderness area''? I
know we have had several pieces of legislation introduced by
our good friend Congressman Hinchey, Congressman Hansen, and
there have been definitely differences of opinion even on the
issue of wilderness area.
But my question is, has the President, since the beginning
of his Administration, specifically made his intentions known
to the Utah Delegation?
Miss McGinty. Sir, to reiterate again in terms of the
President's decisionmaking here, the President did not make a
decision to invoke this authority until he had personally
spoken to the Governor and to other members of the delegation.
The proclamation that the President ultimately issued is
reflective of that.
Many of the very valid issues raised by the Senators, by
the Governor, other members of the Utah Delegation were
specifically addressed and undertaken in the President's
proclamation, whether it is State water rights, whether it is
the question of grazing and hunting and fishing. All of these
things, the President heard the concerns of the delegation and
responded to them.
Did he disagree on the basic point as to whether or not to
issue the proclamation? Yes. He was aware and received the
Governor's proposal as to an alternative route. He considered
that fully, but he ultimately decided to go in this direction.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I noted also the fact that over 65
percent of the State of Utah--the lands are owned by the
Federal Government. And I think Secretary Babbitt more than
anybody, having served previously as Governor of Arizona, that
western States have always been under this situation where the
Federal Government always seems to tell them or give directives
in terms of what to do especially as it relates to Federal
lands.
My question is do you think--and both Secretary Babbitt and
Miss McGinty--that Congress should enact appropriate
legislation to get the process moving? I mean, it seems that
what I am hearing with a $6 million line item that the
President is recommending we have some kind of a commission or
some kind of a process going administratively but without any
congressional enactment.
Do you think that perhaps we should enact any kind of
legislation to make sure that it does address the concerns
raised earlier by Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch of some of
the issues that affect the economic, the social needs of the
residents of the State of Utah? My concern is that can it be
done administratively, or do we need to get into Federal
legislation to make sure that these concerns are addressed
properly?
Miss McGinty. Sir, I will respond briefly----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please.
Miss McGinty. [continuing]--and then turn it over to the
Secretary as you requested. Right now we have a process whereby
the issues, the concerns that are foremost on the minds of
local officials, of State officials are at the table, are
represented and being articulated. In fact, those
representatives aren't just invited in but are a part of this
commission itself.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Has Senator Bennett ever been invited to
this part of the process?
Miss McGinty. Secretary Babbitt is overseeing this process
and has spoken briefly to the school lands issue. And let me
just ask him to respond more fully.
Senator Bennett. The answer is no.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I think your focus in on
the key issue, and that is what is the best way that Congress
can support the partnership process that is playing out to the
adoption of the management plan. This is an unprecedented
effort, and really it is where the important issues are going
to be decided.
Senator Bennett and others have raised issues about, you
know, monument status versus wilderness versus multiple use.
Well, the plain fact is that this monument proclamation
provides a clean slate on which to write. It does withdraw the
area from mineral entry. That is unquestionably the case, and
it was intended. But with respect to all other uses, the future
is open for discussion.
Now, we have two tracks going. One is the 15 member task
force which is preparing the management plan. I believe that
that is an effective approach. Governor Leavitt has appointed
five of the 15 members under the leadership of Jerry Meredith,
and I believe that is working well.
The second issue is the exchange of school lands. Now, once
again, what I would say is Congress in 1993 put up a process
for the exchange of school lands, and we have worked with the
Governor to set up a joint process for moving on appraisals. I
think that is the right way to go. Now, if the Governor should
decide differently, that he wanted to change that, we would
certainly be willing to engage with him on that issue.
You avert to the issue of appropriations--very important.
Kane County and Garfield County--both raise some important
short-term considerations about search-and-rescue, law
enforcement, and additional burdens on the counties as a result
of increased visitation. I would suggest that we should have,
you know, a good review in the context of the budget process to
make certain that our request fairly contemplates both the
process and the additional burdens on the county.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but I
would still pursue my question. I don't think it has been
answered. Do we need congressional legislation to get the
process moving to answer the concerns raised earlier by the
Utah Delegation?
Secretary Babbitt. No.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Now, Secretary, you may want to think that one
through also. The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Hefley. Secretary Babbitt, I have here in front of me a
National Park Service Strategic Plan Final Draft 1996 that I am
sure you are familiar with. This came out prior to the
proclamation. And yet on a map on the inside cover of this
showing the Park Service units across the nation, this unit is
listed on that.
And then the Park Service--someone must have realized that
we are jumping the gun, and they tried to white it out so that
it wouldn't be on there. Would you care to speak to that? It
doesn't sound like a decision that was made at the last minute
while the President was in Las Vegas or somewhere before he
went down.
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I suspect the Park Service
was, as they have ever since 1916, been pretty aggressive about
looking at new opportunities. Now, the bottom line is that the
Administration at my recommendation decided that this monument
should be administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
Now, I spoke with the President about these issues, if I
can just frame this, because I appreciate Senator Bennett's
response or his comments regarding my role. I think they
reflect it accurately. I discussed this matter with the
President early on in the summer. I discussed it with him on
the Fourth of July on a trip down to Petuxan and, after that,
fairly early on discussed with my Solicitor the shape of their
response to the White House.
And I said to the Solicitor, ``You should view yourself as
working for the President. It is his authority. It is not mine.
And I am, in effect, delegating you to prepare whatever it is
the White House requests.'' Now, I said, ``I have two opinions
with respect to this. One of them is that if the President
makes the proclamation, it should, in fact, place this monument
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.''
Why is that? Because it was my feeling that the Bureau of
Land Management has a pretty good working relationship out
there on the land. They have been there a long time. They are
acquainted with the local people. And it seemed to me that it
would give the people of southern Utah some added comfort and
sense of participation.
Secondly, it was my feeling that the monument administered
by the Bureau of Land Management would provide more flexibility
in the adoption of a management plan. Remember, I talked about
the blank slate. It was really my feeling, and I expressed that
early on, that the best way to fulfill that if we are going to
draw the outlines of this monument in the management plan would
be for the Bureau of Land Management to do it.
Mr. Hefley. Secretary Babbitt, who was President when you
were Governor of Arizona?
Secretary Babbitt. I served under a couple of Presidents.
Let us see. I became Governor in '78--President Carter; left in
1987--President Reagan.
Mr. Hefley. Well, let us take President Reagan. As
Governor, if you can take your Interior Secretary hat off and
put your Governor hat back on--as Governor----
Secretary Babbitt. Sometimes, Congressman, that is very
easy and very appealing let me tell you.
Mr. Hefley. If President Reagan had done exactly what
President Clinton did but he had done it to Arizona when you
were Governor, without consulting you, without even inviting
you to the ceremony, unilaterally made this decision, how would
you have responded? You are a champion of your State in that
role.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I will tell you, I fought with the
Reagan Administration a whole lot about public lands issues.
There was a sagebrush rebellion going in those days, and I
consistently spoke up in favor of the Antiquities Act, the
Wilderness Act, the need to protect federally owned lands. And
I suspected that President Reagan--it seems unlikely that he
ever would have--but had he approached the idea of creating a
national monument, I would have been all in favor of it.
Mr. Hefley. You would have been in favor of it in spite of
the fact that he didn't really consult you and ask, ``What do
you think about the boundaries? What do you think about the
location? What do you think about the number of''----
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Congressman----
Mr. Hefley. Are you telling me you would have thought that
was appropriate behavior on the part of the President?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I guess by reference to
this, President Clinton did speak with the Governor. He did
order me to meet with the delegation. And had the Reagan
Administration--again, had they spoken with me, asked my
opinion, reshaped the proclamation and the comments to be
directly responsive to my views as Governor of Arizona, I think
I would have thought that was pretty good.
I might have said, ``Well, I wish you would have done it
earlier,'' but I think what I really would have said is, ``They
talked to me. They heard me and they gave me my time. And they
responded and I can see it in the proclamation and the
statement that went with it.''
Mr. Hefley. Do you think, Secretary Babbitt--I see my time
is up. Let me just ask, do you think the timing at all is
curious here? The lady mentioned that we have had many, many
years of discussion of this, but the timing was such that 45
days before an important election, when all the stops were
being pulled out to re-elect the President, they did this, and
that people were invited--not these three gentlemen sitting
beside you there--they weren't invited, not the gentlemen from
Utah here on the dais--they were not invited, but the Governor
of Colorado was invited.
And on the Governor's plane in Colorado, he had the U.S.
Senate candidate from Colorado, the one running--the Democratic
candidate from Colorado, not the Republican candidate--it
wasn't a general thing--but the Senate--the Democratic
candidate was on that plane. Do you think by any stretch of the
imagination that this might have been strictly a political
thing that the timing was the way it was?
Secretary Babbitt. No, I don't.
Mr. Hefley. Somehow I am not surprised by your answer.
Secretary Babbitt. I think the timing of this was driven by
the Utah wilderness debate which came up in that session of
Congress. There was a long and rancorous public debate.
Congressman Hansen and others were pushing a wilderness bill
which was absolutely unacceptable to the President.
There was some talk about attaching the wilderness bill to
the Omnibus Parks legislation. I recommended to the President
that he threaten to veto the Omnibus Parks legislation. This
stuff was front and center, and it was going the wrong way.
It was in the context of attempts to begin selling off
national parks, to be releasing lands that had been protected
by wilderness study areas. And my view was that the time was
absolutely right for presidential decisionmaking in the
tradition of Theodore Roosevelt--exactly what he did, and
history is going to honor his acts as one of the really
important moments in American conservation history.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, I don't know who has time, but if
they could yield for a second?
Mr. Hansen. I have the time now.
Mr. Pombo. He said something about selling national parks--
--
Mr. Hansen. Well, they haven't gone over that, but let me
just respectfully say there was no bill that sold any national
parks anywhere from this Congress.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, may I make a quick comment?
Mr. Hansen. I will give you one minute.
Senator Bennett. As of that date, the Utah wilderness
debate was over. And if the Secretary's congressional relations
people didn't tell him that, he needs to get some new ones.
That debate was over. The issue was settled. It was very
clearly a dead issue, and nothing was pending in the Congress
at that time.
Secretary Babbitt. Senator, if I may, that issue isn't
dead. It is as alive as can be.
Senator Bennett. I am talking legislative process. That
issue legislatively was dead in the Congress at that time.
Mr. Hansen. Anyway, let us calm down on that issue, and we
will move on. Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch, Governor
Leavitt, by unanimous consent, as I first came up with it, is
ask you to come up to--which was agreed on--if you would like
to come up to the dais, that is fine with us. Governor?
Governor Leavitt. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask to be
excused from the hearing for just a few minutes. I have another
commitment, and I would be coming back. If it is possible, I
would like to just make one brief statement on the question
that was asked, and then I will have to be excused.
Mr. Hansen. Is there objection? Hearing none, go ahead.
Governor Leavitt. I would like to just put some context on
the discussion of process and discussing this with the
Governor. In all of my conversations with Mr. Panetta and with
the President, it was very clear to me that this was a
political freight train that had run out of control as far as
they were concerned. They were--if this were a wedding, the
invitations were out, and the caterer was setting up. And that
is the problem with this whole--this kind of serious decision
being made in this context.
I have very little question that if this had been aired in
the light of day, the monument may well have been developed,
but it would have been done--it would have been different in
its context. And I think, frankly, the President would have
felt just as good about the fact that he created a monument,
but his legacy would have been honored far greater in the way
it was done.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Governor. The gentleman from New
York, Mr. Hinchey, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to ask a question
or two of members of the panel who are apparently now leaving.
So I suppose I will take the opportunity to do that----
Mr. Hansen. Senator Bennett has elected to stay.
Governor Leavitt. I will come back.
Mr. Hinchey. I was going to address a question to Governor
Leavitt, but, Senator, maybe----
Mr. Hansen. Governor Leavitt has elected to hear your
question.
Mr. Hinchey. It often happens with the passage of time that
new perspective is provided for the viewing of certain actions
and events. And I just wonder what the attitude is of the
people in Utah and you, Governor, with regard to prior
designations of national monuments like Bryce and Zion and the
others, particularly those perhaps that were designated in
1969. There was a great deal of controversy at that time
surrounding those designations.
My sense is that with the passage of time, that controversy
has entirely abated. And on the several trips that I have made
to Utah, my experience has been that the people there are very
supportive of those designations and are very proud of the fact
that these national monuments are in their State. Am I accurate
about that?
Governor Leavitt. Mr. Hinchey, I grew up in that area. We
love those parks as we love the area of the Grand Staircase.
But I would remind you that since those were designated,
considerable change has occurred. We made some important
decisions in this country regarding process. All of those
designations that you have indicated were preceded by
substantial progress and public discussion.
Since those were designated, we have also passed FLPMA,
which was a clear statement that we would not make decisions of
importance without broad public process. Whether or not we
appreciate and love this land is not the issue. Frankly, no one
in this country can love that land more than those of us who
live there.
But we also honor the process and recognize its importance,
and that is why we are here today, to argue that this
legislation, the 1906 Antiquities Act, ought to be amended
because it is easily abused.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I fully respect that, Governor, your
point of view. But my experience is quite different because I
have had the opportunity to see this debate and to look at it
in its historical context--the debate surrounding this
particular designation.
And as has been pointed out here once or twice during the
course of this hearing alone, this is a debate--a very public
debate that goes back at least as far as the 1930's. And the
issue of this particular monument and the land surrounding it
was the subject of very substantial debate in the most recent
Congress--the previous Congress.
Governor Leavitt. As far as I know----
Mr. Hinchey. And it strikes me in my reading of the
experience with the designation of the monuments in 1969, as
well as Bryce and Zion, and looking at the controversy that
surrounded them at that time, there isn't an awful lot of
difference. People then made the same argument, that there
wasn't adequate explanation. There wasn't adequate time for
consideration, that this was done without consent. But the fact
of the matter is that those actions now are supported, from
what I can tell, almost universally.
Governor Leavitt. So you would argue that because people
said basically the same thing after the process as they said
before the process that we shouldn't have the process?
Mr. Hinchey. No. I think the process is fine, and I think
that the process has been honored in this particular case. I
think there was substantial public debate on these issues.
Governor Leavitt. Mr. Hinchey, as far as I know, the only
times I have heard the word national monument uttered during
the time that I have been Governor was in a conversation I had
with the Secretary some two and a half years before in a casual
way, speaking theoretically, and then when I read the article
in the Washington Post. Between those two points, there was no
process.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, I was here in Washington most of the
time, and there was a different discussion that was going on
here. I thought that people around the country were reading
that in the newspapers and hearing about it. Maybe that wasn't
the case. But then let me ask you about you had a proposal of
your own for Canyons of the Escalante that you had developed.
Did you have an opportunity to discuss that with either the
Secretary or with the President or with others?
Governor Leavitt. I discussed it at length actually with
the Secretary working to enlist he and his agencies in the
preparation of the proposal. They were gracious in their
willingness, and it produced what I think to be a far better
product because it included the enthusiastic interest of both
Federal, State, and local governments. It provided enormous
flexibility and would have protected--not only preserve the
land, protected the assets, and it would have also honored the
process.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I
wasn't aware of it. But I just want to return to my own
experience with regard to the area of southern Utah where this
monument designation has taken place--this 1.7 million acres.
I have only been here for a little less than five years,
and from the moment I arrived here in the 103rd Congress, I was
made aware of the enormous public concern surrounding these
lands. And I was made aware of that public concern by people
from Utah who came to me and asked me to sponsor a particular
bill, which had formerly been sponsored by another
representative from Utah who is no longer here.
So my perspective on this is that there has been an
enormous amount of public debate across the country, here in
the Congress, and in the State of Utah. I traveled with our
Chairman here to Utah and participated with him on several
public hearings which were held and had the opportunity and--
welcome opportunity to meet you at that particular occasion for
the first time.
So it seems to me that there has been an awful lot of
public discussion about this, and when I hear people say that
the public discussion has been inadequate, I have a hard time
reconciling that with my own experiences.
Governor Leavitt. Well, Mr. Hinchey, we are here today to
talk about the Antiquities Act. And, granted, there has been
an--I spend a considerable amount of my time talking about
public land issues--a lot of them--a lot of them. And I would
say that to say that qualifies as a discussion of the creation
of the national monument is a stretch.
There was no discussion. There was no process. I mean, let
us grant the fact that the President may have had an expanded
authority than was intended by the Congress and that, in fact,
the Courts may uphold it. But let us not call it a process.
There was no process.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, Governor, I certainly respect your point
of view, and it is just at odds with mine. But I certainly
respect yours.
Governor Leavitt. Thank you.
Senator Bennett. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on the
question?
Mr. Hansen. I will recognize the Senator for two minutes.
Senator Bennett. Your question is a good one, Mr. Hinchey,
about later views and changing attitudes. And I will certainly
concede and agree with you that many people who opposed some of
the existing national monuments have now come to live with that
reality and, indeed, in many instances enjoy it.
In the spirit of your historic reference, may I share with
you this historic reference coming from staffers who served
with my father. My father was involved as a Senator in this
same seat with the issue of the creation of Canyonlands and the
building of the Glen Canyon Dam.
Many groups that are known to you and known to this
committee opposed the building of the Glen Canyon Dam on a
variety of reasons, primarily environmental. The issue in the
Glen Canyon Dam that was raised was the need for power.
Representatives of the Sierra Club and other groups
insisted that this country would never need the amount of
hydroelectric power that would be generated by the Glen Canyon
Dam, that we would never ever require that much energy in the
West, and that the power would go begging; therefore, no need
to build the dam.
And they said, ``If for any reason we should be wrong in
our predictions about the need for energy in the western United
States, we still don't need the Glen Canyon Dam because there
is all that coal in Kaiparowits that can be mined to provide
the power.'' And they are now coming in and saying, ``We had to
do what we did here in order to prevent the mining of coal.''
Historical memory cuts both ways in many of these issues.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator. The gentleman from Utah,
Mr. Cannon, a member of the committee, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I expressed in my
opening remarks a concern about tone, and I have had to look at
my colleague from New York several times to reassure myself
that there can be a collegial process where civility is
appropriate, although I have to say I was grabbing the arms of
my chair at some of the statements that were made by the
representatives from the Administration today.
I suppose that the tone of civility is vindicated when the
room erupts in a belly laugh over a statement that is perceived
here in this group and I think, by the degree that it is seen
on television, will be perceived as preposterous.
Let me move to a more particular question. There have been
several requests, including one from my office, for documents
on the development of the idea of the monument. Clearly, one of
those documents that is relevant but which has not even yet
been given to Congress is the draft environmental impact
statement for the Andalex Mine. Can either of you tell us why
we haven't received that document?
Miss McGinty. I would defer to the Secretary. I know the
Secretary is in conversations with the Andalex Company right
now.
Secretary Babbitt. The Andalex EIS issue relates mainly to
whether or not the company--it has decided that it wants to go
forward with that EIS process. Now, as of a couple of months
ago, the EIS process was on hold. And to the best of my
knowledge, that is still the case. And now to the extent that
the draft documents are, in fact, public documents,
Congressman, we would certainly make them available to you.
Mr. Cannon. Why were they not included with the documents
that your office sent over to us just last Thursday?
Secretary Babbitt. I do not know the answer to that. I
would be happy to provide it to you. I am told by my staff that
they were not in the request.
Mr. Cannon. I think that from our perspective that request
was general enough and clear enough that it should have
included that. We would really appreciate a copy of that draft
EIS if you could make it available.
Secretary Babbitt. I will take that as a specific request
and respond.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. May I direct a question to each of
you, and given the shortness of time, I would appreciate some
specificity of answer. Would you please list the people with
whom the Administration consulted outside the State of Utah on
this monument before proceeding?
Miss McGinty. Sir, we responded to--had dialogs with many
different people, especially after the news article that has
been referred to appeared in the Washington Post. As you can
imagine, there was interest expressed from many parts of the
country. Various Governors were consulted. Various interest
groups were consulted. Members of the Utah Delegation were
consulted.
Mr. Cannon. Could you describe those people the
Administration consulted before the leaked article, before
September 7?
Miss McGinty. Before the article appeared, this was a
matter within the confines of the Administration. The
designation of a national monument pursuant to the Antiquities
Act was the President's action and the President's decision.
Yes, there had been conversations I think as the documents
that have been provided reflect. This had been worked on. As I
testified, the President spoke directly to the Secretary about
it, but this was a matter that was in consideration only within
the confines of the Administration.
Mr. Cannon. Well, let me just give you another fact so we
are not beating around the bush, and we get to the point. On
August 5, you sent a memo to the President where you encouraged
discussions with Governor Roy Romer, the Senators from Nevada.
Was that only a proposed discussion, or were they talked to?
Miss McGinty. Yes. There were other Governors that were
consulted generally about western lands issues that we had been
engaged in with the Congress throughout the 104th Congress and
specifically with regard to the exercise of the Antiquities
Act. There were several Members of Congress. I think Senator
Reid has been mentioned as one. I spoke directly to Senator
Reid.
I can respond more fully to the record, but, yes, there
were Governors and Senators to whom we consulted with
frequently on the issues and, frankly, the battles we found
ourselves engaged in with the last Congress on western lands
management issues.
Mr. Cannon. Did you consult with any Democrats within the
State of Utah?
Miss McGinty. I can't recall right now that we did, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Let me say, Miss McGinty, I was a little
surprised in your direct statement to this group--you said that
Utah officials were--this matter was discussed with Utah
officials before it was done. Which Utah officials, Republican
or Democrat, did you talk to in advance of this proclamation?
Miss McGinty. Sir, the Governor of Utah, the State's
Senators, Congressman Bill Orton, and I think probably other
members of the Utah Delegation as well.
Mr. Cannon. So you are suggesting that it was a matter of
consultation for the President to discuss this with the
Governor of Utah at 1:58 a.m. on the date of the proclamation
itself?
Miss McGinty. That conversation was preceded by other
conversations that senior members of the President's staff had
had with the Governor and others, and I think as the
President's proclamation reflects, he understood the priorities
that had been expressed by the Governor and the delegation
members. That proclamation itemizes those and accepts the
recommendations that had been made to him in many, if not most,
respects.
Mr. Cannon. Were any outside groups consulted with before
September 7, and whom would those groups have been?
Miss McGinty. There were no outside groups that were
consulted other than what we just discussed here. There were
several Governors whom we did call. There were----
Mr. Cannon. OK. There were some references to the Sierra
Club in some of your documents. Were they consulted?
Miss McGinty. The Sierra Club was not consulted with regard
to whether the President should establish a national monument.
Mr. Cannon. Were they consulted about the plans for the
proclamation?
Miss McGinty. After the story appeared in the Washington
Post, as I have said, every group--many people with many
different perspectives were consulted, and we discussed the
issue thoroughly with many different people at that point.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I do
have other questions if someone would like to yield.
Mr. Hansen. I am sure we will have another round.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Christian-Green. I have no questions at this time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Cannon's interest in
this, and I will yield my time to Mr. Cannon so he can continue
with his questions.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman yields his time to the gentleman
from Utah.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Secretary, I have
just gone through a series of questions with Miss McGinty.
Would you mind laying out for us what you did and what your
discussions were with people outside of the Administration
prior to the article that was leaked to the Washington Post and
then subsequent to that?
Secretary Babbitt. Sure. Prior to the article in the
Washington Post, I did not discuss this with any environmental
group, any private citizen of any kind period. One exception. I
did--Charles Wilkins was retained by the Department to the
extent that he was--you view him as a private citizen. I think
I was at one meeting internally in the Department that Charles
Wilkins was at. That is it. No discussion.
Subsequent to the article in the Washington Post, I don't
think I ever discussed it with any environmental
representative, even after that. Like Miss McGinty, I had some
discussions with Members of Congress, some western Governors,
Governor Leavitt, Senator Bennett, Senator Hatch, but I think
that is it.
Mr. Cannon. Do either of you know who leaked the story to
the Washington Post on September 7?
Secretary Babbitt. I do not.
Miss McGinty. I do not.
Mr. Cannon. Did either of you give instructions to any of
your subordinates to leak that story?
Secretary Babbitt. I did not.
Miss McGinty. I did not.
Mr. Cannon. Miss McGinty, the popular press has reported
that the story was leaked as a way to maintain momentum of this
project. Are you familiar with that story?
Miss McGinty. I am not familiar with that story. No.
Mr. Cannon. Do you have an idea who it might have been who
leaked that story?
Miss McGinty. No, I don't.
Mr. Cannon. I have a letter from Robert Redford to the
President as of August 5. He apparently was aware of the
details of the monument. How did he become aware of the details
so early in the process? Do you have any idea?
Miss McGinty. To my knowledge, he was not aware of the
details of the monument. The details of the monument had not
been discussed with any environmental group or person with
environmental interests such as Mr. Redford.
Mr. Cannon. This is a very long letter from Mr. Redford.
Miss McGinty. Yes. He focuses specifically on his concern
about the Andalex Mine.
Mr. Cannon. He does talk about the Andalex Mine about
public opinion. But, apparently, he----
Mr. Hansen. You will find it on page four if you are
looking for it, Congressman.
Mr. Cannon. Do you have that paragraph? Do you want to read
that?
Mr. Hansen. Whole page four--very aware of the monument--if
you want to make an issue of it.
Mr. Cannon. It is clear from this document that he was
aware of the monument. Are you telling us, Miss McGinty, that
you don't have any idea of how he became aware of the issue?
Miss McGinty. I have no knowledge that he had any knowledge
or would have been aware of the monument. No.
Mr. Cannon. I think the document was provided by your
office, but you don't----
Miss McGinty. Yes. I am aware of the letter, but I am not
aware of anything in it that either evidences his knowledge of
the monument, or, more particularly, I am not aware that he had
knowledge of the monument. I certainly did not discuss it with
him.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Babbitt, do you have any idea of how Robert
Redford became aware of these issues?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I have not seen the letter
so I am not aware specifically of what it is you refer to. I
think that, you know, it is clear that Redford was advocating
strongly for protection of this area. He was in the press and
in the public. I may have had a letter from him. I don't think
so. But he was out there very publicly. I did receive a call
from him the day--the night before the President's
proclamation. He was wondering why he hadn't been invited.
Mr. Cannon. Did you invite him then?
Secretary Babbitt. I relayed--I think I probably told my
staff to relay his request to whoever was organizing the--
Mr. Cannon. As I recall, he was one of the few Utahans
actually at that hearing. Now, Mr. Babbitt, you are a lawyer.
Isn't that correct? You are a lawyer, Mr. Babbitt. Is that not
correct?
Secretary Babbitt. I am a recovering lawyer.
Mr. Cannon. But your name has actually been used in the
context of a possible appointment to the Supreme Court?
Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
Mr. Cannon. I would just want to know from you if you can
make the distinction between the process that was used in
coming up with the proclamation and the subsequent process that
was used? You keep referring to the process working. I think
the issue is that the process didn't work in advance, and now
people in Utah are doing the best they can to live with what
the President has done.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Congressman, in the time preceding
the President's proclamation, I spoke with the Governor about
his concerns. Senator Bennett wrote me a letter asking
specifically, as I recall, about water rights and about school
sections. I personally met with the--invited the Utah
Delegation to a Saturday discussion. I think Senator Hatch was
there. Senator Bennett was there.
And all of these issues--valid existing rights, the Mining
Act of 1872, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, grazing, hunting,
the gathering of wood, water rights, private inholdings--were
all raised and discussed by members of the Utah Delegation and
the Governor.
And our response was clearly reflected most directly in the
President's remarks at Grand Canyon. I have already described
my conversation with the President in that regard and my role
in drafting and revising his remarks directly in response to
the issues that had been raised by Governor Leavitt and Senator
Bennett notably.
Mr. Cannon. I recognize my time has expired. May I have one
more question?
Mr. Hansen. I will recognize you for 30 seconds.
Mr. Cannon. Did Mr. Redford call after 2:30 when the
President apparently made his decision after discussion with
the Governor, or was it earlier than 2:30?
Secretary Babbitt. When I took this call from Redford, I
was in Knoxville, Tennessee. And it was about 5:30 p.m. in
Knoxville. I was on my way to a TWA flight to St. Louis. That
is why I remember the time.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Minnesota is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I make that letter part of the
record, and I might note for the record that the answer was
that there was not any mention of a national monument in that
letter. So let us make it a part of the record. I also would
make part of the record the President's proclamation, and the
background material I think would be appropriate to make part
of the record.
Mr. Hansen. Let me state for the benefit of the gentleman
that all of these documents previously by unanimous consent
were made part of the record.
Mr. Vento. Let me proceed here. You know, I am not really
surprised. Of course, we had our own differences with decisions
that were made in past years with regards to public lands in
Utah.
One of the major decisions was the WSAs in Utah. In fact,
as the Chairman knows, myself and other Members are on record
writing to the then Reagan or Bush Administration because
Director Bob Newford had not included--it was his decision not
to include various areas in wilderness studies--some 22 million
acres of BLM lands in Utah.
And they had only included a little less than two. And then
through some appeal process, it was increased to three. So that
really was the start of much of what is the controversy about
what was going to receive conservation or consideration for
designation in this area.
And so the issue here is that in the Antiquities Act that
we are talking about, it doesn't require the President to, in
fact, consult with me. Does it, Secretary Babbitt?
Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
Mr. Vento. Most of us on the committee are very jealous of
the powers and prerogatives we have with regards to land
designation. I think it goes without saying.
In fact, I think these committees that deal with the land
designations have very jealously guarded and limited the amount
of powers we extend to this Secretary and past Secretaries and
other land managers. And I think that it is appropriate that in
this one case there is this opportunity.
Now, Mr. Secretary, did you advise the President he was
concerned about the wilderness lands in Utah, the polarization
that existed there since the 1980's when the first studies were
put forth and recommendations for WSAs which were very
controversial? I wrote, many wrote saying, ``This is
inadequate. More should be studied. You study both sides of the
river.'' And they weren't.
In other words, I think an element of political judgment
was evident there. In fact, I think the President is elected,
and he has an element of political judgment that takes place.
It is part of most of the behavior that we exhibit around here.
And so I don't deny it. I just think that hopefully we can
limit it so it doesn't dominate the entire issue with regards
to these matters that are so important to Utah and to the
Nation in terms of these lands. But the fact is did the
President, Mr. Secretary, of other powers that he had would, in
fact, accord the level of protection that this national
monument designation provided? Did he have other powers that he
could have exercised that would have afforded the protection of
this 1.7--1.8 million acres of land?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Vento, the answer is yes. There are
a variety of avenues under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. The Secretary has withdrawal power under FLPMA
and other Acts. And I think the important thing, once again, is
contextual. This debate was really kind of coming to a, you
know, sort of quite hot intensity.
I just remember, for example, that during the spring of
1996 we had had a lengthy discussion of Utah lands in the
context of preparing the Omnibus Parks legislation. And it was,
once again, you know, another context in which there were
proposals floating around, some of them from--I am not sure
whether I will credit Senator Bennett with a proposal or not. I
know he was interested in Canyonlands, but I won't specific--I
don't recall whether he had made a proposal. But, once again,
that brought----
Senator Bennett. We had conversations about Canyonlands and
possibly changing the wording.
Mr. Vento. Let me just refocus the question. In my
judgment, Mr. Secretary, the President had no parallel power to
protect this land under the Wilderness Study Areas action.
Under withdrawal, I think it would be challenged.
I think that there is no way available other than through
the legislative process, and so, in fact, that legislative
process, as has been indicated here, broke down. It was
extremely polarized for a variety of reasons, not least of
which was the initial areas even considered for study--just
briefly.
Mr. Hansen. Don't you think, Mr. Vento, that the FLPMA Act
has more power for protection than the Antiquities Law?
Mr. Vento. Well, it has some. I would say were there any
ACECs that were designated under this? Were there any
conservation areas that were designated?
Mr. Hansen. I submit that the FLPMA Act is much more
powerful than the Monument Act. In fact, if I recall the
Monument, they stripped many of the powers that were there in
the 1976 FLPMA Act, and we have done a pretty exhaustive
investigation into that.
Mr. Vento. Does, Mr. Secretary--maybe it would be helpful--
--
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Mr. Vento, I guess what you are
searching for is the monument withdrawal power under the
Antiquities Act in many ways is the most flexible of all of
these powers the President has. I mean, it seems to me implicit
in some of these suggestions is that other land management
measures could have been taken.
Well, the answer is yes. But it seems to me that from the
standpoint of many of the affected stakeholders, the monument
withdrawal process, in fact, leaves more flexibility to engage
upon the kind of management planning process than any of the
other alternatives.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. I will
move to the--exercise one thing and say--well, never mind. The
gentlelady from Idaho.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Babbitt, I
wanted to ask you, apparently you had a conversation with the
President about the set-aside of this land, the entire
monument, as it is referred to, and the mine on July 4. Right?
Secretary Babbitt. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Now, let me ask you how aware of the
pending declaration by the President under the Antiquities Act
were you, and were you personally involved on a day-to-day
basis or a day-to-week basis--personally involved in seeing
that this moved forward between July 4 and your telephone call
at 2:30 in the morning in Las Vegas? How involved were you?
Secretary Babbitt. The answer is I was not personally
involved, and I explained in my response to Congressman Hefley
the reason for that. After I discussed it with the President on
the way to Petuxan on the Fourth of July, I subsequently had a
conversation with the Department's Solicitor, John Leshy.
And I said to him, ``This is a power which resides in the
President of the United States. It does not reside in the
Secretary of the Interior. And, therefore, you should respond
to the White House, and you should prepare whatever documents
or information requests that the White House asks of you.'' And
that is pretty much the extent of my involvement----
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you.
Secretary Babbitt. [continuing]--until I was awakened in
Las Vegas about the proclamation.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Miss McGinty,
then were you the driving force behind all of the coordination
that took place in order to put this through?
Miss McGinty. As I said, Congressman, I relayed the
President's request to Solicitor Leshy on July 3, I believe in
my office, that request then catalyzed an effort on the part of
the experts at the Department of Interior to undertake what is
a scientific and technical legal analysis pursuant to the
Antiquities Act to see if, as the President had asked, there
are lands in southern Utah that would meet the criteria
outlined in the Antiquities Act for protection.
Having relayed that request, the Department undertook that
analysis. As I said, that is a technical and detailed and
involved analysis. The request came back or the recommendations
rather came back to the White House I believe sometime in mid-
August.
Secretary Babbitt. Mrs. Chenoweth, if I might, I would like
to add just one more thing. I did get engaged in this process
in response to Senator Bennett's first phone call to me. He and
the Governor both called me, I would guess about 10 days before
the proclamation. And that was really my reentry point into
this issue, and I did, in fact, as I previously stated, talked
to the Governor.
The Governor and Senator Bennett I think both very
accurately recapitulated my discussions with them. I did host a
meeting of the delegation, and, obviously, I talked with Miss
McGinty and the White House people in connection with our
discussions with the Utah Delegation on that weekend.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am very pleased
that the gentleman from Minnesota brought up again the Robert
Redford letter, and we did hear from Miss McGinty that the
letter does not mention the mine or the monument. But let me
read from the letter that has been entered into the record.
``If we develop this mine, Utah tax dollars will be
necessary. There will be related subsidies.'' It goes on to
say, ``Surely we need to grow and prosper, but economically and
environmentally this mine doesn't make sense. This is a boom
and bust waiting to happen, and once Andalex takes out every
natural resource possible, they will walk away.'' This letter,
by the way, was written by Robert Redford August 5.
It goes on to say, ``Mr. President,'' on page four, ``I
sincerely believe that when the story of this mine is told, the
majority of Americans will be against it, and I think the
polling numbers and editorials' support against the so-called
Utah Wilderness bill support this belief.'' He had in the
previous page talked about the fact that there are markets in
the Pacific Rim--Japan, Korea, and Taiwan--and, indeed, we know
that because another country has picked up those markets.
He goes on to say, ``I strongly feel that we find ourselves
in a historic window of time to do something bold, and I am
convinced you will have the American people behind you.''
Indeed, this letter certainly does lay out that there was prior
knowledge, not by our Utah Delegation, but by other
environmental interest groups. I am saddened by this.
When this discussion opened up, we heard a lot of talk
about civility, and so I looked up what civility means. It goes
back, of course, to the word civil, and it means, ``Pertaining
or appropriate to a member of a civitas or free political
community natural or proper to a citizen; also relating to the
community and government of the citizens and subjects of the
State.'' It didn't happen here.
Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you what was civil about this
action? We sit here in this room, and we talk in round, civil,
pear-shape tones about what happened in the West. We have heard
prevarications--I guess that is a civil way to say it--from the
White House with regards to this very outstanding Senator that
is sitting with us. They deny that he didn't have prior
knowledge.
Mr. Chairman, I am saddened, saddened by this, and I really
hope that the words that were uttered by Governor Leavitt when
he said, ``It may be too late for Utah, but I hope it is not
too late for other States''--well, indeed, Mr. Chairman, I hope
it isn't too late for other States. But, indeed, I hope it is
not too late for Utah because surely I hope that we can reverse
this stand. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has
expired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Just a comment. I think some of us on this
committee experienced a similar action--reaction back in 1978
when then President Carter exercised the Antiquities Act on the
Alaska lands. Then in 1980, I think just before he left office,
Congress passed legislation on the Alaska lands, which the
President signed into law. So it has been used before.
I know it is not without controversy. It was very
controversial then too when the President exercised his
authority. It is the law. I think it is very important that
Congress does have oversight on this. The President does have
that power, and we should look at whatever anyone in government
does including the President. But I do think that basically the
Alaska lands preserved were very important. I think basically
the lands preserved in Utah are very important to the entire
nation. But I do think that these hearings can be useful. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. To the gentleman from Michigan, it is
interesting to note that Alaska is now excluded from the
Antiquities Law, as Wyoming is. Is that correct, Mr. Secretary?
I think there are two that are excluded--those two?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesy of the committee in allowing me to participate here.
We will have another shot at this on the Senate side when we
get into discussions of my bill over there where I seek to take
the statements the President made--I now discover this morning,
Mr. Secretary, as a result of your input--and write them into
legislative language. And I will be very interested to hear the
Administration's position on my bill to see if, indeed, the
Administration does want to preserve those promises that we
were given.
I want to repeat what I said in my opening statement which
is this is all very interesting historical stuff, and I think
the case has pretty firmly been made that appropriate
consultation and process was not followed. But that is behind
us.
The real issue is what are we left with as a result of the
way this thing was done, and we are left with an area that, to
quote Miss McGinty, the President was determined that,
``wilderness protection not be taken away from these lands,''
that has now been made a national monument in which roads will
be built, visitor centers will be established, and to which
millions of tourists will be attracted unless it is the
intention of the Department of Interior to administer it in a
way other than a national monument traditionally has been
administered. If that is the case, I think we ought to know
about it. This hearing probably is not the place to pursue
that, but I am putting both of them on notice that that is an
issue that we are going to pursue.
We know that one of the major issues relating to this land,
which is Utah school trust lands, was an issue that Mr. Panetta
had never heard of less than 24 hours before the announcement
was made. And he had to explain to the President in the middle
of the night causing the President to call the Secretary of
Interior at two o'clock in the morning in Las Vegas, and then
say, ``Can you get some language to me?''
Now, I am sorry, Miss McGinty. In my opinion, that does not
constitute considering fully every aspect of this. That has
every aspect to me of a late minute, midnight, cover-your-tail,
move quickly. We do, indeed, as the Governor said, have the
invitations out, the ceremony is set, and now all of a sudden
at the last possible minute when we had to accommodate the
Governor by giving him an opportunity for a conversation, he
raised an issue we didn't even know about--an issue that the
Chief of Staff of the White House had never heard of less than
24 hours before the announcement is made.
I have every respect for Bruce Babbitt's ability as a
lawyer. If I ever get in trouble in an area where he has any
background or expertise, I would be more than happy to call him
and consult him and pay him whatever fancy fee he might want to
charge me.
But I would ask him to spend a little more time than from
two o'clock in the morning to an opportunity to talk to the
President at the Grand Canyon later that same day. Good as you
are, Mr. Secretary, I think you need a little more time to
collect your thoughts before you come forward with something
like this.
I am convinced, and this I will end on and let you comment
on--I am convinced that all of the consultation that we have
heard about here this morning with the Governor or with me or
with Senator Hatch or anybody else would not have taken place
if the leak hadn't occurred in the Washington Post.
I initiated the phone call to the Secretary of Interior
because of the leak in the Washington Post. The Governor
initiated the call to the White House because of the leak in
the Washington Post.
And when I go back to the statements that I read in my
opening statement about, ``Confidentiality is absolutely
certain. If this gets out, it won't happen. Don't tell
anybody,'' et cetera, et cetera, I am convinced that none of
the things that we are now being told constituted appropriate
process which occurred in the most hurried-up, crammed-into-
the-last-12-hours kind of circumstance. Not even that would
have happened if there had not been a leak into the Washington
Post. I would appreciate your comments.
Miss McGinty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To go back through
some of the points, Senator, that you have made, first of all,
in terms of whether or not wilderness will be respected here,
the President is going to respect the views of the State and
local officials who are now part of this very public planning
process over the next three years to answer those very
questions. I would not want to prejudge what the answers to
those questions are going to be.
I would note, however, that there is nothing in a national
monument declaration which would preclude wilderness
designation. In fact, what we need in that regard is to be able
to restart the wilderness inventory process that has been held
up, unfortunately, by litigation.
Senator Bennett. May I comment that the designation of
wilderness is a congressional prerogative even in national
monuments. The Secretary has said that to me continually. As we
have discussed these issues, he has said right from the
beginning when he first came to call on me prior to his
confirmation that wilderness designation is a congressional
issue.
And he told me, ``I am not going to get into it. I am going
to let the Congress take care of that.'' So you are absolutely
right. Wilderness is not incompatible with a monument status,
but wilderness, even in a monument, requires congressional
action.
Miss McGinty. That is absolutely true, that the Congress
acts either to confirm or not confirm the Department's prior
determination that areas should be treated as Wilderness Study
Areas and managed as wilderness. They are managed as wilderness
unless the Congress acts to remove that wilderness protection,
which, of course, was the problem at issue in the 104th
Congress with the bills that were pending, that that wilderness
protection was to be removed from those lands.
Second of all, in terms of the school lands, the President
shares the concern that you rightly have articulated about the
education, the well-being of the students in Utah. His concern,
however, is not about the monument declaration per se, but his
understanding gained in the course of considering that
declaration that these lands had not produced for school
children as may have been hoped for and anticipated at the time
of statehood, as had been the experience in Arizona.
That is why he went above the proclamation per se to direct
that the process be undertaken to exchange those lands. He also
was aware because he signed into law the 1993 legislation
supported by the Utah Delegation that was evidence of the fact
that the schools had not produced and that, in fact, they
should be--the school lands had not been producing and that, in
fact, they should be exchanged out so that there could be
revenues generated for the further support of the educational
system.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. Hill,
the gentleman and member of the Subcommittee from Montana is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It seems to me
that the debate here really is about whether we ought to change
the Antiquities Law, and what the issue really is is about
values, but the value really isn't stewardship.
The values here are whether or not we should diminish, as
you have in this process, the scientific process, the open and
public process, and a participatory process, and then elevate
values such as secrecy, partisan politics, and a narrowing of
the process.
And in that light, I would just like to ask you--and the
argument here has been whether the Utah Delegation should have
had anticipated the action on the part of the President. So I
just want to go on the record, is there any exploration going
on, are there any discussions going on, is there any analysis
going on that might lead to a similar action regarding any
public lands in Montana at this time?
Secretary Babbitt. No.
Mr. Hill. Thank you. It is my understanding that you are
currently discussing something called Parks II--Parks Plan II.
Is there any anticipated executive action regarding designating
public lands in that process going on between the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Department of Interior that we
might need to anticipate that might lead to this kind of a
conclusion?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, national parks can be
established only by the United States Congress.
Mr. Hill. I don't think that quite answered my question.
Secretary Babbitt. The answer then is no.
Mr. Hill. OK. Thank you. We had a similar situation, as you
know, occur with regard to the New World Mine in Montana
occurring in a similar timeframe--similar action on the part of
the President. And in that particular process what occurred was
that we were going through the development of an environmental
impact statement.
And it appears as though a decision was made--and we will
be having some hearings on this shortly--but it appears as
though a decision was made to short-circuit the environmental
impact statement. And there seems to be some potential
similarity in this incident where an environmental impact
statement was in the process.
So my question is where do you make the decision in the
Administration to throw out the NEPA process, the process of
including an environmental impact statement, and then
substituting that with what I would consider or characterize as
a political process? And what values do you use in making that
decision?
Miss McGinty. Congressman, first of all, in terms of the
New World Mine issue, that issue I think represents better than
almost any other exactly the philosophy that certainly this
Congress has expressed with regard to natural resource
management issues, and that is where polarization and
litigation can be avoided, where there is a partnership that
can be crafted between private industry, environmentalists, the
Federal Government--we ought to work toward that end. That is
the full story behind the New World Mine issue.
Mr. Hill. But there is a similarity here in that the
Governor of Montana wasn't consulted in the process of making
the decision of the New World Mine, as Governor Leavitt was not
consulted in Utah. An environmental impact statement was
interrupted in Utah as in Montana. The congressional delegation
in Montana wasn't consulted, as it wasn't in Utah. Local
government units weren't consulted.
And, incidentally, there is another similarity, and that is
that we were promised that Montanans would have some input in
the process of concluding the New World Mine purchase. And you
might recall, I am sure, that there was a Montana initiative
led by the Governor, encouraged by your organization and I
believe the Department of Interior.
I participated in those meetings, as did representatives of
the entire congressional delegation, the Governor's Office,
local government units, all the public land management
agencies, and not one item that was proposed in the Montana
initiative was incorporated into your final proposal. Is that
what the people of Utah can expect now as we go through this
three-year process?
Miss McGinty. Congressman, as you might know, the Governor
himself has not reinitiated those discussions under the
initiative, although we supported them heavily, including with
resources to develop the ideas that were discussed there.
The reason for that was, for example, small timber
companies were opposed to parts of that initiative. Indian
tribes were opposed to parts of that initiative. We remain
willing and eager to have those discussions with the Governor
to the extent he wants to reinitiate them, but it is not his
proclivity right now to do so.
And with regard to the matter of the environmental impact
statement, there is a similarity between the Yellowstone issue
and this issue. In both respects, an EIS is started because
there is either a Federal agency that is undertaking an action
or a private party that is pursuing a lease or a permit to do
something on Federal lands.
To the extent that private party decides they are no longer
interested in doing that and cancels their request, withdraws
from the EIS, that is that private party's determination. That
is what has happened in both the Yellowstone case and in this
case as well.
Mr. Hill. But that was part of the agreement that you
entered into with an environmental group and the mining company
to exchange value. In other words, that was an enticement for
them to enter into that agreement. Isn't that correct?
Miss McGinty. This was part of the partnership that was
formed that ended and avoided potential years of litigation
around this issue. That is right. And it is a part that is
actually very important to the company. It is in the company's
interest to ensure that that EIS is on hold right now as the
rest of the agreement gets put together. That is something that
has been and continues to be very important to them.
Mr. Hill. If I might, just one last question, could you
explain to me why that is in their interest, that the EIS be
put on hold?
Miss McGinty. Because in the event that the overall
agreement--if there is any reason that other parts of it don't
work out--if there is any reason that other avenues have to be
pursued, they do not want the integrity of that EIS in any way
jeopardized. So while other avenues are being pursued, they
would like that EIS just held harmless during this period of
time.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentlelady from Wyoming and a member of the full committee is
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I came here today
hoping that I would be less confused, and I think maybe
throughout the hearing I have. And I think what is happening is
we are talking about different things.
Before I came, I guess there was some talk about trust and
how to open the process, how to be civil to one another. And I
have specific questions about the oil and gas leases that are
currently producing in that area and other leases that have
been let there. But I am going to submit those in writing to
you, if you wouldn't mind, so that I could just have a quick
discussion about how are we going to get there from here.
It seems to me that throughout my career in politics there
have been many times where I have not liked the decision that
the Department of Interior came up with on some land use plan.
I didn't like that, but that is their decision to make. My job
is to protect the process. My job is to make sure that my
constituents, my State, and my country are protected by the
process.
It appears to me that in this case that you didn't like the
process and so took an exuberant step--you, the
Administration--took a giant step to short-circuit FLPMA, NEPA,
all of those things. And I think the fact that there is
producing oil and gas leases in that area that apparently you
didn't know about before it was done because that is what all
the papers indicate, I think that demonstrates the flaw in what
has happened here--why we have the processes that we do have.
This is for you, Katie. I have this written down as a
quote, ``The ultimate use of the land.'' You have said that
several times, you know, and it seems to me that that seems--
the ultimate use of the land seems to be the priority with you,
that the ultimate use of the land, however we get there, that
is the most important thing. Do you think that is a correct
assessment?
Miss McGinty. Well, the thing that is very important to
us----
Mrs. Cubin. I know. I mean, I just want--I am trying to get
us to talk about the same thing.
Miss McGinty. Yes.
Mrs. Cubin. We are not. We are asking you questions about
the process, and you guys are defending the result and what we
are doing now. But we have to go back in order to get our hands
around this so that we can work together.
Goodness. We have to work on ground food. We have to work
on the redwood trees. We have so many things we have to work
together on. If we don't talk about the same thing, we are
never going to arrive. So I want to talk about the process, the
process that we feel has been exaggerated, not the result,
because that is your job. But my job is to defend and protect
the process.
Miss McGinty. Precisely. And I wanted to speak to the
process, and I appreciate that. The importance for us right now
is also the process. As the Secretary has outlined, the process
that is engaged right now that is being conducted fully
pursuant to NEPA and FLPMA----
Mrs. Cubin. But, see, Katie, that is not what we feel has
been violated. The violation we feel goes back to
noncommunication and nonconference in the beginning. Now, if we
can't talk about, ``Do you have any second thoughts about that?
Do you have any reservations? If you could do it over, would
you do it differently?'' because what--it can be guaranteed
us--anytime a process is violated, you can be guaranteed two
things: number 1, it is going to happen again. One side or the
other is going to violate that process or take advantage of
it--let me say that instead of violation--take advantage of it.
And you can also guarantee if changes aren't made, that both
sides are going to be abused in the future because it is now
political, not a process that is good for the country or the
land or whatever.
Miss McGinty. Yes. And, Congresswoman, as I articulated at
the outset in my oral statement, I do respect--I understand
that many people have different views about the designation
itself and the process that led to it.
Mrs. Cubin. That is not the subject of this hearing. The
process is but I don't see--well, I guess if we just can't talk
about--I had the feeling that maybe we weren't trying to talk
about the same things because the answers that are coming are
not to the questions that we are giving.
I am not here to criticize the ultimate use of the land. I
am only here to try to figure out how you as an Administration,
we as a Congress can start talking about the same thing, the
process; what is the process that should rightfully be
followed. Do you see any errors that were made? Can you just
say yes or no, both of you?
Don't you think it would have been better before the story
was leaked to have talked to somebody in Utah about this? Did
you make any mistakes? I mean, I am so frustrated because all I
see is defense of the ultimate use of the land, and I think
through Adolf Hitler we learned that the end does not justify
the means.
Miss McGinty. Congresswoman, before the story leaked, no,
we were still very much wrestling with this internally. As I
said, the President had not made any decision at all, and we
had no inclination at that time whether it was with folks in
Utah or anywhere else to start having a broad discussion of
this. It was still very much under discussion just internally.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, Katie, then you accept the NEPA process
and the FLPMA process, environmental impact statements,
environmental assessment as something that needs to be done for
the good of this country, for the good of the public land. Is
that only when other people have to do it? Is that only when
you at the CEQ don't have to do it or when the President
doesn't have to? Is it good for everybody else all the rest of
the time?
Miss McGinty. Congresswoman, I----
Mrs. Cubin. You didn't go through any of that.
Miss McGinty. I think that there are some areas, and they
are limited areas, but some areas where the President of the
United States needs the authority to be able to act
unilaterally on behalf of the interests of the American people.
Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, one last statement.
Mr. Hansen. One last statement.
Mrs. Cubin. Yes. And I agree with you. I agree with you on
that very much. But as Mr. Hansen stated, no one has won here.
No one has won here because there will be a change to the
Antiquities Act if it doesn't come in this Congress or the next
one. There will be a change. The President's power will be
limited. The Congress will have to do something because in
overexuberance and abuse, the people were not protected. And so
nobody wins.
Mr. Hansen. If I may say, I can see the frustration in the
gentlelady from Wyoming and the gentleman from Montana. That is
the reason for the bill that supposedly is in front of us, but
we couldn't recognize it very well, and that is to amend the
Antiquities Law. I would daresay in the benefit of Democrats
and Republicans, we will lose the Antiquities Law along the
line if we don't amend it somewhere.
I think the President, and I agree with you, should have
some rights to work within that. We are just trying to soften
it because of the NEPA law, the FLPMA Act, and others that have
done that. Excuse me for pontificating for a minute. The
gentleman from the Second District of Utah, Mr. Cook, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a
few questions about where we go from here. Obviously, within
the 1.7 million acres that are included within the monument
designation, there are, I think in the opinion of most people,
acres that are certainly more worthy and acres that are less
worthy of either monument designation or possible wilderness
designation.
I guess what I am asking about is during this three year
public planning process that we are six months into, is there
any realistic chance that the total number of acres in this
monument could be revised, could be scaled back? Is that a
possibility that is being looked at or could be looked at?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I do not contemplate that.
I believe the most productive way to proceed from here is to
utilize the process, the flexibility, the blank slate that I
have talked about, and say there are the corners of the slate
that is on the wall.
Now, rather than getting into a contentious argument about
the size of the blackboard, let us talk about what goes on and
recognize the enormous flexibility to say, for example, the
high areas of the monument should have the following management
prescription, the existing roads should be dealt with as
follows, our riparian areas should be dealt with in another
way, or perhaps the areas adjacent or closest to communities
should have another management prescription. Those are things
that can all be done within the frame of the blackboard on the
wall.
Mr. Cook. Well, Mr. Secretary, I was impressed with your
comment when you were talking about the blank slate that
nothing is totally decided. There are still lots of multiple
use issues that can be resolved. There are still lots of
property right issues. But you did say that mineral extraction
opportunities are totally dead.
And on that, I have got to ask you, why is that so if lands
adjacent to those may not be as worthy in terms of these
designations? Or if there is, in fact, existing right. Doesn't
that fly in the face of your indication that property rights
are still out there to be upheld and worked out during this
three-year process?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, first, the proclamation
does not affect valid existing rights. Now, that applies to the
monument withdrawal. It does not apply to private land. It does
not affect valid existing rights as they are defined under the
Mining Law of 1872, and a variant of that as lease rights are
established pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 because
that is hydrocarbons and coal.
You have got two different sets of statutes that affect the
mining and mineral extraction issues. The one decision that the
President made in this proclamation is that there will be no
further mineral entry under the Mining Law of 1872. And I think
as a practical matter, the same applies to the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920. That is certainly the contemplation.
Mr. Cook. Secretary Babbitt, as someone who has lived in
Utah basically all his life, someone who, as both a businessman
and as a citizen, wants to see economic opportunities and
better jobs, but who really does care a lot about the
environment of the State of Utah, and who celebrates the
national parks and the wonderful beauty and spectacular aspects
of the State, why can't we have both?
Why can't we have a reasonable monument set aside and also
mining opportunities and economic development? This is a
presidential decree that really doesn't seem to have a basis in
terms of this mining question or in terms of any of the studies
or any of the consultations.
I am just wondering, why can't we have both and have win-
wins and have the people of Utah celebrating this monument if
we can still have some economic development in that area?
And, specifically, would you address the Andalex Mine
issue, because I think there is a feeling among many members of
this panel, of which, of course, I am not a member that the
decision was strictly to stop the Andalex coal operation. It
doesn't really have a whole lot of reasons other than that. If
you could just kind of describe that.
And because my time will run out, I just want to quickly
ask you why would you oppose an amendment. You gave a very
impassioned statement about the Antiquities Act and why that
needs to be preserved. But why would you oppose just a single
amendment that would require a 90 day consultation period with
the Governor, with the citizens of the State before it was
implemented on a new project?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, there are many strands to
that question. Let me see if I can----
Mr. Cook. I didn't mean to----
Secretary Babbitt. [continuing]--address them one by one.
It is my personal and deeply held belief that the Antiquities
Act is a really extraordinary environmental law that has worked
and demonstrated, perhaps more than any other piece of
legislation that has been passed in the 20th century, redounded
to the benefit of the American people. And I simply oppose an
amendment to that law. It has worked for 91 years.
Now, with respect to your question about mining, the
President in his statement at the Grand Canyon I thought put it
pretty well. He said, ``Yes, we should have an encouraged
mining, but not mining anywhere.'' And implicit in the
withdrawal for this monument is a decision that mining is
incompatible with the other value that the proclamation seeks
to protect.
Now, implicit in that also I think is that there are other
places in Utah to mine coal. Coal is not a scarce commodity in
the United States of America. The USGS, for example, has
vicariously estimated that we have as much as a 500-year supply
of minable coal in this country.
Now, I realize and appreciate your question that that--you
know not--you know, if coal is in West Virginia, that is not
much of an answer to the people of Utah. And that is the reason
that in the case of the Pacific Core leases and others we have
said we believe that it is appropriate to exchange for other
coal lands in Utah. That is the offer that has been made to
Andalex, and we will just have to see how that plays out.
Now, let me last say that I have followed for decades the
discussion about the existence of coal reserves in the
Kaiparowits region. There is no question the coal is there.
There is also gold in the ocean. The reason we don't mine gold
from the ocean is because it is not economical to do so.
And the verdict on the Kaiparowits coal deposits for half a
century has been that it is not an economic deposit. And it is
my belief that out of this we may, in fact, get the kind of
win-win that I think you are so eager to find if, in fact, we
can swap those into areas of demonstrated economic potential
within the State of Utah.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. Our
ranks are dwindling, which is understandable. We will go one
quick other round with this group, and then we have two more
panels. I am sure they won't be quite as long, but we will
quickly try and go through this round.
Let me just say if I may that there has been a lot of
things said that this has been studied for years and years. It
hasn't been studied as a monument. The whole State of Utah, the
entire West has been studied. I have sat on this committee for
17 years. I have chaired it for two terms. I was ranking member
for three terms.
There has never been a word said about a monument in this
particular area so let us get that cleared up. I wish the
gentleman from Minnesota was here. We have never studied the
Kaiparowits Plateau for a monument ever. It has never been
done. Is that clear enough for everyone? It hasn't happened.
Miss McGinty, you also state in your September 9 memo that
the political purpose of the Utah event is to show distinctly
the President's willingness to use his office to protect the
environment. And, of course, I maintain that it is protected
better under the FLPMA Act, but I guess that is a matter we can
discuss for a long time.
At the end of the memo you state that, ``This step reducing
or eliminating the risk of coal mining on the Kaiparowits would
represent an immense victory in the eyes of environmental
groups. And based on the editorials written on the subject
during the Utah Wilderness bill debate would be widely hailed
in the media.''
I would surely hope, and no disrespect to you folks--I am
of a different political persuasion--but I would surely hope we
don't formulate the Administration's environmental policy by
making political hay. I would hope we do what is right for
America and not for photo opportunities or to please some
environmental groups, which you had probably 100 percent
anyway.
Miss McGinty, you go on to state, ``There is very little
current human use of the area proposed for monument
designation, and with the exception of the proposed coal mine,
current and anticipated use are generally compatible with
protection of the area.''
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Does that
mean that the oil well proposed by Conoco is compatible use? I
guess it does. That is the only conclusion I can draw. And how
about all the other oil and gas leases in the monument?
And as the Secretary has alluded to, and I don't want to
take issue with him, but on the other side of the coin, as you
look at the area, and I am very familiar with the area, I
seriously doubt of any of the testimonies here anyone has been
to Smoky Hollow and understand how remote that area is, how
barren it is, how deserted it is.
And do you realize that the Andalex, and I am not anywhere
an apologist for those folks, but it would take 40 acres to be
reclaimed--40 acres. What is that? A fraction of what has been
put into the particular area.
Miss McGinty, your memo states that, ``The coal
developments on the Kaiparowits would damage the natural value
of the entire area.'' This is an area as big as Delaware, New
Jersey, and given the fact, how do you possibly say that 40
acres would damage an entire area, and it is on the far south
end of the area. And, you know, I just have a very hard time
with that.
President Carter used to say, ``Coal is our ace in the
hole,'' and when he said that back in his Administration, a
Democratic President, he said, ``Out in the hills of Utah we
have got enough coal to offset all the problems we are having
out of Saudi Arabia and that area.'' And so Senator Bennett
brought out one time we were going to use that for coal fire
generating plants, and now we say we don't want to use it. Can
you give me an illustration of any President--any President
designating one of the 73 monuments who did it the same way?
Miss McGinty. Well, if I might, Mr. Chairman, respond also
to some of the other----
Mr. Hansen. Sure, sure, please. I am sorry. I didn't mean
to cut you off.
Miss McGinty. [continuing]--items that were important that
you had raised? First of all, in terms of the memo that you
reference, I am not sure that I have the exact memo before me,
but I would say that while I may have articulated what the view
of the environmental community might be, it is my practice
always to present to the President the views of the varied
constituencies on an issue.
And I would suppose and assume that I might also have
outlined there the views that I anticipated would have been
expressed by the Utah Delegation, for example, and maybe other
western States. It is not the case that there, obviously, would
have been unanimity of opinion on this issue.
With regard to the mining issues, there again you raise
several points. The environmental impact has several parts. One
is the point that you have highlighted and emphasized, the
actual footprint perhaps of the mine itself, which you identify
is on the order of 40 acres.
But there is the question of the ancillary impacts such as
roads, for example, in this very remote area, as you say, that
would have to be put in to access this mine. In fact, the
proposal was that roads would have to go clear through to
California----
Mr. Hansen. Excuse me for interrupting you, but we have
checked that road out. I have been on it three or four times.
What resource would that impact? Could you tell me that?
Miss McGinty. I have also been on that road and am still
recovering from the jarring----
Mr. Hansen. It is a stretch to call it a road. I agree with
that.
Miss McGinty. Yes, it is a stretch. Thank you. So there
would have to be fairly significant development to make that
road suitable to haul in the volumes and out the volumes that
we are talking about. But if I might respond to the other
points--the very important points you had raised previously,
the road, as I said, would extend clear through to California.
Now, that is important because pursuant to the company's
proposal, this coal--contrary to what President Carter may have
said about having coal domestically to meet our energy
resources--this coal was proposed to be shipped to the Far East
for our competitors' use there, not for domestic energy
consumption.
But let me just reiterate, however, that the Andalex Mining
Company's valid existing rights are not affected by this
proclamation. And I would say to give the company their due,
that as I understand it, there are very productive discussions
underway right now with the Department of Interior on that with
regard to those issues.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going through
the provisions of the presidential proclamation that was issued
on September 18 of last year, clearly stating within the
province of the fact that the President does have the authority
quite clearly under the provisions of the Antiquities Act of
1906, I want to ask Secretary Babbitt the fact that the
President has directed him that within this three-year process
that some kind of a management plan is to be implemented or
provided for in the interest of seeing how this proclamation is
to be fulfilled.
And I wanted to ask if perhaps--the concern that I am
sensing here is that simply I think the good members of the
congressional delegation from Utah seem to be left out of the
whole picture. And I want to ask Secretary Babbitt if there is
any intention on the part of the Administration that members of
the Utah Delegation should be invited to participate and to
have their honest input in the process? If I am wrong in that,
I just wanted to ask if this is part of the process?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, it is our intention to
create an unprecedented public Federal, State, and local
partnership. Now, just one example of that, there is a
widespread mailing, which is either--I think it is in the mail
by now which will go out--which is either in the mail or will
go out--it will be followed by another one about 30 days from
now--to all of the interested parties all over the country and,
most importantly, in southern Utah to attend a series of public
scoping meetings as the front end of the planning process.
And it seems to me it would be most appropriate to arrange
any one of those scoping meetings as a forum convenient to all
the members of the Utah Delegation to help shape the issues
which should be the subject of the planning process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would it be helpful also, Secretary
Babbitt, that maybe in the process to inform the members of
this committee, or the Congress for that matter, to some kind
of a time line in terms of not only the process hearings that
will take place, but to kind of give us indicators along the
line within this three year time period to kind of give us some
benchmarks--where are we now; what do we need to do; do we need
to do more; does Congress need to be involved; or do you
believe that this can be done honestly within the province and
the jurisdiction of the Administration only?
Secretary Babbitt. No. I would be happy to do that. We have
some tentative guidelines under discussion now which would have
the scoping process begin this summer which would translate
through into a draft management plan probably about this time
in 1998 with a series of guideposts along the way. And I would
be happy to see if we could respond to the committee with an
outline, if that is what you suggest, to what that might look
like.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to request if, in fact, that perhaps
some of the documentation that was referred to earlier by the
good Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, if there are not
duplications, they could also be made part of the record?
Mr. Hansen. Thank you and they have been made part of the
record. All the records that we presently have and we expect to
get will be made part of the record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And, Mr. Chairman, you know, it has been
three and a half hours now that Miss McGinty and Secretary
Babbitt has been under the line of questions that we have had,
and I certainly do have some additional questions. But for the
essence of time, we have two more panels coming up that I will
submit my further questions to Miss McGinty and Secretary
Babbitt at a later time. And I want to commend them both for
being here this morning.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon,
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement to
precede a couple of questions. The problem with the Antiquities
Act as it was handled by this Administration in this case is
that it has managed to make everyone that I know of unhappy,
not only the Utah Delegation and people who were not spoken to
in advance, but I was approached by a member of the Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance the other day who is deeply concerned
about the fact that we are going to have hundreds of thousands,
if not millions, of visitors to the area, and that those people
will not be precluded from some of the environmentally
sensitive areas.
And, in fact, with all due respect to the unprecedented
public State and Federal planning process, these visitors are
likely to create their own points of destination which may be
highly inconsistent with what we would have planned had we had
more time to do it.
You have talked somewhat about the President's concern for
the school trust lands and the schools, Miss McGinty, but would
both of you respond briefly? For these lands to be more
productive, is that not going to take some sort of very large
development on the ground somewhere?
Miss McGinty. Well, I think as the Secretary has outlined,
part of the process here is following up on the precedent of
the 1993 legislation which was aimed at trying to swap out
State lands that weren't producing the kind of revenues that
would go to the purposes you are speaking to.
Mr. Cannon. Pardon me. Even if we do successfully trade
them out, and we have been trying for 30 years, for instance,
in Arches--even we do trade those lands for other lands, is
that not going to require some significant development on the
ground for coal mining or oil and gas development or methane
gas development?
Miss McGinty. I would assume that in the process of
identifying the lands that the State would be interested in
having their land swapped for that they would identify lands
that were of economic value. I don't know if it would be those
minerals or something else, but I would assume it would be
economically valuable.
Mr. Cannon. And, therefore, some significant development?
Miss McGinty. Possibly----
Mr. Cannon. And, Mr. Babbitt, you are nodding. I take it
you agree with that. Right? Let me just move on. Earlier in
your statements, Mr. Babbitt, you talked about working with the
counties, hoping to work with the counties, the fact that Kane
County had entered into an agreement with the Department, and
that you hoped that a similar agreement could be entered in
with Garfield County?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. And what kind of limitations do you expect on
that agreement? Do you expect it to have the same kind of money
that went to Kane County, for instance?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes. I think so. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. So that would be $200,000 and an additional
$100,000 that is being talked about for each of the counties so
an additional $200,000 for Garfield County and an additional
$100,000 for each of the counties?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes. I think those estimates are in the
ballpark, and that is why I think that the Budget Subcommittee
discussions are going to be so important because that's the
point on which the planning process and money intersect. And I
think there are--you will hear from the county commissioners.
It seems to me there are a cluster of front-end issues that
relate to adequacy, of planning, resources at the county level,
and then a related issue about the resources necessary to do
the people management that has been triggered by the
declaration of the monument--search-and-rescue, law
enforcement, and that kind of thing.
Mr. Cannon. Well, I appreciate and I understand that there
is a commitment of that for Garfield County as well as what has
already happened in Kane County.
Secretary Babbitt. Correct.
Mr. Cannon. They have some catching up to do. Thank you.
Let me just encourage you in this regard. I have, of course,
been arguing with some of your people--Jerry Meredith most
recently--I thought Mrs. Docket was going to be there, but she
was not able, I suppose--about the difference between
controlling the money by the BLM and allowing the counties more
latitude. I personally believe that the counties should be
given about $500,000 each in advance that they can use this
summer with broad discretion. Mr. Meredith believes that he can
provide services better and cheaper.
The problem with this, and I hope that you will internally
look at this in the Department, is that to the degree that the
BLM is spending the money and controlling the money, the local
citizens are going to be less involved. And I fear that you get
to a point very quickly where the local citizens and the local
counties have to say, ``We can't support search-and-rescue in
these areas so we are instructing our sheriffs just to stay out
of the monument because we don't have the resources.'' That, I
think, would be tragic for people who I believe will end up
getting lost in the monument. Just an admonition of philosophy
about how we proceed.
Let me ask another couple of questions. The documents
provided this committee referred to a Utah Parks Project Phase
II. Could you please explain what that means? What areas would
there be in the proposed park?
Miss McGinty. I am not familiar with the park proposal at
all.
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I am not either. Let me
suggest, if I may, I have not seen the document. I told Mr.
Hill that there are no discussions, and that is, in fact, the
case. It is possible that the meaning of that traces to the
discussion that took place in the spring of 1996 in the context
of the Omnibus Parks legislation and whether or not we could
reach closure with the Utah Delegation on the kind of thing
that Senator Bennett was interested in, which was, for example,
some additions to Canyonlands National Park.
Now, it may be that the author of that memo is anticipating
that Chairman Hansen is getting itchy to do another Omnibus
Parks bill and that that might be the time to address the
issues raised by Senator Bennett. I suggest that that is pure
surmise because I have not had any such discussion.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I have several other questions. May
I submit those to each of you for a response in writing? Thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
Hinchey, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do mean
thank you for holding this hearing. I think that it has been
very instructive and very helpful, and a lot of good
information has come forward, and that is very needed. I want
to also thank the members of our panel for their patience and
their responsiveness to the questions of the members of the
committee.
The issue of the resources here have been brought up a
number of times, and I think it is important to try to put that
into perspective. The likelihood of mining taking place in
Kaiparowits I think is fairly slim, given the realities of the
present situation. As the Secretary I think has pointed out on
a number of occasions in his testimony, the economic realities
surrounding that possibility are such to almost preclude any
likelihood of coal mining there in the relatively near future.
All the leaseholders, with the exception of two, have
abandoned their leases. One is in the process of negotiating
out of its particular lease. It is only Andalex that holds any
lease whatsoever that is even remotely likely to be executed.
That lease is in the context of a plan which would export coal
to the Far East--mine it there and export it to the Far East.
First of all, you would have to build a 225-mile road into
there which would be financed by the people of Utah. That would
entail an expenditure of somewhere between 70 and $100 million
which is something in the neighborhood of eight or nine times
what all of the trust lands produce for schools, say, for
example, on an annual basis right now--a very substantial
expenditure.
And also there are other coal fields in Utah--Wasatch and
Book Cliffs I think--that are in production right now that are
producing substantial amounts of coal. And they could be used
to export coal to that market if the need exists.
And, in fact, because of the geographic circumstances
there, the coal from those mines have presently a $5 per ton
advantage over any coal that would be mined by Andalex. So even
the economics of this situation I think indicate that it is not
likely that any mining is going to take place there at any
point in the foreseeable future.
I know that the purpose of this hearing, of course, is to
examine into the Antiquities Act to determine whether or not it
needs amendment, whether it should be changed. And that, of
course, is entirely within the context of this particular
designation. I think it would be wrong to change an Act which
has served the people of this country so well for nearly a
century, which has been exercised by every President in this
century except three, and which has been exercised very well.
And in this particular context, it is clear that the
process is just beginning. There is a three-year process now by
which public participation and a great many people are going to
have the opportunity to express themselves on this issue. And
it will be formulated in the context of that particular
process.
So I think it would be premature to propose amending this
Act based upon this particular circumstance. I support the Act
as it is presently constituted, and I certainly support the
President and what he has done here. I think he has done the
people of Utah and the people of the country a great service in
the designation of this national monument.
But let me ask you, Miss McGinty, suppose we had a change,
suppose there was a circumstance where you had a 90-day delay
or some other nature. What kind of problems might ensue from
those changes which would make it difficult to preserve
critical areas of the country in the future by future
Presidents regardless of what party they might be?
And also isn't it true that assistants to Presidents when
they are writing memos to the President might include in those
memos certain political circumstances? I don't think that that
is unheard of, and I venture to say that I recall in the past
assistants to Republican Presidents writing memos that
contained certain political considerations within them. It is
not entirely unusual to do that, is it?
Miss McGinty. Every once in a while the President has some
interest in what the political ramifications of an issue might
be. Yes, that is correct. And I do try to provide that
information to him.
To step back to the first part of your question, I think it
is important to focus on it in the context of this discussion,
as you rightly pointed our attention. Here what might have
happened, these issues, as has been discussed, were the subject
of intensive debate. The President was very concerned that
first of all an Omnibus Parks bill that he, together with the
Chairman here, had worked very hard on and had many provisions
that were very important to us.
But that vehicle was being used, if you will forgive the
expression, as the vehicle that had a poison pill, the poison
pill being the President's expressed opposition to the Utah
lands bill. Similarly, up until the very last day of the 104th
Congress, there was an effort to try to put similar kinds of
initiatives on the appropriations bill that was moving.
These are poison pills that tie the President's hands and I
think underscore the importance, especially in an issue like
this where it had been debated so extensively and where the
President himself had put himself on record numerous times
during the two-year Congress--the 104th Congress--that he then
ultimately have the ability to act in the best interests of the
people of the United States.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. I may
suggest to you that there would be a wonderful monument of the
Ithica Gun Works in New York. One of the finest shotguns ever
made was made in New York in Mr. Hinchey's district. Two
million acres would about take care of it.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation
to you for noticing that, and I would encourage you, and as a
matter of fact, maybe we should talk about a bill that we would
put in for that particular purpose.
Mr. Hansen. I am with you, brother. We will do it. The
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions at this time
since I have been gone so we can get to the other panels.
Mr. Hansen. A member of the committee, Mr. Hill from
Montana, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hill. I would like to yield my time to Mr. Cannon again
if he has more questions to ask.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. There is a lot more to say and a lot
more questions to ask, but I think I will submit most of my
questions in writing.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to go back
to some oil and gas issues. All of the documents--the question
and answers that we received stated that there were no oil and
gas leases so there would be no loss of revenue due to the
proclamation. And then they were corrected and said that there
was no production so that there wouldn't be any loss of
revenues.
And both of those statements turned out to be incorrect
later because there is production there; in fact, $234,000 a
year in rental payments, and half of those rental payments go
to the State of Utah, as you know, as well as any royalties.
And I just wonder since coal is the only thing that has
been discussed as far as not developing, what are the plans or
are there any at this time about helping facilitate that coal
production or, I mean, oil and gas production? I know you said
everything is a blank slate, but are there any preliminary
discussions about the oil and gas leases that are existing?
Secretary Babbitt. Mrs. Cubin, I think the most salient
fact is that Conoco is preparing to drill a well on an
inholding school section owned by the State of Utah. And it is
my understanding that they are either underway or prepared to
go very shortly. Conoco will tell you that it is a very long
shot. They are drilling to the Precambrians on the theory that
the Zenker and Chewer formations that you can see over in the
Grand Canyon down toward the bottom are producing hydrocarbons
which are migrating upward into stratigraphic traps.
It is really an imaginative theory. My own feeling is that
when they have drilled and finished their well on the State
section, we will have a lot more information about values,
about quality of their geological hypotheses. Conoco also has a
lease on some Federal land, and this poses the issue in a
slightly different way.
They have filed with the BLM for a drilling permit, and
that permit application will be passed upon by the BLM in their
normal process by normal standards, including the values to be
protected that are laid out in the present proclamation. They
will make that decision, and we will have an answer in due
course.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, my main concern is--excuse me--are the
existing leases--the leases that are there that are valid, and
certainly we don't want to violate people's private property
rights by not allowing that especially since it was never
even--oil and gas production ever even referred to before the
proclamation was made. And possibly the President didn't even
know there was any oil and gas production in that area. In
fact, do you know if he had any knowledge of that before the
proclamation was made?
Secretary Babbitt. Oh, I am sure he did. I am not certain
that he did. And the people who drafted the document--I didn't
supervise drafting the document, but I am certain that the
Solicitor's Office of the Interior Department knew that.
Now, those leases are valid by their terms. They are a
valid existing right. Now, I think it is important to
understand that valid existing right has two totally different
meanings. One is under the Mining Law of 1872, and valid
existing rights under the Mining Law are basically referenced
to a whole series of Court decisions interpreting the 1872
Mining Law. These leases are contractual documents which are
entered into under the Mineral Leasing Act, and the rights that
are conferred by those leases are very different from rights
conferred under the 1872 Mining Law.
Mrs. Cubin. Oh, yes, I have that.
Secretary Babbitt. Because the rights are contractual
rights.
Mrs. Cubin. Right.
Secretary Babbitt. Now, we are obliged, in my judgment, to
honor the contractual provisions of the leases. And the reason
I say it that way is because the decision to drill and produce
under one of these leases is typically conditioned by a whole
variety of provisions in the leases themselves and by the
environmental laws that regulate that. That is the reason that
what we have done is said to the BLM, ``They apply. You pass
judgment on this lease the same way you would any other lease
application, and that amounts to respecting their rights as we
must, as we will.''
Mrs. Cubin. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. But I think
you can see the contradiction that I am seeing. You don't
necessarily agree with it, but I think you can see the
contradiction that here is Conoco having to go through all of
the environmental impact statement studies, you know, all of
the environmental analysis in order to produce on the leases
that they have.
And then in one fell swoop, the President can come in and,
you know, just disregard all of the environmental safeties that
we have put in place. It is that contradiction that concerns
me. I also wonder if you have a time table when Conoco's permit
will be, you know, either accepted or--but you probably don't
right now, but if you could provide that?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I have asked the BLM about that,
and I think--bear in mind, it is an exploration permit.
Mrs. Cubin. Right.
Secretary Babbitt. There is no production here, and I am
only an amateur geologist. But I pay a lot of attention to this
stuff, and I think, frankly, it is a pretty long shot. This
kind of Precambrian hydrocarbon generation stuff is not garden
variety, widely known stuff.
Mrs. Cubin. But they are willing to put millions to find
out.
Secretary Babbitt. Yes, exactly.
Mrs. Cubin. You know, I don't think it is----
Secretary Babbitt. Exactly, no.
Mrs. Cubin. [continuing]--necessarily smoking----
Secretary Babbitt. Bear in mind, they have got their
permits. We are on the verge of them on the State land. I have
asked the BLM what kind of time table. I think the answer is
this summer. I think it is a matter of a few months----
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you.
Secretary Babbitt. [continuing]--that it takes them to
process that drilling exploration application.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the committee, is
recognized.
Mr. Walter Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I am going
to be brief because, as you noted, I had to leave shortly after
the Governor of Utah spoke, which I regretted, but we had
previous appointments arranged. And I want to make just a
general statement, Secretary Babbitt.
I was amazed with the comments by the two Senators and the
Governor as to how all this was handled, and I regret that I
did not hear your response to their comments regarding how this
proclamation was put together and how it was announced, when
Members of the Senate and the House were not privy to even a
day-or-two-notice before it actually happened.
My comment, Mr. Chairman, is since I have had a run-in with
the Park Service down in my district that deal with some horses
and the arrogance of those that work at the local level, and as
it relates to this situation in Utah, to see the arrogance as
to how the Department of the Interior, Mr. Secretary, and
seeing how the arrogance of the people at the local level, I
just see some real serious problems.
And I think what the problem is is that the bureaucrats,
whether they be in your Department or whether they are Members
of the Congress, we forget who is paying our salary. And what
happened in Utah is that the people in the Federal Government
are forgetting who is paying the salaries--the taxpayers of
America. And they are totally out of the loop.
And I guess I feel so strongly about it because I have seen
in my State when I have a Democratic governor that supports the
protection of these horses and yet we have these ongoing
battles in my district, and then I look at what the President
did in this decision and how it was--if you will excuse me for
saying this--it looks like a coverup from the elected men and
women that serve Utah until you all determined it was time to
drop the bomb on them.
And, Mr. Chairman, I guess I won't keep pontificating, but,
in all honesty, this arrogance--I am just incensed by it, to
tell you the truth. And I just had to come back hoping that the
Secretary would not have left so I could say for goodness
sakes, let us listen to the people of America, and let us
listen to the people who pay our salaries--yours and mine.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Last questions--Mr. Cook from the
Second District of Utah. Thank you for bearing with us.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow
up, if I could. Secretary Babbitt, I didn't like what you said,
but you were very clear in saying you just can't support any
amendments to the Antiquities Act. I guess that is the
Administration's position.
But given the very compelling testimony from Governor
Leavitt, from Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch, particularly
when Senator Bennett pulled out from that box those documents
that say ``let us not,'' I can't remember the exact words, but
to paraphrase, ``let us make sure this doesn't get out before
we can do this, before we make this designation because it
might even stop it from happening if this gets out.''
Given all that background--and I didn't notice that there
were any statements made from you or Chairman McGinty that
contradicted a thing that was testified to by the two Senators
and by the Governor--I still ask you, and I understand your
answer that you don't support any amendments, but can't you
give us more of a rationale of why you absolutely oppose the
simple amendment to allow a 90 day notification period for
hearings or for at least the Governor to bring comments back to
the administration? I just can't understand, given that
compelling testimony, your quick ``no'' without responding a
little more directly as to that 90 day period of consultation.
How can you oppose that?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, two things. One, my
opposition to amendments is my personal view. Let me just for
the sake of precision say that is where I stand. The reason for
that is that this Act for 91 years has been an extraordinary,
beneficial environmental Act.
The actions of Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt on have
always been controversial. When Theodore Roosevelt made the
Grand Canyon a national monument, my family was in the
opposition because the monument actually took in part of the CO
Bar Ranch run by my family. It is still in my family's hands.
I have watched this and read about it across an entire
century. Virtually every time there has been a monument
declaration, there has been a big rush to amend or repeal the
Antiquities Act. It has stood the test of time. The Presidents
who have used it have been vindicated, heeded by history. And
President Clinton is going to be vindicated by history.
Mr. Cook. Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to interrupt you, but
that doesn't really explain the 90-day consultation. You can't
really think that is a bad thing in terms of the process.
Respond more directly to what is so bad about the 90-day
consultation? I mean, I understand your faith, and I share a
lot of it in the Act itself, but I can't believe there is
really a problem with this other than you are doing it as a
marching order kind of mentality.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, it is not a marching order because
I haven't discussed this with anyone, and I, you know, reaffirm
to you this is my opinion. I think the Act has been vindicated
by history, and I do not contemplate supporting any kind of
amendment. I just don't.
I think that each one of these proclamations, whether it is
Grand Canyon, the Utah monuments, Alaska, have been fraught
with controversy. It happens every time. The controversy is
always different. That is in the nature of the exercise in
presidential power.
And every time there are a raft of proposals, I think the
most appropriate way to handle this is to examine the issues,
take full account of the public planning process that is now
underway unprecedented, judge these issues in their totality,
and refrain from making a raid on this Act every time people
disagree with a decision.
Mr. Cook. And if I could just finally ask Chairman McGinty,
your statement that the Andalex Mine's existing rights are not
affected, could you explain that? Obviously, they are affected.
What you are saying is they are being replaced with other
leases. Would you please explain that statement?
Miss McGinty. Sure. And this goes back to Congresswoman
Cubin's points as well. The valid existing rights that are
within the bounds of the monument are absolutely respected by
this monument proclamation, and that extends to Andalex as
well. To the extent that Andalex has valid existing rights in
this area, those rights are respected, and they will be
respected throughout this process.
Mr. Cook. And you see why I am at a loss. Does it mean
anything--what you have just said--in terms of the ability to
use that 40-acre site. You've obviously visited that site?
Miss McGinty. I have been in that area. I could not testify
here that exactly that site I was at, but I have certainly been
in that area. I have been on the road that the Chairman
referred to as well. The point is though to the extent that
Andalex has a property right in this area, and to the extent
that Andalex wants to continue to pursue a mining operation in
this area, that request will be handled in due and ordinary
course by BLM.
They would review it as they would review a mining proposal
anywhere else in the State. The only difference I would suggest
here is that the review would need to be done also with the
values that the monument recognizes in mind, but other than
that application should Andalex pursue it, would be just
treated in normal due course.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time
has expired of this panel. Let me thank you both. You have been
very patient and appreciate your answers. Chairman McGinty, I
appreciate you bringing your parents along from Philadelphia.
It was nice that they could accompany you today. And I have
just got to ask, Mr. Secretary, what does TL stand for of the
TL Bar?
Secretary Babbitt. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mr. Hansen. It is what?
Secretary Babbitt. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mr. Hansen. Oh.
Secretary Babbitt. My grandfather and his brothers went
west in 1886 and arrived in northern Arizona in the middle of
the winter and bought a few head of cattle and kind of homesick
and said, ``We think we will name this spread after the home
town that we are not so sure we should have left.'' But they
did and they built this ranch up over the years, and it is
still out there. And it still runs right up to Grand Canyon
National Park.
Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you. I appreciate that explanation.
I thought you said TL. I apologize. My brother-in-law has TL
Bar, and it stands for Tough Luck Ranch. We tell him it is
Truth and Love. It makes him feel better. Well, thank you so
very much. We do appreciate you being with us, and we will now
move to our next panel.
Louise Liston, County Commissioner from Garfield County.
Now, these are the people who are on the ground--these
commissioners that are coming up. They have to run this. Joe
Judd from Kane County, Utah, County Commissioner; and John
Harja, Vice Chairman of the Utah School & Institutional Trust
Lands Administration. If those three would come up, we would
appreciate it.
I hope the committee realizes these are the county
commissioners that have to make it work. So we are grateful
that they would be with us right now, and we will turn to
Louise Liston. Louise had been before us many times, a very
articulate spokesman for the State of Utah and for her county.
Louise, can you do it in five, or do you need more than that?
Ms. Liston. I have got it cut down pretty close to five.
Mr. Hansen. OK. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF LOUISE LISTON, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, GARFIELD
COUNTY, UTAH
Ms. Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
comments. And I extend a good afternoon to you and members of
the committee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today regarding the designation of the
nation's newest monument.
I am a commissioner from Garfield County, one of the two
southern Utah counties seriously affected by the President's
action. I am gravely concerned about what is happening to rural
communities in the West who rely heavily on natural resources
found on the nation's public lands to sustain their local
economies.
During the past four years of the current Administration,
those counties are being pushed closer and closer to the edge.
And as that happens, the battle becomes more fierce and heated.
Local custom and culture are systematically being destroyed by
land management decisions and environmental scare tactics.
Community morales are low, and we are experiencing an
alarming increase in spouse and child abuse and escalating
occurrences of alcohol and drug abuse. The number of suicides
from the ages of 16 to 28 in a recent Utah Southwest District
health report shows southern Utah counties far above the State
average. Our young people in rural areas feel that the freedoms
guaranteed them by the Constitution are being violated more and
more by Federal restrictions, regulations, and designations.
The citizens of Garfield County have shared their scenic
beauty with the world and borne the monetary burden of that
responsibility for decades. In return for our goodwill efforts,
we feel that we, along with the school children of Utah, have
been laid upon the sacrificial altar by a President who, with
the stroke of a pen, locked up a treasure house of natural
resources with promises that can never be kept.
Over 98 percent of my county is State and federally owned.
With a meager 1.3 percent of the county's land base left to
generate taxes from and a population of 4,000, we are caring
for over 3 million visitors. Running a county so impacted is
not easy. Congressmen and residents in eastern States where
Federal ownership seldom exceeds two or three percent cannot
begin to comprehend the impacts being placed upon local
governments and local economies that rely upon the land for
their survival. Add to that the designation of a new national
monument that is already creating serious problems.
The BLM Office in Escalante is averaging 76 telephone calls
a day about the monument. The Escalante Chamber of Commerce web
site on the Internet received 2,600 hits in February requesting
information about the monument. With interest that overwhelming
this early in the tourist season, we perceive the resulting
impacts will be devastating to our meager budget and will place
us in a position of extreme hardship to provide the necessary
services that visitors not only expect but demand. Local
government should not have to bear that burden alone,
especially when they had no input into the initial process that
created the monument.
Yet, we are now facing the realities of that designation on
a daily basis and the impacts that millions of visitors will
bring. We will handle their waste, provide law enforcement
services, emergency services, search-and-rescue, try their
criminal cases in our Courts, and maintain safe roads for them
to travel on to recreate on the nation's public lands, all on a
very limited budget that is being further eroded away by loss
of taxes generated by stable industries that no longer exist.
Mr. Chairman, the economic, social, and environmental
concerns facing public land counties today are overwhelming. It
is very destructive when the fate of a region is determined by
people who don't live there and have to live with the direct
impacts of their decisions, with little or no thought or
feeling for the devastating effects those decisions will have
on families, local economies, schools, and livelihoods.
We in the West are tired of having our destiny decided by
greedy preservationists and a Congress sympathetic to their
cries of wolf. We take offense when accused of abusing the land
and destroying its beauty, when, indeed, we have been such
caring stewards that the land is now beautiful enough to be
declared a ``national treasure.''
The vast majority of Americans are concerned about their
environment. However, they are also concerned about making a
living and providing for their families. Only by achieving a
balance can we hope to preserve both the land and the people.
We must always consider the people and the environment together
as though they are one because the human need to use natural
resources is fundamental to our very presence on this earth.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, once again, thank
you for the opportunity to add my testimony to this oversight
hearing. It is my hope that a management process for the
monument will evolve that will benefit my county, the State of
Utah, and this great nation and its people, that it will fairly
consider all factors and conflicts and strike a balance between
recreation uses and other multiple uses of the resources found
there. Thank you.
[Statement of Ms. Liston may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Judd, you
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOE JUDD, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, KANE COUNTY, UTAH
Mr. Judd. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands, on behalf of the Commission of
Kane County, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify
regarding the impacts of the designation of the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I have a statement that
I will submit for the record, and I will briefly highlight some
of our concerns with the monument and where we stand in terms
of our cooperative agreement with the Department of Interior.
First, let me say that we greatly appreciate the efforts
that have been made by you, Mr. Chairman, and by our
Representative, Congressman Cannon, to keep this issue before
the Congress. There has been a tendency by the Federal
Government to knowingly or unknowingly place a burden on local
governments and then just forget about it. The monument could
easily be a classic example of an unfunded mandate. We greatly
appreciate your tenacity.
There is a Chinese curse or a parable that states, ``May
you live in interesting times.'' Well, these are very
interesting times. Last spring we were updating our county's
general plan and zoning ordinance. We were trying to plan for
change we thought was going to take place with the influx of
new residents.
These new residents would come because of high-paying jobs
that would follow the development and opening of the Smoky
Hollow Coal Mine--incidentally, an underground coal mine. The
environmental impact statement was well underway, and a
positive finding was expected.
Mr. Chairman, we have 7,000 people living in Kane County,
and our budget is only $2.25 million. We just went through the
closing of the uranium mine not long ago, costing us 150 jobs;
closing of the Kaibab sawmills, another 700 jobs; and looking
forward to the opening of a coal mine which would have provided
900 jobs.
We were looking forward to being able to mine that large
coal deposit. This coal mine would have added $1.3 million to
our budget each year and providing good, primary jobs, as well
as helping the school children of Utah.
But last September 18, all that changed. We now have
condors for neighbors and the promise of the increase in
tourism. We now have many things that are going to take place.
As far as tourism is it going to offer us a benefit?
And negotiating the implement agreement included a final
rule for those things that are going to take place. The
government does not have to be at war with the local
government. Given the right chance, we can work things out for
everyone's benefit.
The monument area within Kane County is 68 percent of the
monument within Kane County. It is 49 percent of our county, an
area of 2,500 square miles, and now makes up a great deal of
our county. Few people, including the President, have an
appreciation for just how large and diverse these monument
lands are. It was an enormous decision with enormous
consequences. It is a very diverse topography ranging from very
stark, without any vegetation of any kind, to a more familiar
red cliffs and canyon highlighted by the media.
The budget increase we counted on from coal mining will be
offset to some degree by the increase in tourism. But will it
be a windfall for the county? I am afraid not. While tourism is
already a large part of our county's income, it has a downside
also. First, it is very seasonal--May, at best, through
October. Second, it provides jobs that pay a minimum wage with
no benefits. But the real impact from our tourism we have
discovered is a negative impact on law enforcement and our
Court times also.
Mr. Chairman, the impacts of this monument also has made us
aware of how fragile and inadequate most of our services may
be. The monument and the movement of tourists through the
monument, of roads and various services, no paved roads on the
Kaiparowits Plateau, serious problem of search-and-rescue that
has been spoken to already. People go out in these areas and
get lost or stranded or worse.
And the added strain upon the tourists who come and break
our laws, and the added burden of our Court system. We are
already the second largest secondary Court system in the State
of Utah. We also have a tax on our water system and other
infrastructure. Last year, we had to drill an additional well
in Kanab because many of our fire hydrants were dry midsummer.
I might add that we are arresting about 50 illegal aliens each
night and have impounded over 100 vehicles.
Not long after the President's proclamation, Kane County
entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of
Interior. That agreement provided $200,000 this year to
facilitate the improvement of economic, culture, and resources
within the county. We entered into this agreement with the BLM
and the planning process. We had been left out of the
deliberation and the creation of the monument, and we did not
want to be left out of the planning process.
We believe the Federal Government has an obligation not
only to invite us to participate but to provide the resources
which will enable us to fully participate. Otherwise, we simply
do not have the budget to be involved in any meaningful way. We
are a poor county.
But our participation is, in fact, a valuable contribution
to the process. It is a great bargain for the American people.
We have had our setbacks here of late, and with our partnership
with the Department of Interior, we have a voice in an early
and very critical phase. We hope that it will protect our
interests, to make this monument a new and positive one.
It is a simple situation that we find ourselves in with
this new monument. It is rather like my brother who thought he
was a chicken. We really wanted to talk him out of it, but we
needed the eggs. But we are not allowed to have those
opportunities given to us.
We want a clearly defined role. We would also establish a
working relationship with the Department at field level and
with the Department here in Washington. Secretaries leave and
Departments change, agency personnel are transferred.
We would hope that the Congress will establish a continuing
role for Kane County through authorizing legislation and
certainly through the appropriation process. It could be
considered a demonstration project. But to create a positive
experience and adjacent to the monument, our involvement is
essential.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we should not be
in a position of having to go hat in hand to the Congress or
the Federal Government every year and take a subservient or
inferior position. Kane County's role should be structured and
defined. It could be an extension of the cooperative agreement.
We do not, of course, expect to be given a blank check.
Eventually, a large part of the expense providing services
could be supported by entry or interpretive fees or the sale of
educational materials. It is my understanding that the
committee will be considering legislation fees for the national
parks and monuments during this next Congress. We would hope
that the monument would be included and that we could offer
some recommendations as to what might be implemented.
We are beginning, with the assistance of the BLM, to
implement involvement and participation programs. This planning
will be open and structured to include all points of views
within our county--the environmental point of view, forestry
view, cattlemen, and so on.
We are asking the University of Southern Utah to help us
create a record of this process with a short video because we
believe it will be a model. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, for inviting us to participate in
these hearings. I will be happy to try and answer any questions
that you may have.
[Statement of Mr. Judd may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Harja.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HARJA, VICE CHAIRMAN, UTAH SCHOOL &
INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION, ON THE BEHALF OF
RULAND J. GILL, JR., CHAIRMAN
Mr. Harja. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, you had
asked the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the School &
Institutional Trust Lands to be here today. Unfortunately, he
had a family emergency, and so I was asked to pinch hit for
him, and I am glad to do that.
You mentioned civility earlier in this hearing, and,
therefore, all I could really do on behalf of the School &
Institutional Trust Lands is express how frustrated we are by
the way this has proceeded and how frustrated we are at the way
the Federal Government restricts us from keeping our mandate.
As a result of the monument, the Board of Trustees, on
which I sit as Vice Chair--and, by the way, Louise Liston is on
our Board--passed a policy statement last January which
expressed a certain amount, and it was very lengthy and
expressed our distaste for what we perceive is happening to us.
It talked about possibilities of exchange, which I will go
into more later, and I want to express our disappointment at
the way Public Law 103-93 that Mr. Babbitt mentioned has
proceeded. We talked about suing the Federal Government, and we
are proceeding down that path, and our attorney is here today.
We talked about developing the lands that we have both for
mining opportunities and for tourism opportunities, and we are
going to look at that.
As the Secretary mentioned, these are our lands--the school
trust lands. There are 176,000 acres of them in this monument
scattered throughout, and it was amazing to us that Mr. Panetta
knew nothing about this and, in fact, told the Governor, ``What
are those little blue squares here?'' If you are familiar with
the map of Utah, typically the BLM lands are in yellow and the
school trust lands are in blue so it looks like little tiny
blue squares all through the place.
It frustrated me when Miss McGinty said these lands are not
producing as expected. That is definitely putting the cart
before the horse because we feel like we can produce, but every
time we get close to something, and somebody mentioned EIS as
always being yanked--every time we get close to something, the
Federal Government pulls it out from under us and says, ``No,
no, no. You can't mine there.''
Well, where can we mine? We all know the ore is where it
is. You can't move it. They mentioned, ``Well, there is ore
further north of Utah--coal.'' That is true, there is, but he
forgets to mention that half of that is already promised to the
school trust lands for other exchanges.
And he forgets to mention that half the money from that
coal up there is being returned to the State of Utah as a
whole, not to the trust. And, therefore, if we are going to
move, there is a problem. We can't use our own money to pay the
trust.
So those kind of statements really frustrate us because I
want to explain to you in the monument, for example, the school
trust land was working with its partners. It was working with
oil companies, Conoco. Conoco had leased the lands from us. We
were working with Andalex who had leased coal from us. We were
working with other companies that were interested in coalbed
methane. All of those things up until September 18 were
proceeding apace. In fact, we had great hope that they were
going to proceed.
As a direct result of the proclamation on September 18,
every one of those is grinding to a halt. We had an agreement
nearly negotiated with Andalex--we, the trust--for leasing some
other school trust lands near the Smoky Hollow site. It would
have paid us a bonus of $7 million. That is now gone.
As has been discussed earlier, the Andalex proposal itself
is on hold. I heard somebody mention that they have abandoned
the lease. That is certainly not the case. I don't want to
speak for them, but they are not abandoning it. They are just
looking for value, as are we. Pacific Core hasn't abandoned its
leases. It is looking for value, as are we. Everybody is now
kind of, you know, trying to figure out what has been done to
them.
I want to explain a little bit about what the trust needs
in order to feel whole in terms of exchanges because the
President mentioned exchanges. It has always mentioned. The New
World Mine is an exchange proposal. The difficulty with the
Federal Government in consummating exchanges is severe. They
are excessively rule-driven.
They are excessively tied to appraisals, and any of you
that have worked with property know their appraisals are an
estimation, but they are not in and of themselves a definitive
statement of value. And they never finish the process, and I
want to emphasize that. They never finish the process--rarely,
anyway.
We need all of those solved. The trust needs to know if we
are going to exchange, where are we going to go? What is being
offered? Remember, most of the coal has already been taken for
other promises. You have got to remember the 50-50 split.
In addition, if we are going to look at leased property for
oil and gas, it is going to have an effect on the U.S.
Treasury. And those of you that are concerned about budget
deficit, you are going to lose that money. It is going to be
diverted to the trust. So what properties are going to be
offered? What is the fair value of those properties?
The Secretary mentioned 103-93. We have been working on
that now since the Congress passed it in 1993 and the President
signed it. It took us 11 full months to agree--almost a year--
to agree on the standards of appraisal--just what you are going
to appraise? The Federal Government fought us tooth and nail
over that.
In addition, I would have to say their appraisals are
geared their way--the appraisal process for the Federal
Government. They do not hesitate--they, being the appraisers
for the Federal Government, do not hesitate to contact
independent appraisals and let them know what they think. Our
people have been told--the appraisers that is that are working
on this project--``You have to consider the effect on the
United States Treasury when you do your appraisal''; i.e., you
have to bring the value in low.
We have had appraisers go to--the Federal appraisers come
and say, ``You did this wrong''--directly, not contacting the
State and doing it in some sort of joint meeting--just contact
them directly and say, ``You did this wrong. You need to change
it.'' This is why we feel frustrated.
You come in and the Federal Government puts this monument
down, and the lands are, therefore, suddenly surrounded by a
restrictive Federal management. They say our lands are not
included, that is true, because they are not Federal lands.
They won't plan for those lands. They say, ``You will be moved.
You will be traded so we don't need to worry about them being
there.'' Nobody consulted us about that.
When they say there is no mining, you have to understand
that two-thirds of our income to the trust comes from mining
operations. When they say there is no mining, all of our
mineral partners in that area, except maybe Conoco--we are not
sure about them--are lost.
So the income that we had hoped turn our operations
around--I want to point out to you that we have gone from $46
million in our permanent fund to $120 million in five years--
the last five years. We have plans to get to $200 million by
2002. Those were dependent on these mineral operations.
You can say, ``Well, Andalex would never have gone in. It
is $5 a ton more. There are all those roads that have to go
in.'' There were responses to those, and, of course, what we
will never know now is could they have done because it is being
stopped?
Just quickly--I see the red light is on there--the trust
today--oh, one thing I wanted to point out. Immediate loss of
royalty for Andalex to the trust was probably around $600,000 a
year for 30 years. That money stays in a permanent fund. It is
available always to generate interest. We lost the $7 million.
Coalbed methane--right now the properties in the monument
are producing about $115,000 a year--not a lot, and that is
going to zero real quickly. We have similar operations of
coalbed methane up in Carbon County that are producing $200,000
a month--a month. Coalbed methane is not a difficult
technology. They are shallow wells. That was almost in the
bank. It is exploitation, not exploration. The trust will no
longer see that. How can we expect to be compensated for that?
We estimate, if Mr. Babbitt has his way and we have to go
into some sort of detailed process to appraise and swap these
lands, which I am not at all sure the Board of Trustees is
interested in doing, it is probably going to cost 5 to $10
million. The current process on Public Law 103 is up around 5
million for us because we feel we have to defend against the
processes of the Federal Government. We have to be prepared to
respond to them.
That 5 to $10 million I would put to you should be paid by
the Federal Government. It should not come out of the school
kids because all of our money from the lands, some of it is
diverted to operations, but the rest goes in the permanent fund
or directly to beneficiaries.
Why should we have to divert 5 to $10 million over probably
10 years to pay for the stuff that the President caused? So it
may be that we need 5 to $10 million from the Congress to help
us out. Mr. Chairman, I probably said plenty. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Harja may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, I appreciate your testimony. The
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard Senator Hatch
say earlier that the coal that is there--the low sulphur coal
that is in that area--is worth over a trillion dollars. And I
have also heard that this is the largest low sulphur coal
deposit in the world, and that the second largest was owned by
the Lippo Group out of Indonesia, and that shortly after this,
they made all these big campaign contributions to the President
and the Democratic National Committee. Have any of you heard
any----
Mr. Judd. We have noticed that parallel also, and I don't
know. Rush Limbaugh did two or three shows on it, and there has
been things in the press. However, there has been a lot of
things said about that coal and about the market, and Indonesia
certainly is a huge coal producer.
It is a strange thing that the Secretary talks about or
Miss McGinty talks about selling coal to a foreign market and a
foreign coal mine. They ought to look at Kennicot. Kennicot is
owned by a foreign country, and I am sure that that copper goes
overseas.
And if we are worried about foreign countries, maybe we
ought to tell Honda and all the rest of the people who are here
trying to produce things in this country that we are against
foreign trade.
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me ask you this. I have noticed that
these environmental extremists are almost always real wealthy,
upper income people. And, in fact, I read that the Sierra Club
has an income--their average member has an income of about four
times the average American. And what I have noticed is that
they have enough resources to be insulated from the harm that
their policies do, but they are destroying jobs and driving up
prices, and they are hurting poor and working people in the
process. Have you done any estimates of how many jobs this is
going to destroy in your area? Have you done any figuring like
that?
Mr. Judd. Well, this one mine--this Andalex Coal Mine would
have produced about 900 jobs, and then the fallout from those
900 jobs in adjacent States would have been something. I was
interested in Congressman Hinchey saying that we were going to
have to build a 225-mile road to mine that coal. It is closer
to 20 that takes it right out on a highway. I don't know where
those figures come from.
It is kind of like what Congressman Hansen talks about here
impacting 40 acres, and yet if you look at the extremist
literature that is produced, they will talk about, ``Do you
want a bulldozer in the middle of the Kaiparowits Plateau in an
open pit mine?'' when, in fact, there will be three portals at
the bottom of a canyon 800 feet below the rim, and 40 acres
that you would not see unless you were directly there. There
will be no smokestacks. There will be no outfall from that.
To answer your question, Congressman, yes, there were a lot
of jobs that would have happened. And, of course, the service
jobs beyond that--as the communities prosper, people build
homes. They will need more electricians, painters, et cetera,
et cetera.
Mr. Duncan. But, I mean, also you drive up coal prices for
people all over this country when you----
Mr. Judd. Well, of course.
Mr. Duncan. [continuing]--lock up so many resources. And it
is such a sad thing that, as I say, some of these environmental
extremists have now become the new leftists, the new
socialists, the new radicals in this country today, and not
enough people I think recognize it yet. But they are really
doing some harmful things to this country.
And the problem that I see that you have is that you are a
small State, and nobody gets upset about it until it happens to
them. And, yet, I have read recently that the Federal
Government owns 30 percent of the land in this country now and
another 20 percent is owned by State and local governments and
quasi-governmental units. And they are putting so many
restrictions on the rest of the private property, they are just
about doing away with private property in this country.
Mr. Judd. 98 percent of Louise's county, 95 percent of our
county is public lands. 95 percent of the county; 98 percent in
Garfield County. How in the world can anyone make a living? And
the other thing, of course, is all of these tourists that come,
we have got 7,000 people in the county, and in one weekend in
Kanab we will have 30,000 people.
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you this.
Mr. Judd. And the Courts--and they bring all their bad
habits with them.
Mr. Duncan. The political figures told us that they didn't
have any warning about this. Did those of you who live in this
area, did you have more notice than they did--this nine-day
notice that Governor Leavitt talked about? Did you know this
was coming?
Mr. Judd. We heard the same as everyone else did after the
article appeared in the Washington Post. And our county sent
myself and two other gentlemen, and we went into Leon Panetta's
office; didn't get to see him. The Governor arranged that we
could go. Eleven hours before the proclamation and no one in
that office knew anything about it.
Mr. Duncan. I am not sure many people really realize how
large an area this is. In my district is a large part of the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is the most heavily
visited national park in the country. It is a large, beautiful
area----
Mr. Judd. I have been there.
Mr. Duncan. [continuing]--and, yet, with all those millions
of people that we have coming there and as big as most people
think that area is, it is just about a third the size that this
1.7 million acres you are talking about is--three times the
size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most
heavily visited national park in the country.
Mr. Judd. It is over 100 miles across, and I would really
love for you to come, Congressman, and see the thousands and
thousands and thousands of acres of chained down pinon juniper
that cows graze on, and why that was made a national monument,
and why the thing had to stop right at the Arizona border.
Apparently, there was nothing of value beyond the Arizona
border.
Mr. Duncan. If it is like most areas, most of these
environmental extremists are people who have come in from other
States, mostly who live in big cities and who drive their Range
Rovers and put on their L.L. Bean clothing and think of
themselves as some big outdoorsman.
Mr. Judd. Oh, well, we would love to see them come.
Ms. Liston. Congressman, if I could comment just a moment
on your question about the coal, as well as some of the other
concerns, I think our gravest concern lies in the boundaries of
the monument. If you were to look at a map, you would see that
those boundaries directly abut Forest Service lands, national
park lands on both sides of my county, and a national
recreation area. And the land in between is all monument.
They have gone directly up against those other Federal
reserves and put the boundaries there. And they even went
across a State highway to make sure that they took in all of
the coal reserves even up above the State highway. And so all
coal reserves and every bit of land within Garfield County that
goes from national park to national park and recreation area
and to the Forest Service.
I think that that alone tells me a story. I mean, if they
wanted to declare that land a monument to protect certain
objects, why were the boundaries so obviously right up against
other Federal management lands?
Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have got just one more
thing to say. You know, I voted for most of the really tough
environmental laws that have been passed in this country over
the last few years, but I can tell you that if we get to the
point in this nation where we can't cut a single tree or we
can't dig for any coal or we can't drill for any oil, we are
going to really hurt the economy, we are going to really hurt
the poor and working people. And some of these rich elitists
who are doing this type of thing, maybe they can get along all
right. But the great, great majority of the people are going to
really be hurting. Thank you.
Mr. Judd. That is where we are in our counties now.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will
intend to seek the advice of my good friend, Congressman Cannon
and Congressman Hansen, and members of the Utah Delegation. We
are talking about the issue of coal and the tremendous amount
of coal that is contained in the State of Utah.
Given the problems we are having with nuclear waste in the
areas that will probably cost in the hundreds of billions of
dollars in just trying to clean this mess up, I am curious if
perhaps the leaders of the State of Utah will seriously look at
this alternative source of energy as if we may have to return
to coal by the time we get through with this nuclear waste
problems that we are having now in our nation.
But I would like to ask Commissioner Judd and Commissioner
Liston, it is a serious problem, as you have indicated, in your
testimonies. It is my hope that as it will be part of the
process as stated earlier by the Secretary that these series of
hearings or whatever there will be that will take place within
this three-year period, hopefully, that the concerns that you
have expressed before the committee will be made known to him.
And certainly that members of the Utah Delegation will be
apprized of those concerns, and, hopefully, that remedy will be
found for the concerns that you raised earlier. And I want to
thank the members of the panel for their statements. I have no
further questions.
Mr. Duncan. [presiding] Thank you very much. The gentleman
from Utah, Mr. Cannon, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. There were times during the earlier
panel when my ability to be civil was much tested, and, of
course, the audience actually burst into spontaneous laughter
at one point. I suppose this would be funny except that there
are such serious concerns going on here, and, Mr. Harja, if I
could direct to you a couple of questions.
In the first place, I think that what we heard from the
last panel was a pretty flip-base statement that they are going
to in the future go through a reason to process. And, yet, you
have had some pretty terrific problems with getting fairly
simple land exchanges done. Let me just ask two or three
things, and if you could respond to them?
How much have you actually spent out of the school trust
funds in the appraisal process would you imagine, or what
percentage of time was taken up to do that? And then if you
would address the possibility of an acre-for-acre exchange, and
would that be helpful to you if you would do something like
that rather than going through the appraisal process?
Mr. Harja. The appraisal process that I am familiar with--
there are several going on in the State right now concerning
school trust lands. The first is the Public Law 103-93. It is a
massive project. There were 550 tracts involved. About 150 of
those are mineral only. No surface estate. We have been at it
since late 1993. Currently, in order to feel that we have
evaluated our resources, we are in the neighborhood of $4
million. I am sorry. I forgot the rest of your question.
Mr. Cannon. We are talking about the--I think you have got
the cost. We have talked a little bit in the past about an
acre-for-acre exchange. In other words, Utah proposed it, or
the BLM proposed it in three or four sections that Utah could
trade against an individual section so that you are dealing
with roughly comparable areas rather than valued appraisals.
Mr. Harja. The trust would much prefer certainly a shorter,
fairer process that doesn't involve as much money. Whether that
is acre-for-acre or resource-for-resource, I don't know. But
the trust would be very much appreciative of that kind of idea.
I understand you are proposing that for your Arches
legislation--an acre-for-acre or resource-for-resource. I don't
really care what you call it.
We would like to look at a larger base than that. We would
prefer to say--it is currently unclear how this coal would be
developed. It is ``speculative'' or whatever you want to call
it--the coal in the Kaiparowits.
We would like to find another speculative spot perhaps
involving oil and gas or other coal and simply look at the ton-
for-ton, look at the BTU-for-BTU, whatever works, keeping in
mind the 50-50 split. And we would just as soon that be
considered approximately equivalent value and have the Congress
authorize an exchange and be done with it. It would be simpler
for us.
Mr. Cannon. You expressed some serious concern earlier
about the fact that it took fully a year just to come to terms
on how they appraise. And since you have come to those terms,
they then have gone--that is, the BLM has gone directly to
appraisers and raised the concern of the Federal Treasury. I
take it you are frustrated with this process?
Mr. Harja. Well----
Mr. Cannon. Let me just make a general question the three
of you can deal with. Would you characterize your experience in
working with the local land managers--BLM, Forest Service, Park
Service and others--and how you expect that to work out in the
future?
Mr. Harja. In terms of exchanges, I must say that the local
BLM folks that are working with us are sincere. However, they
are stuck by an excessively rule-bound process. They are
incapable, I think, of moving beyond that into a sense of fair
market value that you might see in the marketplace. I think
they have a strange sense of what an arm's length transaction
is, and they attempt to influence that.
We have been working on an exchange out on the Desert
Tortoise habitat near St. George. Fairly simply you would
think. We weren't even worried on each exchange about reaching
actual values--I mean, the same. We would say, OK, one side or
the other can get a little high for a time, and then we will
compensate with the next exchange.
The appraisals that came in were ``reviewed'' by the BLM,
and there were difficulties from their perspective. And they
proceeded to attack the error--you know, try to change them. So
it is not that they are not sincere. They want to try. However,
they simply have no perspective of what real market value is.
Mr. Cannon. But somewhere between the President's broad
promises and the actual application, we are running into some
serious trouble?
Mr. Harja. We are running into difficulties with money and
speed and perceptions of value. Yes. And I don't say that--I am
not trying to imply that just because I say it, it should be so
and it is so. We are prepared to defend what we consider to be
real value in a Court room if we have to and show it that way.
Ms. Liston. If I may respond to that, Congressman, and, by
the way, could I also express our appreciation to you for going
to bat with us on this issue, as well as other land issues. We
feel very encouraged over our new Congressman, and we want you
to know that.
Our relationship with local area managers I think--let me
give you an example, and I think it will quickly let you know.
I think that being the county of the famous Burr Trail
controversy that has been going on for the last 10 years, we
have dealt with the local managers and have been micromanaged
by the Secretary of Interior from Washington, DC.
And I think that that is our problem. We have been told by
local managers that actually the Secretary of Interior
sometimes checks daily on what is going on. And so I think that
that is an indication of what is happening in local areas
sometimes and where the problem arises.
Just let me give you this example. In our recent road
issues, which we don't want to get into so I will just give
this one small example, and that is that a BLM staffer
requested us to go and repair a wash-out on a class B road that
we get funds from the Utah Department of Transportation to
maintain.
We went out and repaired that wash-out, and we were
trespassed by the government and taken to Court by the
Department of Interior. When the subpoena was brought to my
home by our local manager, his words were, ``Please don't kill
the messenger.'' And I think that that is an example of what is
happening to us in these small local governments and counties
that are trying to run their counties under Federal management
and direction.
Mr. Cannon. I suspect that one of the things that is going
to happen this summer is you are going to have a whole raft of
people in four-wheel drives that prove that there are RS 2477
roads actually out there.
Ms. Liston. And not this summer. We are already
experiencing that more than you can ever realize. One road in
my county was over Easter weekend bumper-to-bumper traffic;
people out on every road in their campers; four-wheelers going
down the road; people walking down the road; at night campfires
every place you looked.
I mean, this is no longer an area that is protected. You
know, people are kind of messy animals, and they are not like
the cows that graze on those lands and actually help the land.
And I think you are going to see the lands actually be a
casualty in this case.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] The time of the gentleman has
expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Walter Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I just have
a couple questions. First, I have been here my second term, my
third year, and when I first got here, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't
quite relate to the feeling of those from the western part of
the United States. But today has been probably the best I have
had since I have been in Congress, and I want to thank you for
taking the time to be here. The only way we can make the best
decision for the citizens of America is to listen and to be a
good listener. I guess, Mr. Judd or Ms. Liston, tell me how the
population of your county each--Ms. Liston, what is the
population of your county?
Ms. Liston. We have 4,000 people in Garfield County. We
have eight towns, five of which are now surrounded by the
monument. We have 5,000 square miles that we have to manage and
provide the services. We currently provide these services on a
tax base that generates a little over $300,000 a year. Our
budget is $3 million, but three-fourths of that budget at least
are pass-through moneys from the Federal Government and from
the State.
And so we have very meager budgets, and I might even add
that we were not able to make payroll two months last year. And
so I think it is very hard for eastern counties whose budgets
are huge to realize what we go through in trying to provide
services for millions of people.
Mr. Judd. Our county, Kane County, is 7,000 residents, and
our budget is about $2.25 million. And out of that $2.25
million we, like Commissioner Liston here, have to provide
services for millions of people who come and want to share our
beautiful land with us.
But as I tried to point out to Congressman Hansen is that
they bring their bad habits with them. They are either trying
to stick something in their arm or up their nose, and our
sheriffs and local police take a dim view of that, and so they
arrest a lot of them.
And if I had some of the graphs that I could have shown
you, the tourism that occurs in our counties each summer puts a
spike just as sharp as you can possibly imagine on our Courts
and law enforcement. And so those things that normally they
would be involved in doing to help the people of the county are
denied. The county can't do those.
As far as our tax base goes, like Commissioner Liston said,
if we weren't allowed to have pass-through money from the
Federal and State governments--it costs us a $1.38 to collect a
dollar's worth of taxes. And so we are just without any funds.
We have some opportunities they tell me now with tourism that
is really going to help us. I have yet to see how it is going
to work, but I am hopeful.
Mr. Walter Jones. Let me just as a follow-up question, Mr.
Chairman--Ms. Liston, you or Mr. Judd, were talking about the
negative economic impact on the schools in your county based on
this decision by the President.
Mr. Judd. Yes.
Mr. Walter Jones. Would you reiterate that again? I missed
that and I was listening, but I did miss that.
Ms. Liston. A lot of that comes through the Uniform School
Fund which is impacted by the State trust lands. A lot of that
comes from the impacts on local economies that generate the
taxes that helped the schools. And so our local schools, and
the children attending those schools are being impacted in that
the county no longer will be able to help them with their
buildings because the people are taxed to the max.
We just passed a bond issue this last year to build new
schools, and we don't know where the money is going to come
from, quite honestly. This school district is in just about as
sad a state as we are. And our school kids also are impacted
directly from receiving moneys from the Uniform School Fund
that the State sections impact.
Mr. Judd. One of the things that has occurred in our county
when we lost the Kaibab sawmill--and Commissioner Liston had a
branch of that same sawmill so she lost jobs too--we saw
something happen that I never thought I would see before in the
graphs that we had produced.
We keep statistics every year for law enforcement, and in
the last two years appeared a color that we had never seen
before. And I asked the sheriff what that color was, and he
said, ``That is child and spousal abuse.'' We had never seen
that color before on the chart.
And I said, ``Well, what is this other chart number?'' And
he said, ``That is local people about 58 to 65 years of age
caught growing marijuana.'' And I said, ``Why in the world
would they grow marijuana?'' And he said, ``Well, they don't
have a job. They have no chance to be ever trained to do
anything else, and that is a cash crop,'' incidentally, the
largest cash crop in the United States, ``and so they just
tapped into something that will produce money for them.'' They
grew it on the BLM land. That is some irony there.
Mr. Walter Jones. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again
for setting up this opportunity for those of us to learn more
about the problems facing your State. And, thanks to you and
the citizens that came up from Utah today very much. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I
hope you folks keep in mind I had the opportunity of
representing these two counties for 10 years, and I am still a
little chapped at the legislation for taking them out of the
First District. But, anyway, I share with my good friend, Chris
Cannon, many of the responsibilities of these folks. And I
don't know if people realize here are two----
Mr. Cannon. A real pleasure, by the way.
Mr. Hansen. [continuing]--two very small populationwise
counties, very large in square miles, about a zero tax base, so
to speak. And every time they turn around, the Federal
Government treats them like a third or fourth cousin that they
won't admit they are even there.
We changed the payment in lieu of taxes around, but, yet,
it gets to be not only authorized but appropriated, and what
happens is, ``Well, we don't have to take care of those guys.''
Yet, on the other hand, they come in, take away their payment
in lieu of taxes, put monuments on them, create all of these
problems, and, yet, they are the best citizens in the world.
These are the people that pay their taxes. They are very
patriotic. They serve in the military. They do everything they
are asked to do, and, yet, they kind of get their short end of
the stick. And so it really tees you off when you see that.
And they sit down there with these little towns, little
governments, and here comes all these hoards of people from the
East, and they come in, play on it, mess it up, start fires,
break their legs, put their junk all over the place, and out of
that then we don't come and pay our part.
So I kind of look at it if the Federal Government is going
to say, ``Yes, we own it,'' and you hear all this testimony it
is everybody's ground--you heard that today from all of our
friends, especially from the Far East. Then, on the other hand,
``Pay your share.'' And that is the thing that irritates me as
I look at these counties, especially our southern Utah
counties.
And as Mr. Harja points out, there we lost a huge amount of
money that was there. And if you go back during the days of the
70's, you will find out that everybody talked about this supply
of coal. That was the big thing we were going to pull ourselves
out with, and can you do it in an environmentally sound way?
That was always the issue. And, of course, you can. It can
be done very environmentally sound. And as Joe points out,
where is that 225 miles of road? I was going to interrupt Mr.
Hinchey, but he seemed to be enjoying himself. So there is no
225 miles of road.
So, anyway, we get a little frustrated in Utah
occasionally, but that is why we wanted to bring this up to get
the attention of people. I do thank this panel for the good
work that you have done and how tenacious you are. I would get
very discouraged in those positions. But hang in there and----
Mr. Judd. We are not going to give up, Congressman.
Mr. Hansen. Keep up the good work.
Ms. Liston. We are survivors in southern Utah.
Mr. Hansen. That is true.
Mr. Judd. And we want to thank you and Congressman Cannon.
Mr. Hansen. There is some scripture that says, ``He that
shall endure through the Federal Government shall make it,'' or
something like that--a little paraphrasing. Our third panel is
Mark Austin, Boulder Mountain Lodge; Tom Till, owner of Tom
Till Photography; and Theodore Roosevelt IV. If those gentlemen
would come up, we would appreciate it. We will start with you,
Mr. Austin. We appreciated your hospitality when we were down
there a few years ago at your place.
Mr. Austin. You are welcome.
Mr. Hansen. Can you gentlemen do it in five minutes? If you
need more than that, let me know.
Mr. Austin. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Do it in five? Mr. Austin, we will turn to you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF MARK AUSTIN, CEO, BOULDER MOUNTAIN LODGE
Mr. Austin. Thank you very much. Dear committee members and
Chairman Hansen, I respectfully thank you for the opportunity
to submit to you my concerns and ideas about the management of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, as well as the
Antiquities Act.
I am the principal owner of the Boulder Mountain Lodge, a
new prospering destination tourism development in the town of
Boulder, Utah, population approximately 175, which is adjacent
to the new monument. We opened for business in the fall of '94.
We have 20 deluxe guest rooms and a restaurant. I have also
chosen to continue my career as a building designer and
contractor, which has been my primary occupation since
September of 1974 while living in southern Utah.
I am also the primary founder of the Southern Utah
Independent Forest Products Association. We have been
developing ideas and methods to add higher value to wood
products in rural Utah. I am associated with Confluence
Associates in Salt Lake City, which is a private organization
for the promotion and emphasis of environmentally sound
economic development in rural Utah.
It has always been my policy not to criticize or denounce
an idea unless I or someone has an alternative proposal which I
can stand behind and promote as a better solution. I believe
strongly, as well as most rural Utahans, that economic
development needs to occur and emerge from within rural Utah,
perhaps with some outside assistance if needed. The desire for
primarily locally and regionally owned business is also a
desire to help maintain a better sense of community.
I was recently invited to speak at both the Escalante
Chamber of Commerce and the Boulder Business Alliance, which is
a Chamber of Commerce. I was asked why Boulder Mountain Lodge
is enjoying a very strong visibility in most of the recent
media attention given to the monument. And why are we having a
higher room occupancy than anyone else in our region. Well, I
spoke to them in simple terms.
I support the monument. I am grateful for the monument.
Business development should be compatible to co-exist with a
healthy, dominant economic fuel--tourism. Ranching and grazing
within the monument may be compatible if properly managed. In
the adjacent communities, high value added wood products,
specialty beef, ostrich farming, fish farming are examples of
additional first generation businesses which can complement and
even nourish the goose that lays the golden eggs of tourism.
Of course, there are second and third generation business
opportunities such as construction and rentals and so on.
Businesses which will have a negative impact on tourism should
be discouraged and prevented. Much was said in these meetings
by most about the need to minimize and not restrict development
in the monument, which, if accomplished, is expected to induce
and stimulate economic prosperity in the adjacent communities.
Much was said about the need to coordinate planning between
the monument planning team and the surrounding communities.
Most agree that paving of roads and promoting development
within the monument boundaries were a poor idea. Most were
angry and disappointed that Garfield County had turned down a
$100,000 grant offered by the Department of Interior. All
agreed that money is needed within the communities before if
ever needed to pave roads in the monument. Nothing contributes
to the communities by paving roads. This is not a solution.
I left with the distinct understanding that these two
business communities understood my message, and, in fact, over
three-fourths of the representatives from the businesses in
attendance shared my feelings. I asked then why is this not
being heard by our commissioners and State representatives?
Diversity within our park and monument system is what works
best, diversity within the framework of experience that the
people come here to see and ponder. They are seeking the
vastness and wild places that have become a nonrenewable
resource. Some people call it wilderness. All in all, it is the
same great value of open spaces.
Impacts to these spaces need to be considered with empathy,
sensitivity, and appreciation. To desecrate or impair these
lands by creating noncompatible development adjacent to or
within these remarkable landscapes is a violation of the
sanctity of the nation's values.
I have asked myself the question, ``Do we need to
compromise these landscapes for a higher value, for the need of
man, a mandate from God, or the security of our nation?'' The
simple, clear, undeniable answer is a big no. The respect for
the land and the desire to preserve it is reflected in the
State of Utah Governor's report on wilderness which indicates
that nearly 73 percent of Utahans support 5.7 million acres of
wilderness in Utah. 1.3 million of this is within the
boundaries of the 1.7 million acre monument. The same
percentage is reflected in the Salt Lake Tribune and the
Deseret News. Can anyone really imagine that the same people
support oil and coal mining in a national monument?
In southern Utah, adjacent to the new monument, extractive
industry such as coal mining and uranium have little to do with
the economy. In addition, there has never been coal mining
culture or economy in southern Utah; central Utah, yes,
specifically, the Price, Utah, area which is nearly 200 miles
away from the monument.
What is currently and has been growing steadily over the
last 70 years is the economic driver of tourism. Tourism is the
dominant and largest contributor to the southern Utah economy.
Coal and oil development have no place sharing the nest with
our goose. What we are looking for is a mate to this goose, not
a predator.
And may I add that on the comments on the Antiquities Act
that the Antiquities Act allows a President to directly respond
to the people in the context that this wilderness and public
lands debate in Utah has been going on for a very long time.
May I have a moment please? Thank you. And I think this has
perhaps stirred things up a little, but it has brought some
resolution to the protection of these lands which were slowly
decaying during the whole entire wilderness debate. Thank you.
Any questions?
[Statement of Mr. Austin may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Mr. Till.
STATEMENT OF TOM TILL, OWNER, TOM TILL PHOTOGRAPHY
Mr. Till. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance
to be here today and thank you and the committee members for
having me. I have enjoyed the debate I have heard today. I
think it has been very instructive and very informative. And
although I disagree strongly with the beliefs of my
congressional delegation, I still hope I am considered a loyal
Utahan. I don't consider myself an extremist in any way, shape,
or form. I just have a different view.
My name is Tom Till. I am an internationally known
landscape and nature photographer, a long-time resident of
southern Utah, a member of the Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, and a strong supporter of President Clinton's
designation last fall of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.
I believe I represent a large number of persons in Utah,
both northern and southern, who were overjoyed with the long
overdue protection of this unparalleled area and who are
saddened and disappointed at attempts by its opponents to
attack the motives for its creation, and to put up roadblocks
against its implementation.
I would like to briefly speak about why I and why everyday
Utahans like me support the monument so wholeheartedly. Over
the last 20 years, I have had the rare privilege of taking my
camera to over 1,500 national and State park areas on six
continents. I have seen firsthand how the world has embraced
our amazing American national park ideal--preserving and
protecting many of the planet's most spectacular scenic areas,
its most precious homes for wild animals and plants, and
providing places for recreation and spiritual renewal.
I am paid by my clients, who include most of the magazines
and newspapers you read every day, and many of the sponsors of
ads you see every day, to be able to recognize natural beauty
and capture that on film. That is my job, and I can say
honestly that in all my travels, at home and abroad, I have not
seen any place with more varied and wild beauty than Grand
Staircase-Escalante.
To demonstrate a little bit of this beauty, I brought along
a few images of the monument to show you. I wish I could
transport you all there in person now along the Escalante River
with spring coming out, but we can't do that so we have got a
couple of photographs.
The first one I would like to draw your attention to
depicts an overall view of the upper drainages of the Escalante
River. This is a sea of slickrock, beautiful in and of itself.
But hidden inside this rock ocean are canyons, each with its
own personality and charm. Some have high waterfalls streaking
down the slickrock into inviting pools. Others harbor huge
natural arches made of stone.
Still others like the one depicted in the next photograph--
that needs to be turned vertically please--thank you--are home
to some of the world's most unusual sandstone slot canyons.
Narrowing to only a few feet wide at times, these canyons are
places where sunlight bouncing dozens of times down through
narrow cracks creates lighting effects that enthrall
photographers and leave other visitors awed. Outside the Navajo
Reservation in Arizona, the new monument is the best place in
the world to experience these places, and many are easily
accessible to the general public.
Many people think of the desert as devoid of life, but if
you travel there now along the well-watered oases and elsewhere
in the monument, you would see wildflowers like in the next
photograph. That is also vertical. Thank you. And the last one
is upside down.
Towering above, as always, are the canyon walls, as are
depicted in the last photograph that you will need to turn
right-side up. Edward Abbey said about this country, ``There
are more hills, holes, humps and hollows, reefs, folds, domes,
swells and grabens, buttes, benches and mesas, synclines,
monoclines, and anticlines than you can ever hope to see and
explore in a lifetime.'' Or as we say in southern Utah, ``No
one has seen it all. It is just too big.''
Many of the national parks I have visited in foreign
countries and in America protect historical and cultural
resources like Gettysburg in Pennsylvania or Stonehenge in
England. The Grand Staircase-Escalante is also exceedingly rich
in these historic remnants, consisting of ruins and stunning
rock art from the first Americans.
I have heard some comments from some critics of the
monument that they think that part of it isn't too beautiful,
and one part that is singled out as not being maybe up to par
in terms of scenic beauty is the Kaiparowits Plateau itself.
But that is one area that is so rich in archeological resources
that I think it would take archaeologists many, many lifetimes
to find them all there.
As you all know, the law that allowed President Clinton to
designate this wonderful new national monument has been used in
the past to preserve some of our most well-known natural icons.
I can't imagine an America without Grand Teton or Grand Canyon
National Parks, both originally created as national monuments
by this law.
And I happened to look at the complete list this morning,
and I was just flabbergasted by the monuments that are listed
here. I had no idea that there were this many. And in my
opinion, the tourism economy of the Southwest is based
primarily on these monuments created by this law. We are
talking about billions and billions of dollars that come in to
economies of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona as the
direct result of the Antiquities Law.
These great parks symbolize our national character and are
visited by millions from around the globe. At the time of their
creation, history tells us that these parks and others, going
all the way back to Yellowstone, were opposed by development
interests and short-sighted citizens. I believe in time, and I
don't think it will be that long, this park will also take its
place in the frontier of America's protected and preserved
natural wonders. I urge the committee to work with
conservationists, the BLM, and citizens from Utah and across
the country to preserve the wild beauty of this fabulous place
for all future generations to love and enjoy. Thank you. Sorry
I went over my time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Till. Mr. Roosevelt.
STATEMENT OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT IV, MANAGING DIRECTOR, LEHMAN
BROTHERS
Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Chairman and members of Congress, I am
Ted Roosevelt IV, a businessman, conservationist, and a
rancher. As you probably can tell, I am also a great grandson
of President Roosevelt who signed the Antiquities Act of 1906
into law. I am delighted to be here. Any American would
consider it an honor to have the opportunity to testify before
a congressional committee on a subject in which he has an
interest.
I am here today principally to support the Antiquities Act
of 1906 and all the national treasures that that Act has
preserved, and not to testify specifically for the Grand
Staircase-Escalante, the focus of your hearing today. Quite
honestly, I have not been there yet. There, obviously, are
better qualified speakers than myself on the values of that
particular place which make it worthy of designation as a
national monument.
I am here to testify on behalf of all Americans, who, from
the day the Antiquities Act became law, June 18, 1906, have
benefited from the wisdom of your predecessors. As stated in
the Act, it protects ``historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic and
prehistoric interest'' that deserve permanent preservation for
future generations of Americans.
The Antiquities Act is a unique and farsighted concept and
a worthy example of Congress effectively responding to a
national outcry from the American people. In the late 19th
century, a national movement arose out of concern about the
vandalism and looting that was occurring on landmarks of
prehistoric, historic, or scientific interest. In response,
Congress authorized President Benjamin Harrison to ``reserve''
from settlement or sale the Casa Grande ruin in Arizona.
In 1904, the Commissioner of the General Land Office wrote
to the Secretary of the Interior, ``What is needed is a general
enactment, empowering the President to set apart all tracts of
public land which it is desirable to protect and utilize in the
interest of the public.''
My great grandfather signed the law and was the first
President to use the Act, declaring 18 national monuments. When
he used it to set aside the Grand Canyon National Monument, he
urged, ``Leave it as it is. You cannot improve upon it; not a
bit. What you can do is to keep it for your children, your
children's children, and for all who come after you.''
Since that time, over 100 national monuments have been
proclaimed by Republicans and Democrats alike. Presidents such
as Taft, Harding, Hoover, Coolidge, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
Eisenhower, and Ford have all found this an invaluable tool to
preserve what clearly needs protection.
Your predecessors in Congress have also used the Act to
designate--by special Act of Congress, without the initiative
of the President--some 38 historical and scientific national
monuments. Many of those were privately owned lands.
This is truly a unique piece of legislation because it
establishes a means of setting aside special places with the
speed not found in the ordinary legislative process. Many of
these proclamations were controversial, some more than others.
Nonetheless, on balance, the American people have
appreciated the fact that the Federal Government has a legal
tool with which to respond to public concerns about the
preservations of places that are keystones to our national
memory and help define us as a people and a nation.
Consider how today's voters and your children would feel if
you were the Congress of the day and had failed to protect the
Grand Canyon, or Death Valley, the Statue of Liberty, Denali,
Glacier Bay, or Thomas Edison's laboratory. These are just a
few of the monuments protected by the Antiquities Act.
There are over 100 other places enjoyed by hundreds of
millions of visitors, your constituents today--lands such as
the Grand Staircase-Escalante will continue to be visited by
future generations of America, all grateful for your foresight.
Even if an American of the 21st century trekking through
Grand Staircase-Escalante has forgotten the names of the men
and women of the 105th Congress who made that journey possible,
he or she will feel the glory of the American landscape and be
grateful that American voters found men and women of good faith
in each generation to preserve our sacred places for the next
generation.
So I come before you today, not to testify as an expert on
legislation or on the Grand Staircase-Escalante proclamation,
but to ask you to respect the wisdom of past Members of
Congress, Members who were in agreement with past proclamations
and some who were not, but all accepted the particular
proclamation of the sitting President and found ways to carry
out their responsibility to work with the President, resolve
conflicts about specific property, and still preserve the Act.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 has been the means for this
nation to make one of the most valuable investments any Federal
Government can make, and that is in the pride and honor and the
living memories that our great places carry for our people.
Thank you for the privilege of being able to testify before you
today.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Hinchey is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to first of all apologize for having to leave the
room for a while. I had an important appointment back in my
office so I had to be out for a few minutes. But I want to
express my appreciation to the members of the previous panel
and to the three gentlemen on this panel for their testimony
and just thank them for their concern about this very important
issue.
I happened to be able to hear the testimony of Mr.
Roosevelt, and the point has been made a number of times during
the course of this hearing that it was, of course, Theodore
Roosevelt I who was the first President to use this ability,
and it has been done so by virtually every President in this
century since then to designate national monuments and to
recognize, as you put in your testimony, those areas that
define us as a people and inform us as to who we are, where we
have been, and hopefully give us some indication as to where we
are going.
I know that there are a lot of people who support this
issue, Mr. President. Among them are people who have written to
us. Now, I have here a box which contains several hundred
letters that have been written to the committee, and I know in
accordance with what you have said earlier, you intend to make
every document relative to this part of the record. So I just
want to stipulate that or request that these letters also be
made part of the record, and I am sure that is your intention.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Mr. Roosevelt, you know, I have been
fascinated by your great grandfather. He was a remarkable
figure. Have you done a significant study of his life?
Mr. Roosevelt. I have certainly read a lot about him, but
to say a significant, he is a difficult man to get your hands
around.
Mr. Cannon. In fact, I view this as one of the great
opportunities, and what I would like to explore, and I really
have no preconceptions about this, is how he went about using
the Antiquities Act during his presidency. My sense was that he
was a man that was aggressive, that he didn't shun controversy,
but that what he did, he did openly. Would that not be a fair
assessment?
Mr. Roosevelt. Well, you are putting me a little bit on the
horns of a dilemma because I don't really want to comment on
the relations between this Congress and the Administration. But
I think I will add that he was clearly an extraordinary
politician. He was a man of the West. He spent a lot of time
out in the West. He knew the West. But he was willing to take
on controversy.
When he set some of those lands into either national parks
or national monuments or set up the national forests, there was
a lot of controversy, and some of the constituents in the West
called him a thief because at that time they didn't like what
he had done. But I think in the light of 20/20 hindsight, we do
like what he has done.
Mr. Cannon. But did they know in advance that he was going
to do it?
Mr. Roosevelt. I suspect in most instances he probably did.
He was usually pretty good at telegraphing. But you may recall
when he set aside the national forests, he and Gifford Pinchot
for several days sat on the floor of the White House, and they
mapped out which were going to be the lands of the national
forests. He then issued an executive proclamation which expired
when he signed the Agricultural Omnibus bill. But having issued
it before, it was valid. So that was an example of where he did
not do something in the public.
Mr. Cannon. But people knew that was coming? I mean, they
knew there was discussion and then it became a matter of
debate? That is actually a little bit of a difference. What I
can't imagine is your great grandfather having a panel of
people sitting in front of Congress like we had today saying,
``This was shrouded in secrecy. We were cut out of the process.
We were totally deceived about what was going on.''
That is where I think there is a difference in perception
about history, and, frankly, for the whole panel, I think that
you may misperceive the impressions of some of us. I think like
Mr. Hansen and I have some significant agreement with each
other and with you on the issue. We are not so much concerned
about the monument itself, that there are areas that are
absolutely beautiful.
I will say that my staff went down on a tour with the BLM
group and came back with several hundred pictures like those
you have showed us today, Mr. Till. There is only one picture
of the Kaiparowits area because it is not so very beautiful as
the things you have showed us. But that does not mean even a
reaction to that particular part. The reaction is probably to
the balance that we are trying to achieve in our public life.
Among other things, there has been a very intense debate in
recent years about public lands in Utah, as opposed to the time
of Teddy Roosevelt--was one of the very few people in the East
who understood the West, who had lived in the West, and who
appreciated the grandeur and beauty of the West.
Let me say, Mr. Austin, that you came to the conclusion--it
was a dramatic, unequivocal no. I think that people can
disagree about the co-habitation of coal, oil, and gas with
what you call the goose of beautiful nature and still
appreciate the beauty of this area, which I personally love and
have loved ever since I was a very young child and spent time
down there. In fact, we have family buried in that area.
Let me ask Mr. Till--actually, I had a couple of questions
for you. In the first place, you used the term icon which is
sort of an odd term. It often suggests a religious devotion.
When you used that for these areas down there, did you have any
sense of that, or do you just mean a beautiful area?
Mr. Till. I guess I don't quite understand your question. I
was using icon in terms of maybe not so much the religious
connotation as something that is set up as a symbol of great
beauty, and I think this park will be in the same league as
Grand Canyon, Glacier Bay in the public perception in the
future. That is all I was trying to say.
Mr. Cannon. You realize, of course, that that is not an
area of disagreement among us.
Mr. Till. OK.
Mr. Cannon. But let me ask you just one final question.
Mr. Till. Sure.
Mr. Cannon. You announced you are a member of the Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance. They as a group had wanted to have
about 1.3 or .4 million acres in this monument area set aside
as wilderness. Essentially, this matter is confusing, I think
even with Mr. Austin's testimony. Wilderness is a designation
to keep the incursions of mankind out; meaning, you don't take
bicycles, you don't take motorcycles, and those sorts of things
in.
And, yet, you talk about people coming in as though there
is not an inherent conflict which I think would have been
resolved if there had been an open discussion about this. Are
you not concerned about people coming in, Mr. Till, in large
numbers into this area--the sensitive areas this summer and
later on that your group has been very upfront about making
into wilderness?
Mr. Till. I am concerned about that somewhat, but I think
our critics accuse us of locking land up and then they accuse
us of opening it up to too many people at the same time. So I
think there would be recreational opportunities in this
monument with wilderness designation for wilderness-type
recreation, and there would be other areas where there would be
plenty of opportunity for other kinds of recreation.
But the fact that there are a lot of people coming there,
of course the publicity has generated that, and I think it will
continue. But I am not--there are so many factors why so many
people are coming to southern Utah I think it is a very complex
thing.
I think, as you know, the Wasatch Front population has
grown to a huge degree, and people are coming down from the
north so that is a factor. And I think there are other factors
outside just the designation of a national monument that
conservationists have no control over in terms of people coming
to the area.
Mr. Cannon. Would the Chair indulge me for two more
minutes?
Mr. Hansen. One more question.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. The issue here is not locking up or
not locking up the land. I mean, a monument designation does
what it does, and I believe that it actually eliminates the
wilderness status within the monument. In any event, if you are
going to go beyond the relatively small amount of wilderness
that was under a study area in there to the larger amount, that
would take an Act of Congress which apparently I don't think is
going to happen very quickly.
That leaves this area vulnerable. I believe that
vulnerability flows directly from the lack of process that we
went through in dealing with this and subjects areas which I
think that both you and I agree--not only do we agree as to the
beauty, but we agree that there are some seriously important
delicate ecosystems within that monument which are now going to
be opened up. Don't you find that a basis for criticism of the
President's action and the precipitous nature that he took that
action?
Mr. Till. Well, I would have to trust Secretary Babbitt and
his comments here today and hope that some of those matters can
be resolved with the partnership that he is proposing to put
together.
Mr. Cannon. But you don't have any concern that you want to
express here?
Mr. Till. I am concerned, yes. You know, nothing in life is
a win-win situation, and I think there are maybe some problems
with heavy visitation to this monument. It disturbs me
somewhat, I will be quite honest with you.
Mr. Hansen. I think Mr. Austin wants to respond also.
Mr. Austin. Yes. I would like to respond to that as well. I
am in a unique position to be able to evaluate that almost on a
daily basis as the operator and manager of the lodge that I
own. And it is my observation that the vast, vast majority of
the people that are coming to visit the area, and now has
nearly doubled since the announcement of the monument--
proclamation of the monument, most of these people--I guess I
should talk about it perhaps differently.
I don't know of anybody who is coming there to
intentionally do any damage to the monument, and that perhaps
on occasion there might be someone who unintentionally or
intentionally runs off into a roadless area and so forth.
But primarily the monument is so large that most of the
visitors come and drive Highway 12 and a few of the larger
roads--the Hole in the Rock road, the Burr Trail and so forth--
and they are not out into these more sensitive areas. And I
really share those concerns that you do and Congressman Hansen
and all of us here. But, yet, I think that within the next
three years, we are not going to suffer any major impacts that
we can't----
Mr. Hansen. One more.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you my
concern. The people that have come thus far, I believe your
characterization is probably correct of them. Those are people
that have the latitude to take vacations early or late.
Having worked much of my college career and otherwise with
people that work different kinds of jobs, my guess is that this
summer you are going to have lots and lots of people in four-
wheel drives who are going to be out on their testosterone-
laden journeys that are going to take them well beyond those
obviously marked roads. And I am deeply concerned.
This is not a matter of political posturing. I am deeply
concerned about what the impact of those vehicles is going to
be, and the very largeness of the monument itself is what leads
me to think you are going to have some serious damage out
there.
Mr. Austin. You know, well, that is a regulatory concern as
well, but I must point out that the impacts from that I would
much rather incur and endure than the impacts from coal and oil
mining.
Mr. Hansen. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Gentlemen, thank you for your statements.
I presume or at least I had hoped that perhaps you have had the
opportunity of listening to the prior testimony that was given,
especially by the members of the Utah Delegation and Secretary
Babbitt and Miss McGinty.
I respect the fact that statements have been made very
adequately and eloquently about the Antiquities Act, the fact
that for some 91 years this Act has never been amended. But I
think from all the testimony and statements that have been
made, there seems to be a common thread, in my opinion, of the
concerns that have been expressed by the top officials and the
government or the State of Utah to the effect that it wasn't so
much questioning the authority of the President as far as the
Antiquities Act is concerned--he has the authority--it wasn't
so much questioning the validity of the fact that these are
certain areas in the State of Utah that could be designated,
whether it be as a monument or even a wilderness area.
We have also heard that this situation did not just come
about within the last two or three months. This has been
ongoing now, at least in my membership of this Subcommittee,
for the past three or four years--I have been following it to
some extent.
But I want to ask you gentlemen, the question raised here
by the members of the Utah Delegation, and I know that the
Antiquities Law does not require the President to do any of the
things that we are trying to suggest very strongly, at least
from the members especially of the Utah Delegation, that it is
the unwritten rule or the wishes of comity or fairness in the
process that the President should always consult with the
highest officials of the States or whatever given issue that
affects the interests or the needs of that State. And I am
saying mainly the State of Utah.
Do you think, gentlemen, that there is a very valid concern
expressed by the Utah Delegation? Yes, there was consultation
but in the effect that Governor Leavitt, if I recall, was
consulted only in a matter of hours or even one or two days
before this proclamation was issued--an issue where you are
talking about 1.7 million acres, greater than the size of
Delaware and Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, having
a tremendous impact on the concerns that have been expressed by
the members of the Utah Delegation.
Do you think that perhaps the President could have
addressed this issue a lot better, or maybe putting it another
way, do you think that the President still would have been able
to issue the proclamation if he had consulted with the Utah
Delegation maybe one year prior to the issuance of the
proclamation? I mean, you are saying that the vast majority of
the people of Utah support the President's actions. Do you
think that perhaps the President still could have done it in a
better way?
Mr. Till. I am not sure that the vast majority of the
people in the State do support the action. I mean, I think
there are a very significant number that do. Polls I saw I
think were about 60/40 against the designation. So I am not
trying to say that. I do think that in time more people in Utah
will come to like the idea, and I think that the test of time
will convince a lot of people there that this was a good thing
to do.
In terms of the President's actions, I am not a politician.
I am an artist, and I listened to the testimony of Miss McGinty
today, and her explanations sounded reasonable and clear to me.
She sounded like a credible witness to me. So that is all I can
really say.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Austin, I was confused. I thought
maybe it was Boulder, Colorado, but I didn't know there was a
Boulder in Utah but go ahead.
Mr. Austin. Boulder, Utah. Yes. Well, I agree with Tom that
initially it was somewhat of a shock to everyone, and to some
it was a pleasant shock and some not so. Yet, what I witnessed
locally in Boulder and Escalante, and these are very small
communities all adjacent to the parks, that there was some
feeling that they didn't like the way it was done; yet, they
were happy with the results.
Now, I think that, with no intention of insults here, our
Utah Delegation should pay close attention to that, that we do
have--the result is we are protecting these lands, and it has
bypassed an impasse that we have been at for many, many, many
years.
And I commend the President for taking that bold action,
and I think that he is just not--he didn't go off half-cocked
and without thinking about this for some time. I mean, I didn't
speak to him, but I am sure that from what we have heard today
from Secretary Babbitt and Kathleen McGinty indicates that it
was, you know, primarily his decision and so forth.
And I know that today most of the people that I am
associated with in business are quite excited now that the
monument is there, and they are seeing the opportunities. They
have kind of gotten over the initial shock, and the whole issue
of process is rather forgotten. They are not thinking about it
anymore. I am hearing a lot of discussion about it here today,
but at the local level, it is a forgotten issue.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just one. I know my time is up, Mr.
Chairman, but I would note for the record that this three year
management plan is ongoing right now, and the Administration is
actively participating in the process, and that the residents
and the leaders of the State of Utah are participants.
Mr. Austin. Well, at the local level--I mean, we do have
BLM folks strolling into town asking myself as well as many
other people in town to encourage them to make comments and be
part of the process. You have to remember the nature of these
small rural areas is that engaging in process is generally not
part of their way of doing things. They tend to ignore many of
the processes of attending meetings and so forth.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My time is up. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman for his comments. You
know, I have been on this committee for 17 years, and I always
stand amazed at the perception that people have of the law--the
Antiquities Law, the NEPA Act, the FLPMA Act, and the
Wilderness Act. Mr. Roosevelt makes the statement, ``You cannot
improve upon it. Let it alone.'' They have already improved
upon it. The NEPA Act changed it, Wilderness Act, FLPMA--they
all have parts of it that could be instigated anytime somebody
wants to. It has already been done.
You get into other issues of what happens now. Do you
realize when this happened, my phone rang off the hook, and it
was people from Idaho, Oregon, California, Georgia, all of them
saying, ``Don't let that happen in my State.'' And you probably
heard some testimony here when it happened in Alaska--you know
what happened in Alaska? Right after that, Alaska said no. They
are off. Statutory law took them off.
Same thing happened to Wyoming. When Wyoming got one put
on, statutory law took it off. So there are two States
excluded. So, yes, I think right now there is probably an
attitude to repeal the whole shooting match because it has
outlived itself.
But on the other side of the coin, it probably wouldn't be
a smart thing to do. That is why I think Mr. Babbitt wasn't
thinking, and I cautioned him to think it through, that
possibly it would be smarter, if he thinks about it, and amend
it. This law didn't come from God. It wasn't coming from Moses
on Mt. Sinai that gave us the Ten Commandments. Laws are made
by puny little men, and men change them.
Now, you all talk about protection, as everybody has today,
as if you think that the monument is more protection than the
FLPMA Act. Give me a break. It is just not so. The FLPMA Act is
more protection than a monument, by far.
I asked Mr. Till, the artist, where has anything been
desecrated under the FLPMA Act in your area? I haven't seen it,
and I have represented that area for 10 years. I have lived in
that area my entire life, back and forth every year--two or
three times a year I am down there--two or three times a month
many times. I am still looking for where that has happened.
The FLPMA Act--what a lot of so-called environmentalists
don't understand--gives much more protection than the monument
does. So when one of our great artists that lives in Sundance,
Utah, stands up and says, ``All of this will be open for
development if this bill goes through,'' in effect, shot
himself in the foot on this monument. Now it is starting to
open for development.
You saw Senator Bennett there. Have you seen his bill?
Well, maybe, Mr. Austin, you want that. You probably want
thousands of people pouring through Boulder every day. I don't
and, frankly, I think those three pieces of wilderness we put
in there should be in that Wilderness Act in the area.
And, in effect, in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of
good legal experts, the wilderness WSAs were extinguished when
the President stood up and did that, and we are willing to take
that to Court and find that out. And I think we would win on
that one because there is nothing in a monument that allows for
wilderness. It does in these other areas. Now, it has been
wilderness, but it happens after so we are all entitled to our
viewpoints. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Austin talks about the idea that the majority of people
want 5.7. Which of the hundred different polls are you talking
about? There are polls all over the place. One is 200 sampling.
Now, those of us--we are in the poll business. We don't want to
be, but we are just because we are elected. And I think, if
anything, I could read a poll. And a 200 sample, the one you
are referring to, taken in the middle of Salt Lake is hardly a
very good poll.
The best poll taken on that was done by a fellow by the
name of Dr. Snyder at the Utah State University who did five--
put it out, and the first question, he explained, ``How many of
you want the 5.7 million?'' Now, this was done in an exhaustive
study. 54 percent of them said they wanted it.
The next question they explained what wilderness was, what
you can and can't do, because the vast majority of Utahans and
Americans don't even know the definition of the term. After
they understood it, it dropped to 19 percent. I would be
willing as Chairman of this committee to put it on the ballot
and say, ``I will live with whatever the people of Utah want.
Vote on it.'' If they want 5.7, fine. I will back Congressman
Hinchey's bill. If they want zero, fine. I will back that up.
If they want 1.2, I will back that.
But many times most people don't realize. I would be more
than willing to put it on the ballot and find out. I hear this
stated all the time from environmental people, ``The majority
of them want it.'' Where are they? Show me that poll. We have
looked at every one of them and had that thing polled to death.
So really I respect what every one of you said.
I have great respect for Theodore Roosevelt and what he
did. My son-in-law, a very prominent litigator in Utah, gathers
Teddy Roosevelt books like you can't believe. I have never seen
such a collection of them in my entire life. In fact, if you
don't mind, I will have him call you. He would love to talk to
you.
But let us put this thing in its proper perspective when we
talk about this. One thing nice about living in America, we can
all say what we think. And today we have heard a lot of that,
and I appreciate it. And this hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Roosevelt. The ``it'' that you referred to, the
antecedent to it is not the Antiquities Act, but Grand Canyon.
Mr. Hansen. I am sorry?
Mr. Roosevelt. The ``it'' that you referred to is not the
Antiquities Act that can't be improved upon, but it is Grand
Canyon.
Mr. Hansen. Oh, I would agree with that.
Mr. Roosevelt. You said in your opening statement that
``it'' was the----
Mr. Hansen. Unlike you, I have a love affair with that
area. I have no problem. I agree with that.
Mr. Roosevelt. OK.
[Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1269.044