[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, AND H.R. 2147
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-59
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-322 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 13, 2011...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, Statement submitted for the record....... 45
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.............................. 8
Prepared statement on.................................... 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 302........................... 19
Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah..... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 2147.......................... 12
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 817........................... 17
Labrador, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 846........................... 21
Rasker, Ray, Ph.D., Executive Director, Headwaters Economics. 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R.
845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147........................... 26
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 845........................... 15
Taylor, Hon. Jerry, Mayor, Escalante City, Utah.............. 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R.
845, H.R. 846, H.R. 2147............................... 34
Additional materials supplied:
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement submitted for the record on
H.R. 758................................................... 46
Society for American Archaeology, Statement submitted for the
record on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846,
and H.R. 2147.............................................. 47
U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the
record on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846,
and H.R. 2147.............................................. 48
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 302, TO PROVIDE FOR STATE APPROVAL
OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``PRESERVE LAND FREEDOM FOR AMERICANS ACT OF 2011'';
H.R. 758, TO AMEND THE ACT POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 TO REQUIRE CERTAIN PROCEDURES
FOR DESIGNATING NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. ``NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT''; H.R. 817, TO AMEND THE
ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 TO PLACE ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS
UNDER THAT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 845, TO
PROHIBIT THE FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN MONTANA, EXCEPT BY EXPRESS
AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``MONTANA LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT''; H.R. 846, TO PROHIBIT
THE FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL
MONUMENTS IN IDAHO, EXCEPT BY EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF
CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``IDAHO LAND
SOVEREIGNTY ACT''; AND H.R. 2147, TO PROHIBIT THE
FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL
MONUMENTS IN UTAH EXCEPT BY EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF
CONGRESS. ``UTAH LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT.''
----------
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Rob
Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Duncan, McClintock,
Labrador, Gosar, Grijalva, Kildee, Holt, and Markey [ex
officio].
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on a number of pieces
of legislation. They will include H.R. 302, ``Preserve Land
Freedom for Americans Act of 2011''; H.R. 758, ``National
Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act'';
H.R. 817, a bill to amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place
additional requirements on the establishment of national
monuments under the Act, and for other purposes; H.R. 845, the
Montana Land Sovereignty Act; H.R. 846, ``Idaho Land
Sovereignty Act''; and H.R. 2147, ``Utah Land Sovereignty
Act.''
Under Committee Rules, the opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee and
the Full Committee. However, I ask unanimous consent to include
any other Members' opening statements in the hearing record if
submitted to the clerk by the close of business today. Hearing
no objection, so ordered.
Yesterday we learned that Jerry Taylor, who is the Mayor of
Escalante City, Utah, was on the East Coast with his wife, and
lucky for us he was able to delay a flight back home and make a
detour down here so he could offer the perspective of a local
community on the impact of monuments. Mayor Taylor is
intimately familiar with this subject since his city is
surrounded by part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument
that was designated in 2000.
Now, unfortunately, this is my fault as well, Mr. Taylor
was not here in time to allow his testimony to be written and
given to the Minority. He will be on the second panel, but to
do so it would only be at the acquiescence of the Minority,
realizing that such would be a violation of our Committee Rules
as well as procedure. So, I am going to let the Minority think
about how they wish to deal with Mayor Taylor.
If Mayor Taylor is here, if we don't decide to allow the
testimony which, once again, as I said, violates our concept of
our Committee Rules, I would ask that his testimony be put in
written form and submitted later into the record, which would
be fine with me. So, I will let you think about that one and
how you wish to preserve it. It is totally within your
prerogative to do that, and I also apologize for putting you in
this position because I should have been farther ahead than I
was. It is my fault.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, on that very important note that it is
your fault, I have no objection and would be glad to hear the
Mayor's testimony.
Mr. Bishop. That is very kind of you, Mr. Grijalva.
At this point I also ask unanimous consent that any Member
of the Subcommittee or Full Committee wishing to participate in
today's hearing be allowed to join us at the dais, including
those Members testifying on their own bills. Without objection,
so ordered.
Once again, I realize that all of you are very busy
individuals who will be here on our first panel. Again, once
your testimony is over, if you need to go to other commitments,
I understand that. However, if you would like to stay and join
with us, we would welcome you here. If indeed you think there
is something more important than I am, go ahead and try to do
it. See if I care.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Today, we will hear testimony on a number of
bills to reform the Antiquities Act, a process that was used to
create national monuments. Established in 1906, the Antiquities
Act authorizes the President to proclaim at will national
monuments on Federal lands. This is indeed a legislative
function that has been transferred to the Executive Branch
which ought to provide us with philosophical problems in the
first place.
It was created to protect historical landmarks or
prehistoric structures or objects of scientific interest.
However, the Act has been used to designate enormous tracts of
land well beyond what the Act says as the smallest area
compatible with the proper care and management of the objects
to be protected. Indeed, Antiquities have three goals. It was
to protect something that was specific, of specific interest; a
specific interest that, number two, was endangered status; and
number three, in the smallest area possible.
Since its inception in 1906, Presidents have proclaimed a
total of 128 monuments and while some have received absolutely
little or absolutely no opposition, some have been very
contentious, like the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
Monument in the State of Utah, as well as monuments that have
been designated in other western states.
Like other designations before and after, local leaders and
congressional delegations were misled and the entire secretive,
non-transparent process led to litigation and a litany of other
problems. The Antiquities Act has been abused by Presidents,
unfortunately, of both parties. But it is those of us in the
West who suffer the brunt of these practices where the timing
and the large scope of many designations, like Grand Staircase-
Escalante, have resulted in unnecessary hardships for local
communities who depend upon access and use of the lands and
their resources.
In Escalante we will hear, thanks to Representative
Grijalva's acquiesce, from the Mayor today who will talk about
the particular hardships that have been put on his community,
and one of those areas where there is a large reserve of off-
limit coal. It is unique. Secretary Udall at one time pointed
to this area and claimed it to be America's economic future.
And even though that future still exists out there, because of
the lack of the ability to get those resources and, because of
the monument, thousands of Utah school kids have been harmed.
If you look at the 15 states in this nation who have the
hardest time to fund their education system, the slowest growth
in their education system, you will find out 13 of those 15 are
public land states found in the West, found in the West where
potential is denied them. That kind of potential is never
actually included in any of the estimates or discussions of
what could have been, and especially the harm it does to the
education community in western states.
The Antiquities Act has been successfully curbed twice.
Congress included requirements for congressional consent for
any future creation or enlargement of national monuments in
Wyoming in 1943. Similarly, controversial designations in
Alaska in 1978 spurred legislation requiring congressional
approval for withdrawals in Alaska that would be greater than
5,000 miles. It is appropriate that this legislative
responsibility be actually returned to the Legislature, and
would solve once and for all the issue of Presidents adding or
taking from any area that is a monument at will.
Last year, contrary to the claims of increased
transparency, a document from the Interior Department revealed
the Obama Administration had been planning to designate 14 new
national monuments using the Antiquities Act. The proposal
would have locked up millions of acres of public land in the
West. If you were to add the States of Connecticut, Delaware,
Rhode Island and New Jersey together, you have 11 million acres
of land. This designation was to have 13 to 14 million acres of
land locked up as new monuments and even more if you included
private sector land that would be in this process.
Following the models of Wyoming and Alaska, the bills that
we will examine today have the goal of avoiding this problem
and making sure that Congress is indeed involved in the
concept. What was most frustrating for all of us is, even
though these discussions within the Interior Department were
simply brainstorming, the concept of the brainstorming was how
to avoid Congress, how to work around Congress in making these
types of designations.
We need to ensure that the interests and livelihoods of all
residents and stakeholders are considered and protected. Land
use designations such as monuments and wilderness should be an
initiative at the local level, not out of pressure from
Washington or from special interest groups, and definitely not
done ever again unilaterally.
While I appreciate the Administration's willingness to
abandon the terrible wildlands proposal, and their commitments
to allow the consideration and coordination with local levels
for those in the future who may be impacted, I have to say that
my predecessors have received similar commitments from other
administrations in the past, and yet national monuments were
thrust upon them anyway without any input from either Congress
or from the local areas, and that is the nicest way of putting
it.
We should never allow the Administration to try and avoid
Congress, and actually never allow them to use a legislative
function to avoid Congress in the first place. We are in the
midst of a recession. It is nice for those who push for a
wilderness agenda if they would also look that whatever we do
does not compete with creation of jobs or domestic
interference. That would be counterproductive. Managing our
national assets in the future will have to be done by doing
more with less, and we must begin by managing our Federal lands
and natural resources for the benefit of the entire public.
Wilderness is attainable, but it is also to be considered
with other factors in the use of the land in mind. We cannot
afford to do one at the expense of the other, and absent the
reforms outlined today, monument designation may be constrained
in size, solely limited to contiguous lands that are already
owned by the Federal Government. They should be limited to the
sites that clearly contain historic landmarks or historic and
prehistoric structures or other objects of historic or
scientific interest. Monument designation should not be used as
a backdoor maneuver to lock up lands for general purposes that
deny public access for recreation or job creation. Private
property and inholdings should be excluded from designation.
Designation should be limited to the areas that face the
clearly articulated and imminent threats, and the simplistic
and generalized notion that any particular commercial use is a
threat is neither correct nor adequate justification for
preemptive action.
Now once more, importantly, it is significant that
legislative functions should reside with the Legislature, not
the Executive Branch.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Today we will hear testimony on a number or bills to reform the
Antiquities Act, or the process used to create national monuments.
Established in 1906, the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to
proclaim national monuments on federal lands and regulate the care and
study of our nation's antiquities. While it was created to quickly
reserve and protect historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest, the
Act has been used to designate tracks of land well beyond, as the Act
states, ``the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.''
Since its inception in 1906, Presidents have proclaimed a total of
128 monuments. While some have received little to no opposition, some
have been much more contentious, like the creation of Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument in the State of Utah. Like other
designations before it, this led to litigation and a litany of other
problems.
The Antiquities Act has been abused by Presidents of both parties
but it is in the West where the timing and large scope of many
designations like the Grand Staircase-Escalante have resulted in
unnecessary hardship to local communities dependent upon access and use
of the land and resources. In Escalante, as we will hear from the mayor
today, this created particular hardship and put one of the nation's
largest coal reserves off limits.
While no court challenges have succeeded in undoing a presidential
designation, Presidential authority under the Antiquities Act has
successfully been curbed twice. Following the unpopular 1943
proclamation of Jackson Hole National Monument, legislation
incorporating Jackson Hole into Grand Teton National Park included a
requirement for Congressional consent for any future creation or
enlargement of National Monuments in Wyoming. Similarly, controversial
designations in Alaska in 1978 spurred legislation requiring
congressional approval for withdrawals in Alaska greater than 5,000
acres.
Last year, contrary to the claims of increased transparency, an
internal document from the Interior Department revealed that the Obama
Administration may be planning to designate as many as 14 new National
Monuments under the Antiquities Act. The proposed designations would
lock-up millions of acres of public lands in the West, without
Congressional approval, and restrict access for energy production,
recreation, and other job-creating economic activities for numerous
rural communities throughout the West. Following the models of Wyoming
and Alaska, the bills that we will examine at today's hearing would
prevent any unilateral Administrative action and require either state
approval or authorization by Congress prior to a national monument
designation.
We need to ensure that the interests and livelihoods of all
residents and stakeholders are considered and protected. Land use
designations such as national monuments and wilderness should be
initiated at the local level, not out of pressure from Washington and
definitely not unilaterally.
While I appreciate the administration's willingness to abandon
their terrible Wild Lands proposal and additional commitments to allow
for the consideration and coordination at the local level by those who
are impacted most, my predecessor received similar commitments from the
Clinton administration and yet the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument was thrust upon us anyway.
America is in the midst of a recession with elevated unemployment,
yet the Obama Administration continues to push a ``wilderness agenda''
that competes with our national priorities of job creation and domestic
energy independence. This is counter-productive.
The Republican Majority in Congress understands that we are at a
critical juncture when it comes to managing our nation's assets and the
current state of our economy mandates that we do more with less. It is
imperative that we begin to manage our federal lands and natural
resources for a maximum return on conservation, economic and public
benefit. Improved management of our federal lands and resources will
create much-needed jobs, amplify conservation efforts and make America
more self-reliant and insulated from global market fluctuations of
energy and critical minerals.
Wilderness is attainable but it also has to be considered with
other factors and uses of the land in mind. We cannot afford to do one
at the expense of the other. Absent the reforms outlined today,
monument designations must be constrained in size and solely limited to
contiguous lands that are already owned by the federal government. They
should be limited to the sites that clearly contain ``historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of
historic or scientific interest.'' Monument designations should not be
used as a backdoor maneuver to lockup lands for general purposes that
deny public access for recreation and job-creation. Private property
and inholdings should be excluded from designations. Designations
should also be limited to areas that face clearly-articulated, imminent
threats. The simplistic, generalized notion that any potential
commercial use is a threat is neither correct nor adequate
justification for peremptory action.
______
Mr. Bishop. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today. I would now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee for his opening statement, and then we will
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee for his
opening statement. Mr. Grijalva.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In many of the debates we have in this Committee I believe
that my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the
issue. For example, I believe that when it comes to wilderness,
and I believe when it comes to the issue of protecting lands
near our national borders, then my colleagues are on the wrong
side of the issue. And when it comes to the designations of
national monuments under the Antiquities Act, I believe my
Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue.
However, I also believe they are on the wrong side of history.
The proponents of the legislation to undermine the
Antiquities Act, to prohibit the President from acting quickly
when necessary are on the wrong side of history in two ways.
First, they fail to appreciate the enormously valuable and
terribly fragile historic resources the Act was designed to
protect. The Pueblo ruins at Chaco Canyon, the ruins at the
Mission at Tumacacori, the petroglyphs at Agua Fria, the
African Burial Grounds in New York City, and hundreds of other
sites protected as national monuments by the Presidents under
the Antiquities Act are significant chapters in the history of
this nation, and these chapters might well have been diminished
or even lost had the legislation before us been law in the
years past.
Those who support destructive amendments to the Antiquities
Act either fail to realize the value of the resources the Act
has preserved or the seriousness of the threats posed to the
resources or both. Even worse, critics of the Act may believe
that there are no new historic sites to discover or no fragile
chapters in the American story in danger of disappearing
forever.
I can assure my colleagues that the work already done
pursuant to the Antiquities Act has been invaluable and the
work left to be done is just as significant. Those proposing to
amend the Antiquities Act are on the wrong side of history in a
broader sense as well. History has already affirmed the wisdom
of previous national monument designations and history will
judge new attempts to weaken the Act very harshly. More than 30
national monuments designated by former Presidents under the
Act, some of which were controversial at the time, have been
reaffirmed and elevated by later congressional action. Olympic,
Zion, Acadia, Bryce, Carlsbad Caverns and Grand Canyon are
among the areas protected as national monuments before they
were national parks. The verdict of history supporting this
decision is emphatic and those who oppose them have been found
guilty of a lack of vision.
As the American people marvel at the stunning culture and
historic artifacts protected in some future national monument,
those proposing to weaken the Antiquities Act to date could
suffer a similar judgment.
We will hear claims that national monuments mean expansion
of Federal land ownership or that they harm private property
rights or that they harm local communities. None of those
allegations are true. This is not a debate about a Federal land
grab. This is a debate about whether we want to lose critical
cultural and natural resources to unlimited drilling, unending
road building, and unrestricted off-road vehicle use. This is a
debate about whether we value our past enough to pass it on to
the children of the future. This is a debate about what kind of
country we want and what we want it to look like 100 years from
now. This is a debate in which those seeking to undermine the
Antiquities Act are on the wrong side of the issue, the wrong
side of the American people, and the wrong side of history.
History makes us who we are and what we will continue to be.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
In many of the debates we have in this committee, I believe my
Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue. For example,
I believe they are on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to
wilderness and I believe they are on the wrong side of the issue when
it comes to protecting lands near the border.
And when it comes to designation of national monuments under the
Antiquities Act, I believe my Republican colleagues are on the wrong
side of the issue--however, I also believe they are on the wrong side
of history.
The proponents of legislation to undermine the Antiquities Act--to
prohibit the President from acting quickly when necessary--are on the
wrong side of history in two ways. First, they fail to appreciate the
enormously valuable and terribly fragile historic resources the Act was
designed to protect.
The pueblo ruins at Chaco Canyon, the ruins of the mission at
Tumacacori, the petroglyphs at Agua Fria, the African Burial Grounds in
New York City and hundreds of other sites protected as national
monuments by Presidents under the Antiquities Act are significant
chapters in the story of this nation. These chapters might well have
been diminished or even lost had the legislation before us today been
in law in years past.
Those who support destructive amendments to the Antiquities Act
either fail to realize the value of the resources the Act has preserved
or the seriousness of the threats posed to those resources, or both.
Even worse, critics of the Act may believe that there are no new
historic sites to discover or no fragile chapters in the American story
in danger of disappearing forever. I can assure my colleagues that the
work already done pursuant to the Antiquities Act has been invaluable
and the work left to be done is just as significant.
Those proposing to amend the Antiquities Act are on the wrong side
of history in a broader sense, as well. History has already affirmed
the wisdom of previous national monument designations and history will
judge new attempts to weaken the Act harshly.
More than 30 national monuments designated by former Presidents
under the Act--some of which were controversial at the time--have been
reaffirmed and elevated by later Congressional action.
Olympic, Zion, Acadia, Bryce, Carlsbad Caverns, and the Grand
Canyon are among the areas protected as national monuments before they
were national parks. The verdict of history supporting these decisions
is emphatic and those who opposed them have been found guilty of a lack
of vision.
As the American people marvel at the stunning cultural and historic
artifacts protected in some future national monument, those proposing
to weaken the Antiquities Act today could suffer similar judgment.
We will hear claims that national monuments mean expansion of
federal land ownership, or that they harm private property rights or
that they harm local communities. None of those allegations are true.
This is not a debate about a federal land grab. This is a debate
about whether we want to lose critical natural and cultural resources
to unlimited drilling, unending road building, and unrestricted off-
road vehicle use. This is a debate about whether we value our past
enough to pass it on to the children of the future. This is a debate
about what kind of country we want and what we want it to look like 100
years from now.
This is a debate in which those seeking to undermine the
Antiquities Act are on the wrong side of the issue, the wrong side of
the American people, and the wrong side of the history that makes us
who we are. I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I would
just like to begin by saying what a great honor it is to have
Senator Hatch here today. You may not be a national monument,
but you are a national treasure, and we very much appreciate
your being over here.
Mr. Chairman, our great nation has been shaped by our many
significant political movements. The civil rights movement
sought justice and equality. The environmental movement sought
breathable air and drinkable water for our children. These are
proud chapters in our nation's history. It is my hope that
today's hearing marks the death of a political movement,
however. It is time finally for the ``stop the monuments
movement'' to end.
The stop the monuments movement was organized around the
belief that a plan conceived by Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 poses a
serious threat to the United States of America and must be
stopped. To supporters of this movement, the Antiquities Act
poses such a dire threat that six different bills in this
Congress alone are needed to defend America against the danger
posed by national monuments. It is time for this to stop.
In fact, the stop the monuments movement should have been
declared dead last February. That is when an amendment to H.R.
1 to prohibit new national monument designations failed on the
House Floor. Two hundred and thirteen Members of this House,
including 34 Republicans, voted against that amendment. A
majority of this House is now on record rejecting the stop the
monuments movement, and it is time for this Committee to reject
this movement as well.
It would not be a great loss. The stop the monuments
movement was never particularly popular. Fifteen Presidents,
both Republicans and Democrats, rejected the movement and used
the Antiquities Act to designate more than 100 national
monuments. George W. Bush used the Act six times, including
designation of the largest national monument ever.
Prior Congresses rejected the call to stop national
monuments as well. For many years the Interior appropriations
bill has protected national monuments by prohibiting oil and
gas development within their boundaries. Congress has also
acted more than 30 times to reaffirm monuments designated under
the Antiquities Act by upgrading them to national parks or
other units of the National Park System, and, in addition, to
American Presidents in previous Congresses, the American people
flatly rejected the stop the monuments movement.
Many of the monuments designated under the Antiquities Act
are among the most beloved and most visited destinations in the
country. In addition to its lack of support, it is time for the
stop the monuments movement to end because the two claims on
which the movement is based are plainly false.
The first claim is that national monument designations are
land grabs that lock up private property. In reality the
Antiquities Act authorizes the President to designate national
monuments on Federal land only. The Act allows the President to
act quickly to protect resources already owned by the Federal
Government. These designations do not and cannot take private
property.
The second basic tenet on stop the monuments movement is
that monument designations harm local economies. This claim is
false as well. As Dr. Rasker will testify today, each of the
large national monument designations examined by Headwaters
Economics was followed by increases in population, employment,
and household income the surrounding community.
In the end, the stop the monuments movement failed to
attract significant interest. It was based on false allegations
and anecdotal information squarely at odds with economic
reality. The stop the monument movement has clearly run its
course.
If public opinion, economic data, Presidential support and
a majority vote of the full House of Representatives are
relevant, this would be the last meeting of the stop the
monuments movement in history, and if this is indeed the very
place the monument movement meets its end, perhaps some future
President will see fit to designate this hearing room as a
national monument. That is how important that effort will be.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, our great nation has been shaped by many significant
political movements. The civil rights movement sought justice and
equality; the environmental movement sought breathable air and
drinkable water for our children. These are proud chapters in our
nation's history.
It is my hope that today's hearing marks the death of a political
movement, however.
It is time, finally, for the Stop the Monuments Movement to end.
The Stop the Monuments Movement was organized around the belief
that a plan conceived by Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 poses a serious threat
to the United States of America and must be stopped.
To supporters of this movement, the Antiquities Act poses such a
dire threat, that six different bills in this Congress alone are needed
to defend America against the danger posed by national monuments.
It is time for this to stop. In fact, the Stop the Monuments
Movement should have been declared dead last February. That is when an
amendment to H.R. 1 to prohibit new national monument designations
failed on the House floor.
213 Members of this House, including 34 Republicans, voted against
that amendment. A majority of this House is now on record rejecting the
Stop the Monuments Movement--it is time for this Committee to reject
this movement as well.
It would not be a great loss--the Stop the Monuments Movement was
never particularly popular. Fifteen Presidents, both Republicans and
Democrats, rejected the movement and used the Antiquities Act to
designate more than 100 national monuments. George W. Bush used the Act
6 times, including designation of the largest national monument ever.
Prior Congresses rejected the call to stop national monuments, as
well. For many years, the Interior Appropriations bill has protected
national monuments by prohibiting oil and gas development within their
boundaries.
Congress has also acted more than 30 times to reaffirm monuments
designated under the Antiquities Act by upgrading them to national
parks or other units of the National Park System.
And in addition to American Presidents, and previous Congresses,
the American people have also flatly rejected the Stop the Monuments
Movement. Many of the monuments designated under the Antiquities Act
are among the most-beloved and most-visited destinations in the
country.
In addition to its lack of support, it is time for the Stop the
Monuments Movement to end because the two claims on which the movement
is based are plainly false.
The first claim is that national monument designations are ``land
grabs'' that ``lock up'' private property.
In reality, the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to
designate national monuments on federal land only. The Act allows the
President to act quickly to protect resources already owned by the
federal government. These designations do not, and cannot take private
property.
The second basic tenet of the Stop the Monuments Movement is that
monument designations harm local economies. This claim is false as
well.
As Dr. Rasker will testify today, each of the large national
monument designations examined by Headwaters Economics was followed by
increases in population, employment and household income in the
surrounding community.
In the end, the Stop the Monuments Movement failed to attract
significant interest. It was based on false allegations and anecdotal
information squarely at odds with economic reality. The Stop the
Monument Movement has clearly run its course.
If public opinion, economic data, Presidential support and a
majority vote of the full House of Representatives are relevant, this
will be the last meeting of the Stop the Monuments Movement in history.
And if this is indeed the very place the Movement meets its end,
perhaps some future President will see fit to designate this hearing
room as a national monument.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank the Ranking Member for joining us. I
appreciate very much his being here.
We will now turn to our first panel in what will be a
series of meetings on this particular topic. I appreciate them
all being here. Thank you for, first of all, your attendance
with us. Your written testimony will appear in the full hearing
record, and so you can keep your opening statements hopefully
to five minutes. The microphones are not automatic so please
make sure you press the button before you are beginning to
speak.
I first want to recognize the senior senator from my home
State of Utah, Mr. Hatch, to speak on H.R. 2147, the Utah Land
Sovereignty Act. Once again, we appreciate you coming over to
the true side of Capitol Hill, Senator Hatch.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
UTAH
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. And I don't think you are turned on.
Senator Hatch. Yes, it is on. I am just not close enough, I
guess.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and of
course, Chairman Markey, I appreciate you as well, and thank
you for your kind remarks.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for the
Utah Land Sovereignty Act. It is an honor to be here. I
especially appreciate Chairman Bishop's continued efforts to
stand up for me.
Mr. Bishop. If I can interrupt. We have a hard time hearing
you. Can you put that right in your mouth.
Senator Hatch. I will put that right up. How is that? Is
that better?
Mr. Bishop. That is a whole lot better. Thank you.
Senator Hatch. OK. I had better put my glasses on here.
It is an honor to recognize you, Mr. Chairman, and your
continued efforts to stand up for the needs of Utah here in the
House of Representatives. It is a pleasure to serve with you.
Like most western states, Utah is owned mostly by the
Federal Government. This creates a unique set of challenges for
Utahns. A lot of decisions that affect our daily lives are made
by faceless bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away. Many
of them believe that it is their duty to ``protect'' the land
from any future development.
When the Antiquities Act passed Congress in 1906, it was
intended to give the President the authority to designate small
areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned by the
United States. In theory, this is a good idea. We live in a
beautiful country and there are areas that merit protections.
Unfortunately, this authority is too easily abused.
In September of 1996, President Clinton used the
Antiquities Act to surprise Utah by establishing the 1.8
million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The
state had no warning that this was coming, and once it was done
we had no recourse. With a stroke of the pen 500 high paying
jobs in a rural Utah county disappeared, and actually thousands
of others when you look at the natural resources that were
there, that are there.
We thought we had seen the worst that could be done with
this Act to score political points at the expense of public
land states. Last year when the so-called treasured landscape
memo was leaked to this committee we realized that it could be
much worse. We found out that this President is not only
willing to abuse the Antiquities Act, but that his Interior
Department was getting ready to advise him on where to do it.
Two of the areas they had identified for possible monument
designation happened to be in Utah. That is why it is essential
that the bills we are discussing today pass and the Congress be
given the ultimate say on which areas will become national
monuments.
Now don't get me wrong, Utah is a beautiful place, and
there are areas that should be protected, but there are also
vast areas that do not merit protection. Many of these areas
also have vast stores of recoverable energy in the form of oil,
natural gas and oil shell. The Utah delegation is working hard
with local leaders as well as interested parties from both
sides of the debate to identify those lands that should be
preserved and those that should be open for development. What
we don't need is the Administration making those decisions for
us.
My bill, S. 1182, with the House companion H.R. 2147, will
guarantee that Utah does not have any more surprise monument
designations like we have had back in 1996.
Ultimately the goal of this bill is to protect jobs. Some
people will say that we, Republicans, want to throw away our
nation's most beautiful places for a few jobs and a few
dollars. That is certainly not the case. We just want to be
able to use the process that is in place without worrying that
our work will be overruled by a President desperate to score
political points.
Now, this is a very important issue to rural Utahns. We
need to protect our state from anymore surprises like the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you
for giving us this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hatch follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Orrin Hatch, a U.S. Senator
from the State of Utah
Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for the
opportunity to discuss the need for the ``Utah Lands Sovereignty Act.''
It's an honor to be here. I especially appreciate Chairman Bishop's
continued efforts to stand up for the needs of Utah here in the House
of Representatives. Rob, it is a pleasure to serve with you.
Like most Western states, Utah is owned mostly by the federal
government. This creates a unique set of challenges for Utahns. A lot
of decisions that affect our daily lives are made by faceless
bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away.
Many of them believe that it is their duty to ``protect'' the land
from any future development.
When the Antiquities Act passed Congress in 1906 it was intended to
give the President the authority to designate small areas of historic
or scientific interest on lands owned by the United States. In theory,
this is a good idea. We live in a beautiful country and there are areas
that merit protections. Unfortunately, this authority is too easily
abused.
In September of 1996, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act to
surprise Utah by establishing the 1.8 million acre Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. The State had no warning that this was
coming, and once it was done we had no recourse.
With the stroke of the pen, 500 high-paying jobs in a rural Utah
county disappeared.
We thought we had seen the worst that could be done with this Act
to score political points at the expense of public-lands states. Last
year when the so-called, Treasured Landscapes memo was leaked to this
committee we realized that it could be much worse.
We found out that this President is not only willing to abuse the
Antiquities Act, but that his Interior Department was getting ready to
advise him on where to do it. Two of the areas they had identified for
possible monument designation are in Utah.
That is why it is essential that the bills we are discussing today
pass and the Congress be given the ultimate say on which areas will
become national monuments.
Now don't get me wrong. Utah is a beautiful place and there are
areas that should be protected. But there are also vast areas that do
not merit protection. Many of these areas also have vast stores of
recoverable energy in the form of oil, natural gas and oil shale. The
Utah delegation is working hard with local leaders as well as
interested parties from both sides of the debate to identify those
lands that should be preserved and those that should be opened for
development. What we don't need is the administration making those
decisions for us.
My bill, S. 1182, with the house companion H.R. 2147 will guarantee
that Utah does not have any more surprise monument designations like we
had back in 1996.
Ultimately the goal of this bill is to protect jobs. Some people
will say we republicans want to throw away our nation's most beautiful
places for a few jobs and a few dollars. That is not the case. We just
want to be able to use the process that is in place without worrying
that our work will be overruled by a President desperate to score
political points.
This is a very important issue to rural Utahns. We need to protect
our state from any more surprises like the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument.
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Senator, thank you, and I know in your busy
schedule, whenever you need to leave you are excused. If you
would like to stay, we would be more than happy to have you
here.
Senator Hatch. Well, if you will forgive me, I think maybe
I would get back over to the other side, but thank you for your
kindness, and I appreciate this committee very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We wish you well, and you will still
note it is still brighter on this side than it is over on that
side.
Senator Hatch. We always knew that over there.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We next turn to our other colleagues
who have bills both in front of us and on the panel as well.
The first one I would like to ask is a former member of this
Committee, the Representative At Large from the great State of
Montana, Mr. Denny Rehberg, to talk about H.R. 845, the Montana
Land Sovereignty Act. Congressman Rehberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before he leaves I
would like to thank Senator Hatch. This is the second time I
have appeared next to him. The most recent was on the issue of
wolves, and we were successful in getting that through the
Congress and signed by the President. I hope we are as
successful on this piece of legislation as well. I might point
out I did have to show him how to turn on the microphone so I
have done my duty as a House Member teaching the Senate today.
Chairman Bishop, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify here on behalf of my legislation, the
Montana Land Sovereignty Act. I am reminded of a Greek myth
about a guy named Damocles who was forced to sit in the King's
chair beneath a huge sword. The sword hangs from its handle
above his head by a single hair of a horse's tail. Damocles is
constantly aware of the sword's presence. He is miserable.
For Montana, the Antiquities Act is something like the
Sword of Damocles. Like the myth, we must cope with the
constant knowledge that one day we could wake up to find that
with the stroke of a pen the President declared the backyard a
national monument. For us, it is no myth. In the eleventh hour
of the outgoing Clinton Administration the Antiquities Act was
used, some say abused, to create the Upper Missouri Breaks
National Monument despite strong opposition across my home
State of Montana.
The Montana Land Sovereignty Act isn't about stopping new
monuments, it is simply about making sure that the American
public has a voice in the process. We were left out in 2001.
Ten years later history is repeating itself. By now you have
heard of the not-for-release Department of the Interior memo
that recommends millions of acres of new national monuments,
including 2.5 million acres in Montana. The emails show
detailed discussions that went into brainstorming for the plan.
The Great Falls Tribune read the documents and concluded that
the rumors started at the top levels of the Interior Department
agencies, and all of this happened in secret.
The only reason we found out was because the documents were
leaked. We got lucky this time. We had time to weigh in and the
opposition to the plan is clear at the town hall meetings I
hosted, on the bill boys' bumper stickers, and road signs
across the state. But for all of that opposition the President
could still act on those secret plans at any time, and that is
just wrong.
When we go back and look at the original House and Senate
reports from 1906, the debate was about archeology and
protecting Native American ruins from looters. When it passed,
this bill's strongest support came from Archeological Institute
of America, the American Anthropological Association, and the
Smithsonian Institution. The Antiquities Act was never meant to
circumvent Congress and designate huge parcels of land as
national monuments. In fact, this question was directly
considered during the debate.
On June 5, 1906, Mr. Stevens of Texas asked on the House
Floor if the Antiquities Act could be used to tie up large
parcels of land. The bill sponsor assures him ``Certainly not.
The object is entirely different. It is to preserve these old
objects of special interest and the Indian remains in the
Pueblos in the Southwest.'' I have the testimony, I would like
to have it entered into the record if I might, without
objection.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
[NOTE: The 17-page Stevens' statement submitted for the
record has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
didn't introduce the Montana Land Sovereignty Act to undermine
the intent of the Antiquities Act. On the contrary, my
legislation restores this valuable law to its original
intention; that is, history, on the preservation of American
antiquities, but the Montana Land Sovereignty Act is also about
protecting the American people from the unchecked,
unaccountable expansion of the Antiquities Act power.
Consider this. In one of the leaked memos the BLM
recommends using the Antiquities Act to designate monuments,
and I quote, ``should the legislative process not prove
fruitful.'' In other words, if the people say no, unelected
bureaucrats will do it anyway.
But in the State of Wyoming and Alaska, Presidential
designations of large national monuments must be ratified by
Congress. For those states BLM lays out a different policy
recommendation. I quote, ``The BLM also recommends that the
Administration begin a dialogue with Congress to encourage the
conservation of these areas.'' That is the approach the
Montanans deserve, dialogue instead of a top-down Federal
mandate. Under current law Congress must approve any national
monument designation in Wyoming and in parts of Alaska.
My commonsense bill simply establishes the same requirement
of congressional approval for new national monuments in
Montana. With your support in this committee we can restore the
Antiquities Act to its intended purpose. More importantly, we
can restore the power to govern in this country to the people.
That is where it belongs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Denny Rehberg, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Montana (At Large)
Chairman Bishop, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify here on behalf of my legislation--the Montana
Land Sovereignty Act.
You know, I'm reminded of a Greek myth about a guy named Damocles
who's forced to sit on the king's chair beneath a huge sword. The sword
hangs from its handle above his head by a single hair of a horse's
tail. Damocles is constantly aware of the sword's presence. He's
miserable.
For Montanans, the Antiquities Act is something like the sword of
Damocles. Like the myth, we must cope with a constant knowledge that,
one day, we could wake up to find that with the stroke of a pen, the
President declared their back yard a National Monument.
For us, it's no myth. In the eleventh hour of the outgoing Clinton
Administration, the Antiquities Act was used--some say abused--to
create the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, despite
strong opposition across the state.
The Montana Land Sovereignty Act isn't about stopping new National
Monuments. It's simply about making sure that the American public has a
voice in the process.
We were left out in 2001. Ten years later, history is repeating
itself.
By now, you've heard about the ``NOT FOR RELEASE'' Department of
the Interior memo that recommends millions of acres for new National
Monuments, including 2.5 million acres in Montana.
While the Department of Interior has downplayed the memo, the
Associated Press wrote that ``The e-mails show detailed discussions
that went into brainstorming'' for the plan. The Great Falls Tribune
read the documents and concluded that, ``the rumors started at the top
levels of Interior Department agencies.''
And all of this happened in secret. The only reason we found out
was because the documents were leaked. We got lucky this time. We had
time to weigh in, and the opposition to the plan is clear at the town
hall meetings I hosted and on billboards, bumper stickers and road
signs across the state. But for all that opposition, the President
could still act on those secret plans at any time. That's just wrong.
When we go back and look at the original House and Senate Reports
from 1906, the debate was about archeology and protecting Native
American ruins from looters. When it passed, this bill's strongest
support came from the Archaeological Institute of America, the American
Anthropological Association and the Smithsonian Institution.
The Antiquities Act was never meant to circumvent Congress and
designate huge parcels of land as National Monuments. In fact, this
question was directly considered during the debate. On June 5, 1906,
Mr. Stephens of Texas asked on the House floor if the Antiquities Act
could be used to tie up large parcels of land, the bills' sponsor
assures him: ``Certainly not. The object is entirely different. It is
to preserve these old objects of special interest and the Indian
remains in the pueblos in the Southwest.'' Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I didn't introduce the Montana Land Sovereignty Act to
undermine the intent of the Antiquities Act. On the contrary, my
legislation restores this valuable law to its original intention: the
preservation of American antiquities.
But the Montana Land Sovereignty Act is also about protecting the
American people from the unchecked, unaccountable expansion of
Antiquities Act power.
Consider this: In one of the leaked memos, the BLM recommends using
the Antiquities Act to designate Monuments, ``should the legislative
process not prove fruitful.'' In other words, if the people say no,
unelected bureaucrats will do it anyway.
But in the States of Wyoming and Alaska, Presidential designations
of large National Monuments must be ratified by Congress. For those
states, BLM lays out a different policy recommendation: ``The BLM also
recommends that the Administration begin a dialogue with Congress to
encourage the conservation of these areas.''
That's the approach Montanans deserve: dialogue instead of top-down
federal mandates. Under current law, Congress must approve any National
Monument designation in Wyoming and in parts of Alaska. My common-sense
bill simply establishes the same requirement of congressional approval
for new National Monuments in Montana.
With your support in this committee, we can restore the Antiquities
Act to its intended purpose. More importantly, we can restore the power
to govern in this country to the people. That's where it belongs.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Rehberg. And the same
offer applies to you. If you need to go do something else, you
are excused. If you would like to stay here with us, we would
be more than happy.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. And I am not insulted you are leaving.
Next turn to Representative Herger from California who is
here, represents the 2nd District in California. He is here to
talk about his bill, H.R. 817 that amends the Antiquities Act
of 1906. Congressman Herger.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this
hearing and inviting me to participate.
In the rural northern California congressional district I
represent, the Federal Government owns a significant amount of
the land, with it reaching as high as 75 percent in one of my
counties. Local communities collect no taxes from these lands,
money that could go to schools and roads. The Federal
Government is also unable to manage it properly. Now the Obama
Administration is talking about increasing the number of
Presidentially designated national monuments. This would be
extremely detrimental to local communities across our nation
and is why I have introduced H.R. 817, which would require
Congress's approval for any national monument designation by
the President.
In 2000, President Clinton designated over 52,000 acres of
Federal lands as the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument which
is adjacent to my northern California congressional district,
and is located in the State of Oregon. Some groups have
advocated the areas of my congressional district to be
included, but such plans have, fortunately, thus far been
thwarted by local communities loudly voicing their concerns.
Such a designation in northern California could be devastating
to the local economy, further limiting forest management and
livestock grazing.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration currently has the
authority to reconsider at anytime and expand the designation.
The livelihoods of people in northern California and across the
Nation should not be at the whim of the President. Instead,
national monument designations should be subject to the
approval of Congress where the interests and viewpoints of
affected Americans are understood and championed by their
elected representatives.
As I referenced, a Bureau of Land Management document has
revealed that the Obama Administration intends to unilaterally
lock up more than 13 million acres of Federal land from
multiple use access. This is very troubling and would be
devastating. In a time of high unemployment, it would lock even
more American jobs away. The BLM memorandum provides further
evidence that Congress must be part of the national monument
designation process.
Since the 1980s, management of our forests and Federal
lands has stopped almost entirely. The jobs that depend on
grazing, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction, and
recreation have slowly been eliminated by government
regulations. This mismanagement of our resources does not
affect the economy alone. It has led to unhealthy forests that
become catastrophic wild fire that burn hotter longer and cover
more land. National monument designations significantly harm
rural forest communities.
In the face of severe economic challenges, we need to
reform crippling government policies and regulations so that
local communities can utilize their natural resources and
prosper. These lands belong to the people, and local needs
should drive their management, not a one-size-fits-all decree
from Washington. If we utilize more of our natural resources,
we can foster job growth, generate revenue for the treasury,
and help prevent catastrophic forest fires.
I look forward to working with the Committee to pass
commonsense reforms to the Antiquities Act of 1906 which would
be a significant step toward limiting government overreach.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Wally Herger,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Thank you Chairman Bishop for holding this hearing and inviting me
to participate. In the Northern California Congressional District I
represent, the federal government owns a significant amount of the
land, with it reaching as high as 75% in one county. Local communities
collect no taxes from these lands, money that could go to schools and
roads. The federal government is also unable to manage it properly. Now
the Obama Administration is talking about increasing the number of
presidentially-designated national monuments. This would be detrimental
to local communities across our nation, and is why I have introduced
H.R. 817, which would require Congress' approval for any National
Monument designations by the President.
In 2000, President Clinton designated over 52,000 acres of federal
lands as the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which is adjacent to
my Northern California Congressional district and is located in the
state of Oregon. Some groups have advocated for areas of my
congressional district to be included, but such plans have fortunately
thus far been thwarted by local communities loudly voicing their
concerns. Such a designation in Northern California could be
devastating to the local economy, further limiting forest management
and livestock grazing. Unfortunately, the Obama administration
currently has the authority to reconsider at any time and expand the
designation. The livelihoods of people in Northern California and
across the Nation should not be at the whim of the President. Instead,
national monument designations should be subject to the approval of
Congress where the interests and viewpoints of affected Americans are
understood and championed by their elected representatives.
As I referenced, a Bureau of Land Management document has revealed
that the Obama Administration intends to unilaterally lock up more than
thirteen million acres of federal land from multiple-use access. This
is very troubling and would be devastating. In a time of high
unemployment, it would lock even more American jobs away. The BLM
memorandum provides further evidence that Congress must be a part of
the National Monument designation process.
Since the 1980s, management of our forests and federal lands has
stopped almost entirely. The jobs that depend on grazing, timber
harvesting, mineral extraction, and recreation have slowly been
eliminated by government regulations. This mismanagement of our
resources does not affect the economy alone. It has led to unhealthy
forests that become catastrophic wildfires that burn hotter, longer,
and cover more land. National monument designations significantly harm
rural forest communities.
In the face of severe economic challenges, we need to reform
crippling government policies and regulations so that local communities
can utilize their natural resources and prosper. These lands belong to
the people, and local needs should drive their management, not a one-
size-fits-all decree from Washington. If we utilize more of our natural
resources, we can foster job growth, generate revenue for the treasury,
and help prevent catastrophic forest fires. I look forward to working
with the committee to pass common-sense reforms to the Antiquities Act
of 1906, which would be a significant step towards limiting government
overreach.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I appreciate your
testimony, appreciate you being here. Once again, I realize
what your schedule is, but if you would like to stay with us we
would be more than happy. I am trying to find someone who wants
to stay with me, but if you need to go, we recognize that.
Mr. Herger. I think Dr. Foxx is going to stay for awhile.
Mr. Bishop. That is kind of you for volunteering her to do
that. Thank you, Congressman Herger. I appreciate it.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Next we would like to hear from Representative
Foxx who represents the 5th District in North Carolina, and is
the chief sponsor of H.R. 302, the Preserve Land Freedom for
Americans Act of 2011. Ms. Foxx.
STATEMENT OF HON. VIRGINIA FOXX, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Grijalva, and all the Members of the Committee, friends
of mine. I thank you for the opportunity to come and talk about
an issue deserving of attention from all of our colleagues, and
I want to say that I appreciate having the opportunity and
heard the comments of those who have spoken before me. I want
to lend my support to their comments, and I am intrigued by how
we are all talking about this issue from slightly different
angles.
The Antiquities Act enacted during the presidency of
Theodore Roosevelt allows the President to proclaim areas of
Federal lands that he determines contain ``historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structure and other objects of
historic or scientific interest'' as a national monument, and
to ``reserve'' parcels of land within the monument. Presidents
have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments more
than 120 times over the past century.
When President Carter attempted to establish 15 new
national monuments in Alaska and expand two more containing 56
million acres of Federal land, Congress enacted the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act, overturning most of
the designations, altering the status of some, and confirming a
few and included a congressional veto on future land
withdrawals in the state.
President Clinton unilaterally deemed 19 new national
monuments and expanded three more, reserving 5.9 million acres
of land. It is important to note that all but one of these
proclamations came in the last year of his presidency, and 11
occurred in the twilight period between the 2000 election and
the end of the term.
It has become public that the Obama Administration is
attempting yet another land grab that would add another 13
million acres to Federal real estate land holdings.
Considering the size of the Federal Government's existing
real estate portfolio, there is no need to continue
unilaterally acquiring new lands without any regard to the
rights of states or the economy. The Federal Government owns a
third of the land in western states, including 84.5 percent of
Nevada, 69.1 percent of Alaska, and 57.5 percent of Utah. Four
Federal agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service--manage most of the Federal real estate
portfolio. These agencies collectively own 630 million acres,
which is the size of ten European countries, including France,
Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria,
Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Belgium combined. Given the
size of the portfolio, the cost of managing Federal lands is in
the billions. Simply adding more lands will increase cost to
already strained budgets.
The Antiquities Act impinges on the rights of the states
with regard to their own land. With the stroke of a pen in
secrecy the President can ignore pleas from state officials and
their citizens in order to claim more land on behalf of the
Federal Government. With the current challenging fiscal
conditions we can all agree now that more than ever the states
are in need of resources to sustain their own budgets and
fiscal needs. When the Federal Government takes lands from the
states it also take away a potential source of revenue and
economic growth.
H.R. 302, the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act will
give the states a voice and a say in this process by requiring
state approval for national monument designations by the
Federal Government. State governments are prepared and best
qualified to make these decisions. They do not need Washington
taking lands and revenues away from them. If states agree there
is a need for the Federal Government to preserve and protect
lands, they will not hesitate to seek assistance.
As the Chairman said in his opening remarks, this issue is
about the principle of separation of powers and the rules of
the President and the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to visit the
Committee and talk about H.R. 302. I will be glad to answer any
question that you or Members of the Committee may have, but I
will appreciate the invitation also to leave.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Foxx follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for the
opportunity to come here and talk about an issue deserving of attention
from all of our colleagues.
The Antiquities Act, enacted during the presidency of Theodore
Roosevelt, allows the President to proclaim areas of federal lands he
determines contain ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest'' as a
national monument, and to ``reserve'' parcels of land within the
monument. Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create national
monuments more than 120 times over the past century.
When President Carter attempted to establish fifteen new national
monuments in Alaska and expanded two more, containing fifty-six million
acres of federal land, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act, overturning most of the designations, altering
the status of some and confirming a few, and included a congressional
veto on future land withdrawals in the state.
President Clinton unilaterally deemed nineteen new national
monuments and expanded three more, reserving 5.9 million acres of land.
All but one of these proclamations came in the last year of his
presidency, and eleven occurred in the twilight period between the 2000
election and the end of the term.
It has become public that the Obama administration is attempting
yet another land grab that would add over 13 million acres to federal
real estate land holdings.
Considering the size of the federal government's existing real
estate portfolio, there is no need to continue unilaterally acquiring
new lands without any regard to states right's or economies. The
federal government owns over a third of the land in western states
including 84.5 percent of Nevada, 69.1 percent of Alaska and 57.5
percent of Utah.
Four federal agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Park Service--manage most of the federal real estate portfolio. These
agencies collectively own 630 million acres which isthe size of 10
European countries--includingFrance, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the
United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium--
combined.
Given the size of the portfolio, the cost of managing federal lands
is in the billions. Simply adding more lands will increase costs to
already strained budgets. The Antiquities Act fails to protect state's
rights with regard their own land. With the stroke of a pen and in
secrecy, the President can ignore pleas from state officials and their
citizens in order to claim more land on behalf of the federal
government.
With the current challenging fiscal conditions, we all can agree
that now, more than ever the states are in need of resources to sustain
their own budgets and fiscal needs. When the federal government takes
lands from the states, it also takes away a potential source of revenue
and economic growth.
H.R. 302, the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act, seeks to
give the states a voice and power by requiring state approval for
national monument designations by the federal government. State
governments are prepared and best qualified to make these decisions.
They do not need Washington taking lands and revenue away from them. If
states agree that there is a need for the federal government to
preserve and protect lands, they will not hesitate to seek assistance.
States rights are key to the strength of our nation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to visit the committee
and talk about H.R. 302. I'll be glad to answer any question that you
or members of the committee may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Even though Wally volunteered you? No, Ms.
Foxx, we appreciate your testimony, appreciate you being here,
as well as the bill. Once again, if you have other commitments,
you have time for committee action, we will recommend it, but
you are welcome to stay for as long as that may be, which I
take is less than a minute, right?
OK, Representative Labrador from Idaho also has a bill,
H.R. 846. He represents the 1st District of Idaho. It is the
Idaho Land Sovereignty Act. Representative, you are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL LABRADOR, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva. I commend you for convening this important hearing
today regarding my bill, H.R. 846, the Idaho Land Sovereignty
Act.
There are two things that Presidents do in the last days in
office. One is to declare new monuments, and number two is
pardon convicted criminals, both leave the public with a bad
taste in their mouth. Just as designation of wilderness areas
is a congressional prerogative, I believe the designation of
national monuments should also be subject to congressional
oversight.
My legislation would prohibit any Presidential
Administration from imposing new monument designations in the
State of Idaho. Clearly the Obama Administration has given us
numerous reasons to believe they need to be reined in with
their job killing regulations. However, these concerns are not
only limited to the current Administration.
In January of 2001, the outgoing Clinton Administration
shocked western states with its outrageous land grabs that were
done via executive order. We in the West remember this very
well and we are not going to allow anything like it to happen
again. More recently, Interior Secretary Salazar and his agency
on December 23, 2010, reminded us that Federal agencies still
believe they can circumvent Congress to lock up public lands
without specific congressional action.
In my State of Idaho, approximately 67 percent of all lands
are owned by the Federal Government. Of that, 4,522,717 acres
are wilderness, making Idaho the state with the most acres of
designated wilderness area. For that reason it is critically
important that Idahoans continue to access our Federal lands
for the multiple uses they were designed. It is unacceptable to
make lands off limit through any process that is not an act of
Congress.
The Bureau of Land Management asserts that livestock
grazing is a major activity on public lands in Idaho. Actually,
800,000 AUMs of livestock forage are authorized annually in
Idaho under BLM management. Livestock grazing is outlined in
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Taylor
Grazing Act as being authorized multiple uses. The economic
losses to ranchers who have traditionally been good stewards of
BLM grazing leases would be immeasurable.
Tourism and motorized recreation are important industries
in Idaho. If new monument designations are established, the
potential for road closures and limited OHV access has the
potential to be detrimental to the local economies.
I urge my colleagues to protect our authority and the power
of congressional oversight. If any administration were to
impose additional restrictions to the public lands in Idaho
through a designation of new monument areas the detriment to my
state could be vast. Administrative land grabs prohibit
stakeholder input at the detriment to our rural economies.
Mr. Chairman, I don't oppose public lands. I simply oppose
efforts by an out-of-touch Administration to forcefully lock up
public lands with no congressional oversight. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Labrador follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Labrador, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Idaho, on H.R. 846
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, I commend you for convening
this important hearing today regarding my bill H.R. 846, the Idaho Land
Sovereignty Act.
There are two things that Presidents do their last days in office:
declare new monuments and pardon convicted criminals. Both leave the
public with a bad taste in their mouth. Just as designation of
wilderness areas is a Congressional prerogative, I believe the
designation of national monuments should also be subject to
Congressional oversight.
My legislation would prohibit any presidential administration from
imposing new monument designations in the state of Idaho. Clearly the
Obama Administration has given us numerous reasons to believe they need
to be reined in with their job killing regulations. However, these
concerns are not only limited to the current administration.
In January of 2001 the outgoing Clinton Administration shocked
western states with its outrageous land grabs that were done via
executive order. We in the west remember this very well and we are not
going to allow anything like it to happen again. More recently Interior
Secretary Salazar and his agency, on December 23, 2010, reminded us
that federal agencies still believe they can circumvent Congress to
lock up public lands without specific Congressional action.
In my state of Idaho, approximately 67% of all lands are owned by
the federal government. Of that, 4,522,717 acres are wilderness, making
Idaho the state with the most acres of designated wilderness areas. For
that reason, it is critically important that Idahoans continue to
access our federal lands for the multiple uses they were designed. It
is unacceptable to make lands off-limits through any process that is
not an act of Congress.
The Bureau of Land Management asserts that livestock grazing is a
major activity on public lands in Idaho. Actually, 800,000 AUMs (Animal
Unit Months) of livestock forage are authorized annually in Idaho under
BLM management. Livestock grazing is outlined in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act and the Taylor Grazing Act as being among
authorized multiple-uses. The economic losses to Ranchers who have
traditionally been good stewards of BLM grazing leases would be
immeasurable.
Tourism and motorized recreation are important industries in Idaho.
If new monument designations are established, the potential for road
closures and limited OHV access has the potential to be detrimental to
the local economies.
I urge my colleagues to protect our authority and the power of
Congressional oversight. If any administration were to impose
additional restrictions to the public lands in Idaho through the
designation of new monument areas, the detriment to my state could be
vast. Administrative land grabs prohibit stakeholder input at the
detriment to our rural economies.
Mr. Chairman, I don't oppose public lands. I simply oppose efforts
by an out-of-touch administration to forcibly lock up public lands with
no Congressional oversight.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. As we begin, I
hope you will stay.
Mr. Labrador. I will stay just for you.
Mr. Bishop. I am proud of you. I am proud of you.
As we begin this round of questioning, I would like to
yield my time to Mr. Gosar of Arizona. Mr. Gosar has introduced
a similar bill dealing with Arizona but it is not on our agenda
today. I think it is 2877, the Arizona Land Sovereignty Act,
but I would like to yield my five minutes to Mr. Gosar to talk
about his bill or any of the others.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking Member
Grijalva, for allowing me to take part in today's hearing.
A fundamental aspect of good government is the rule of law.
The rule of law includes due process. Currently, under the
existing law, a President can unilaterally--without any public
input, without one congressional hearing, and without any
hallmarks of transparency--remove millions of acres of public
land from public access and public use. This law needs to be
changed, but until it is changed, the western states are at
highest risks for Federal abuse exemptions.
The national monument designation process, as any public
land designation, is of particular interest to my constituents
in Arizona's 1st congressional district, which is comprised of
over 26 million acres of Federally administered and Native
American lands, which is nearly 70 percent of the total land.
Due to the prevalence of this public land and the way these
lands are administered by the Federal Government has a direct
impact on almost every person residing in my district. These
communities depend on a multitude of use of public lands for
their livelihoods.
As I traveled throughout my district during this August
recess, my constituents expressed concerns about access to our
public lands at nearly every corner of my 58,000 square mile
district. These concerns range from the ability to develop
domestic sources of energy, timber salvage and harvesting,
grazing, hunting, fishing, and family recreation. Too often we
find that some Federal land designations are causing endless
bureaucratic delays, litigation and restrictions that could
completely lock up much of the large and needed store of wealth
and recreation opportunities our vast system of public lands
can provide.
In a district like mine dominated by Federally
administrated lands, these burdens disproportionately stifle
economic productivity, leading to some of the highest
unemployment rates in the country, and in some cases
threatening the ability of affected communities to provide
public education and other basic services to the residents.
There is a reason the ability to set aside Federal land
generally rested with Congress. These Federal lands
designations has significant direct impacts on our
constituents. Sometimes these access restrictive designations
are absolutely necessary for the preservation of our natural
and historic treasures. Unfortunately, in other instances these
designations are counterproductive and cause more harm than
good.
Congressional authority to establish these land
designations is an integral part of the transparent and public
process that will ensure a designation is not only appropriate
but accepted by our constituents. This is why I believe it is
critical this Congress reforms the national monument
designation process. While it is extremely important to protect
our country's natural and historical treasures, no President,
regardless of what party he belongs to, should have the power
to unilaterally declare a land designation that has some of the
most stringent restrictions on public access.
When Congress abdicated its duty to designation national
monuments and gave this power to the President via the
Antiquities Act of 1906, Congress never intended the President
to use the authority the way it has been utilized. At the time
the law was enacted over concerns about protecting mostly
prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts, collectively termed
antiquities, on Federal lands in the West. By definition, the
sites were to be very small, the smallest area compatible with
preserving the antiquity.
Unfortunately, since given this power many Presidents,
Republican and Democrat, have abused it. Today there are 71
national monuments located in 26 states covering some 136
million acres. Some of these sites span over 1 million acres,
and 140,000 square miles of what was formerly known as the
Northwestern Hawaiian Island Marine National Monument is the
largest protected area per claim.
Without a doubt many of the 71 existing national monuments
are extremely valuable natural and historic treasures. Nine
national monuments with major contributions to our tourism and
the economy are located in Arizona's 1st congressional
district. Many of them draw visitors to high camp or recreate
around the monuments. My district's economy has a significant
services component tied to tourist sites, like the Grand Canyon
National Park and some of the national monuments. I appreciate
the need for protection of sites. However, the public deserves
the opportunity to have their voices heard on any land
designation that may restrict our right to access.
Mine and Congressman Flake's legislation, H.R. 2877, and
many of the other bills being discussed today will ensure that
the designation of national monuments has an open and
transparent process. By ensuring no further extension or
establishment of national monuments in Arizona can be done
without the authorization of Congress, we would ensure the
public gets to be a part of the land designations that affect
them.
The opposition to my bill will likely paint my initiatives
as an attack on the Administration or playing politics with our
public lands. Regardless of what political party controls the
government, these initiatives need to make sense. In some cases
proximity to a national monument or like site increases the
value of land or makes it more appealing to the consumer. In
many other cases the exact opposite is the case. Shouldn't our
constituents have the ability to express concerns or support
depending on the specific proposal?
In last year's Interior Department internal document that
revealed the Obama Administration's plans to designate a new
national monument under the Antiquities Act, the Obama
Administration even states that, ``The acceptance of
preservation status is best achieved when the public has an
opportunity to participate in a land use planning or
legislative process.'' I introduced that legislation for that
very reason. The people should be part of the land designation
decisions. When they are, there is public buy-in. Isn't that
why we call these lands public lands?
I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity and
look forward to working for you. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative.
We still actually have two Members here who have bills
before us. Before we go to the second panel, are there any
questions that anyone would like to ask for either
Representative Labrador or myself? If not----
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry.
Mr. Grijalva. My question is for the four that left so I
don't have any questions for these two gentlemen. Is that OK?
Mr. Bishop. That is OK. Anybody else have a question? Then
if not, we will turn to the second panel, and ask them if they
would kindly take their seats. I believe I have--help me out
here--Mr. Ray Rasker who is the Executive Director of the
Headwaters Economics, and Mayor Taylor who is Jerry Taylor, who
is the Mayor of Escalante City, Utah. If you would take your
places at the table, I would be very appreciative.
As we did with the other panel as well, your oral remarks
we would ask that you limit them to five minutes. You see in
front of you the timer that goes down there. Obviously green
means you are on. Once again, you have to activate your own
microphone to make sure it is on. When the yellow light comes
on you have less than a minute. I lied, you have a minute to
go, and the red light we would like you to cease if possible.
We will start with Mr. Rasker and then Mayor Taylor. Mr.
Rasker.
STATEMENT OF MR. RAY RASKER, Ph.D.,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEADWATERS ECONOMICS
Dr. Rasker. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva,
Members of the Subcommittee, and guests. It is an honor to be
here today to discuss the research that my organization,
Headwaters Economics, recently conducted concerning the
economic importance of national monuments in the West local
communities.
Resource economics across the West has been the focus of my
research for over 25 years. I am an economist. I have a Ph.D.
from College Forestry at Oregon State University, a Master's of
Agriculture from the Colorado State University, and a Bachelor
of Science in wildlife biology from the University of
Washington. I am currently an adjunct faculty at Montana State
University. I am also the Executive Director of Headwaters
Economics. We are an independent research group that works to
improve community development to land management decisions
across the West.
Headwaters Economics has recently conducted extensive
research for the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest
Service as well as some state governments like Montana. One of
the research products we developed was for the BLM and for the
Forest Service called the Economic Profile System. This
software allows agencies in the public to produce detailed
socio-economic profiles using accurate, credible Federal data.
The tool was instrumental in the National Monuments Report I am
here to discuss today that is available for free on our
website.
Our research, we looked at the economic performance of
communities next to 17 national monuments in the West. We found
that in every instance the local economies near the national
monuments we studied grew following the creation of a new
national monument. In every instance there was growth in
employment, real personal income, and real per capita income
after the designation of a national monument. In no case did we
find that the creation of a national monument studied led to an
economic downturn.
To conduct this research we analyzed economies surrounding
17 national monuments in the 11 western states. We looked at
monuments of 10,000 acres or larger that were created after
1982.
For the research, we used data from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, and we looked at key economic indicators, changes in
population, employment, personal income and per capita income.
These are standard measures of economic growth and well being.
The Federal statistics are free and available to anybody. They
are reliable and they allow for comparisons across counties and
state boundaries. All of our report findings are on our
website, HeadwaterEconomics.org.
As I mentioned, the analysis found that without exception
all of the economies of the counties surrounding the 17
national monuments that we studied grew following the creation
of a national monument. While this doesn't demonstrate a cause
and effect relationship, the finding shows that national
monuments are consistently correlated with economic growth in
adjacent local communities, and in no case did the creation of
a national monument lead to or coincide with a downturn in the
economies of adjacent communities.
Several examples might be helpful. First, employment. From
the time of creation of the Canyons of the Ancients National
Monument in Colorado in 2000 through 2008 employment on
Montezuma County adjacent to the national monument grew by 10
percent, creating jobs and double the rate of population growth
during that time.
Another example, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument in Utah and the two counties, Garfield and Kane
neighboring the national monument, employment grew by 38
percent since the monument's creation in 1986 through 2008.
Again jobs grew faster than population with employment
increasing more than four times the population growth during
that time according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Another important measure is real per capita income because
it is a widely accepted yardstick of economic prosperity.
Looking at the national monuments the real per capita income
increased for the communities adjacent to the monument in every
single case in the years following the monuments establishment.
For example, after the designation the real per capita income
grew by 15 percent in Montezuma County next to Canyon of the
Ancients National Monument, and by 30 percent for the Grand
Staircase area.
A little bit more on the Grand Staircase since designation
real personal income has grown by 40 percent, jobs by 38
percent, per capita income by 30 percent.
In Pima County, Arizona, next to the Ironwood National
Monument, real per capita income grew by 10 percent following
the monuments creation in 2000 through 2008, and for the area
surrounding the Carrizo Plain National Monument per capita
income grew by 9 percent from the monument's proclamation in
2001 through 2008. And for communities near the Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument real per capita income grew by 8
percent from the monument's 2000 creation through 2008.
Protecting lands like national monuments is entirely
consistent with what the growing body of literature is telling
us about. People, business decisions, locations, entrepreneurs
choose areas largely for a high quality of life. As communities
across the West emerge from the recent recession, we think
national monuments can play an important role. Again to
reiterate, we found no evidence that designating these
monuments prevented continued economic growth, instead trends
in key economic indicators such as employment, personal income,
per capita income either continued to grow or improved in each
of the regions surrounding the national monuments.
I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rasker follows:]
Statement of Ray Rasker, Ph.D., Executive Director, Headwaters
Economics, on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846 and H.R.
2147
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the
Subcommittee, and guests, it is an honor to appear before you today to
discuss recent research that my organization, Headwaters Economics, has
conducted concerning the economic importance of national monuments in
the West to local communities.
Resource economics across the American West has been a focus of my
research for more than twenty-five years. I am an economist and my
Ph.D. is from the College of Forestry, Oregon State University; my
Masters of Agriculture is from Colorado State University; and my B.S.
in Wildlife Biology is from the University of Washington. I currently
am adjunct faculty at Montana State University.
I am the Executive Director of Headwaters Economics, an
independent, nonprofit research group that works to improve community
development and land management decisions in the West.
It is important to note that Headwaters Economics has conducted
past and ongoing research and work for the federal government,
including the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest
Service, as well as state governments such as Montana. One of the
research products we developed for the BLM and Forest Service--the
Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit--allows agencies and
the public to produce detailed socioeconomic profiles using accurate,
credible federal data. That tool was instrumental in the national
monuments report that I am here to discuss today. It is available for
free on our web site.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
Our research investigated the economic performance of communities
adjacent to 17 national monuments in the West. We found that in every
instance the local economies near the national monuments we studied
grew following the creation of the new national monuments. In all
cases, there was growth of employment, real personal income, and real
per capita income after designation of the national monument. In no
case did we find that the creation of a national monument studied led
to an economic downturn.
METHODOLOGY
To conduct this research Headwaters Economics analyzed the
economies surrounding the 17 national monuments in the eleven western
continental states that are larger than 10,000 acres and were created
in 1982 or later. (See the study area map on page five of this
testimony.) This sample allowed us to study the performance of the
major national monuments created during the last generation, analyzing
key economic indicators before and after designation using reliable
measures of economic performance. The sample also allowed us to avoid
smaller monuments with little potential to have an impact on local
economies. All of the report findings, along with fact sheets, more
detailed analysis, and summary, are available on our website: http://
headwaterseconomics.org/or directly at http://headwaterseconomics.org/
land/reports/national-monuments/.
For each national monument studied, we utilized information from
the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis and its
Regional Economic Information System. We used key economic indicators
such as changes in population, employment, personal income, and per
capita income. These are standard measures of economic growth and well-
being and federal statistics are the most reliable available and allow
for comparisons across county, region, or state boundaries.
FINDINGS IN DEPTH AND EXAMPLES
The analysis found that, without exception, all of the economies of
the counties surrounding the 17 national monuments grew following the
creation of new national monuments. While this does not demonstrate a
cause-and-effect relationship, this finding shows that national
monuments are consistently correlated with economic growth in adjacent
local communities. In no case did the creation of a national monument
lead to or coincide with a downturn in the economies of adjacent
communities.
Trends in important economic indicators--such as population,
employment, personal income, and per-capita income growth--either
continued or improved in each of the regions surrounding the national
monuments studied. The analysis found no evidence that designating
these national monuments prevented continued economic growth. In one
case--El Malpais National Monument in New Mexico--leading indicators
(population, employment, personal income, and per capita income)
reversed declines that had been experienced in the years before
designation.
When reviewing the findings around key economic indicators, several
examples may be helpful. First, let's turn to employment. The Canyons
of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado, created by presidential
proclamation in 2000, offers a good example. Reviewing the period from
2000-2008, employment in Montezuma County grew by ten percent, creating
jobs at double the five percent rate of population growth during the
same time period. (See the tables on pages six, seven, and eight for
the examples concerning employment, population, and real per capita
income listed here and below.)
Another example is the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
in Utah. In the two counties, Garfield and Kane, neighboring the
national monument, employment grew by 38 percent since the monument's
creation in 1996 through 2008. Again, jobs grew faster than population,
with employment increasing more than four times faster than the eight
percent population growth during that time period.
Another important economic measure that Headwaters Economics
analyzed is per capita income, a widely accepted measure of prosperity.
Looking at all the national monuments we studied, the data show that
per capita income increased for the studied counties adjacent to every
national monument in the years following establishment.
For example, looking at the two national monuments I already
mentioned, after designation real per capita income grew by 15 percent
for Montezuma County adjacent to the Canyons of the Ancients National
Monument; and by 30 percent for the Grand Staircase-Escalante area.
In addition, in Pima County, Arizona adjacent to the Ironwood
Forest National Monument, real per capita income grew by ten percent
from the Monument's creation in 2000 through 2008. Looking at two other
national monuments, for the area surrounding the Carrizo Plain National
Monument, real per capita income grew by nine percent from the
Monument's proclamation in 2001 through 2008; and for communities near
the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, real per capita income grew by
eight percent from the Monument's 2000 creation through 2008.
NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND PROSPERITY IN THE WEST
The results of this study correspond to related research that shows
how protecting public lands can assist western communities working to
promote a more robust economic future.
The western economy has changed significantly in recent decades.
Services industries that employ a wide range of people--from doctors
and engineers to teachers and accountants--have driven economic growth
and now make up the large majority of jobs, even in rural areas.
Protected lands such as national monuments are important because
many people and their businesses base their location decisions on
quality of life, such as access to the outdoors for hunting, fishing,
sightseeing or other recreation opportunities. This quality of life--
both recreation and natural amenities--also attracts retirement
dollars. Non-labor income, such as dividends, interest, rent, and
transfer payments, is the fastest source of personal income in the West
and now accounts for one-third of all personal income in the region and
is likely to grow in the coming decades.
A sampling of research includes:
Outdoor recreation is important to western economies.
In New Mexico, for example, the Outdoor Industry Foundation
reports that active outdoor recreation contributes $3.8 billion
annually to the state's economy, supporting 43,000 jobs.
(Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006. The Active Outdoor
Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the
U.S. Economy.)
Services jobs are increasingly mobile, and many
entrepreneurs locate their businesses in areas with a high
quality of life. Conserving lands, while also creating a new
visibility for them through protective designations, helps
safeguard and highlight the amenities that attract people and
business. (Lorah, P. R. Southwick, et al. 2003. Environmental
Protection, Population Change, and Economic Development in the
Rural Western United States. Population and Environment 24(3):
255-272; McGranahan, D. A. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Rural
Population Change. E. R. S. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.)
For many seniors and soon-to-be retirees, protected
public lands and recreation provide important aspects of a high
quality of life. Non-labor sources of income already represent
more than a third of all personal income in the West--and will
grow as the Baby Boomer generation retires. (Frey, W.H. 2006.
America's Regional Demographics in the '00 Decade: The Role of
Seniors, Boomers and New Minorities. The Brookings Institution,
Washington, D.C.)
The counties in the West with protected public lands,
like national monuments, have been more successful at
attracting fast-growing economic sectors and as a result grow
more quickly, on average, than counties without protected
public lands. (Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the
economic impact of industrial development versus conservation
on western public lands. Society & Natural Resources, 19(3),
191-207.)
Protected natural amenities--such as pristine scenery
and wildlife--help sustain property values and attract new
investment. (Deller, S. C., T.-H. Tsai, et al. 2001. The Role
of Amenities and Quality of Life in Rural Economic Growth.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2): 352-365.)
CONCLUSION
The review of the 17 national monuments by Headwaters Economics
found that all of the regional economies studied experienced growth
following a monument's designation.
As communities across the West emerge from the recent recession,
nearby national monuments can play several important economic roles:
helping a region to diversify economically while increasing quality of
life and recreational opportunities that assist communities to become
more attractive for new residents, businesses, and investment.
The study found no evidence that designating these national
monuments prevented continued economic growth. Instead, trends in key
economic indicators such as employment, personal income, and per-capita
income either continued to grow or improved in each of the regions
surrounding the national monuments.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Mayor Taylor, once again I make the apologies for me
messing up your appearance here today but we are happy that you
are able to join us. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. JERRY TAYLOR, MAYOR,
ESCALANTE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Mayor Taylor, Jerry Taylor, from Escalante,
which is at the heart of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument. I got a call yesterday afternoon just before a flight
back to Utah, and was asked if I would be willing to appear
here today, and I appreciate this opportunity. I would love to
talk to you about the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.
We set at the base of the Escalante-Boulder Mountain and at
the top of the Escalante Desert, and also adjacent to the
Kaiparowits Plateau which is rich in coal, some of the richest
coal in the world, the highest btu, lowest sulfur. We also are
surrounded by national forest with natural gas and oil, all of
which at this point we are unable to use at this time because
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and the
restrictions that have been placed upon that.
I don't know where they are getting their data from but I
can tell you this. Escalante in 1996 had a population of 850.
We now have a population of 750. Our schools, and believe me,
we need the funding for rural schools. Our schools are about to
close because of lack of students. Little Escalante was over
100 in 1996, we are down as of the end of last year to 71
students. I don't see where the increases are coming from. I
know that people in Escalante struggle. I myself work four
hours away from Escalante. I travel there once or twice a week,
depending on the schedule. Many people, many fathers in my
community travel to North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming to work
in the oil fields, to Southern California. They are gone for 10
days at a time. That effects my community, having the fathers
gone.
I don't see where the monument has brought in any jobs for
our community. People come in. They don't buy backpacks. They
don't buy groceries. They come in and use our water from free
taps around our community, and then they go about hiking. With
that brings the responsibility, sometimes they get into canyons
and places they shouldn't be. Volunteers from my community and
throughout the county go out and rescue these people at our own
expense. We have volunteers for EMTs that also risk their lives
to go out and to help these people.
I wish I could say that it was a great economic boom for
our community but I can't, but I do know we have lost the
ability to mine our coal, and to drill for our oil. They don't
let us mine the coal but they allow people to come in and take
our dinosaurs and our artifacts from the Escalante-Garfield-
Kane region. They take those out and I ask why. Why not, if you
are going to do something why not build us a museum, a science
center there which would allow people to come there to look at
the dinosaurs that they are taking from the ground near
Escalante and the artifacts. They are locked up right now in
the University of Utah, BYU, Utah State and other areas. These
dinosaurs, these artifacts are important to us. If you won't
let us mine our coal, why do you allow them to mine our
dinosaurs and our artifacts?
Someone said to me one time, well, we need a controlled
environment in which to study these. We have the ability to
build a controlled environment in Escalante. If they can do it
in Salt Lake City or in New York City, we can do that in
Escalante, which would be a benefit to our community.
I am very passionate about my little community and the 700
people that I represent. I don't have a big college degree, but
I have a heart, and I love my community.
When they created the monument, did they ask anybody,
anybody from Escalante how they felt about it or what they
could do to help? No. Instead they had to go to Arizona, they
had to go to Arizona to announce that they were going to put a
monument in Utah. What a shame. What a shame. We have a voice,
we have ideas, we have concerns. I would like to know how many
in this room have actually been to the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. If you have not, I invite you to
come to see it, to see what we actually have there, to talk to
the people, to communicate with the people and to ask them
their thoughts, their feelings. We are part of America. We love
America. We are not there to trash. We are not there to trash
our mountains, our deserts. We are there to live, to love, and
to survive in our community, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jerry Taylor, Mayor, Escalante City, Utah
Thank you for allowing me to testify before your committee today.
Yesterday, I was in New York and when I learned about your hearing
today on bills that would reform the Atiquities Act. Luckily, I was
able take a slight detour to Washington, DC so I can share with you the
impact that national monument designations have on local communities,
specifically, my community. I am intimately familiar with this subject
since Escalante City is surrounded by part of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument that was designated in 2000.
The establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument has had a devastating economic impact had on the economy and
people of my city and Garfield County, Utah.
It has come to our attention that Headwaters Economics has issued a
report titled Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: A Summary of
Economic Performance in the Surrounding Communities which indicates
that there has been a strong, positive economic impact to Garfield and
Kane Counties from the establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. This is completely contrary to our own observation
and analysis.
The report indicates significant increases in real personal income
and real per capita income. This is completely false with regards to
Garfield County.
In summary, the establishment of the GSENM has hurt the local
economy, driven our residence to find work elsewhere, and burdened
local government to provide uncompensated services.
Real personal income DECREASED from $44,678 in 1996
(in chained 2009 dollars) to $38,759 in 2009, a decrease of
13.25%
Real income per capita (in chained 2009 dollars)
DECREASED from $28,542.79 in 1997 to $25,651.58 in 2009, a
decrease of 10.13%
School enrollment in Garfield County DECREASED from
1,219 in 2000 to 925 in 2010, a decrease of 24.11%
The Escalante region of Garfield County is the most
heavily affected by the Monument. The town population decreased
from approximately 850 in 1996 to 750 in 2010. School
enrollment in that region of Garfield County decreased from 277
in 2001 to 172 in 2010, a 37.9% decrease.
Further, the report stated that total employment had increased from
approximately 6,000 in 1996 to over 8,000 in 2009. Given that the
combined populations of of Garfield and Kane Counties 12,297, including
pre-school aged children, school children, and retired persons, and the
current unemployment rate in Garfield County is greater than 10%, the
assertion strains the bounds of credibility.
Based on our knowledge of Garfield County, the Headwaters Economics
report is false and misleading.
In addition to the declining socioeconomic condition resulting from
the establishment of the GSENM, resident of Garfield and Kane Counties
have experienced lost opportunities in developing natural resource
based industries. For example:
The vast Kaiparowitz coal reserves (some of the
highest quality coal in the world) is off limits.
Natural gas and oil reserves are prohibited from
exploration and development.
Interpretative opportunities and visitor services are
largely non-existent.
Little has been done to improve rangeland health.
A larger burden is also placed on local governments
to provide necessary services without appropriate compensation.
Garfield County volunteers provide all the emergency
medical services for the Monument.
Garfield County volunteers provides search and rescue
services for the Monument.
Garfield County provides solid waste disposal
services for visitors.
Garfield County has law enforcement jurisdiction over
the Monument.
Garfield County provides the vast majority of road
maintenance which occurs in the Monument.
Furthermore, I'd like to emphasize:
1. A shift to a tou`rism-based economy, especially a primitive
tourism-based economy, from one of natural resources extraction
and agriculture decreases not only wages, but also the
circulation of money in the county as H-2B visa workers have
less to spend and generally save as much as possible.
2. A shift to a tourism-based economy removes families, the
foundations of communities, as living wages are not paid to the
low skill work required in the tourism sector.
3. Local property taxation is hurt by a shift to a tourism-
based economy as fewer workers are able to purchase homes and
instead must live in low-income housing. Further, local sales
tax revenue from workers is hurt because disposable incomes are
small.
4. Tourism places a strain on government services, with costs
of additional services exceeding tourist provided sales taxes
and transient room taxes.
5. Uncertainty in public lands decisions prevent private
sector investment. The uranium mill near Ticaboo is a prime
example. In recent years, the mill was assessed a value in
excess of $50,000,000. Due to the fact that the mill was not
able to open, the assessed value has decreased to less than
$2,000,000. This change in valuation of directly impacted all
resident property taxpayers as the burden of tax was shifted
from from Uranium One onto residents.
If there are any questions regarding the devastating social and
economic impacts resultant from the creation of the GSENM, we request
that you contact Garfield County staff at 435-676-1157 or Escalante
City elected officials at 435-826-4644.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mayor Taylor.
I will go last in the round of questioning here. Mr.
Grijalva, do you wish to go now?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rasker, just to kind of recap your findings,
population, employment and income increased in local
communities near large national monuments in the West after the
monuments were designated, is that a good recap?
Dr. Rasker. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And how were the monuments in the communities
you reviewed, I know the year cutoff, but how were they
selected?
Dr. Rasker. We looked at monuments that were created in
long enough ago that we could look at economic data before
monument creation and data after creation, so we could do a
before and after picture, and a good date for that was 1982. We
look at monuments of 10,000 acres in size or larger.
Mr. Grijalva. You are saying the designation caused the
increases?
Dr. Rasker. No. Well, this data does not necessarily prove
a cause and effect. What we are looking at is the relationship
and strong correlation between growth and population, real
personal income, real household income, and employment
following the designation of the monument, but it doesn't
necessarily prove cause and effect.
Mr. Grijalva. At a minimum though the predictions or the
claim that designations of national monuments are harmful to
the local economies, that isn't borne out in your research?
Dr. Rasker. Well, we are not finding any data for any of
the 17 monuments we looked at that point to economic decline.
There wasn't a single indicator.
Mr. Grijalva. Last question, Doctor. Mayor Taylor raised
some concerns regarding potentially your work. Could you
respond more fully in terms of the comments he made relative to
some of the findings?
Dr. Rasker. Sure. We are very transparent where we got the
data. It is from the U.S. Department of Commerce and we are
using software that we developed for both the BLM and the
Forest Service. It is available for free. We accessed this data
off of Federal websites.
More specifically in Garfield County where Escalante is, in
1996, there were 2,788 jobs. By 2009, 3394. Per capita income
in 1996 was a little over 22,000. By 2009, just a little over
29,000, a number of indicators like that. Kane Count and the
adjoining county added up almost 1,200 jobs since designation.
So those statistics are available on our website at
HeadwatersEconomics.org. Just click on national monuments, and
there is an interactive tool that you can look at as well, and
you can scroll across different monuments and see key
statistics.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and thank you for
joining us, Mayor Taylor. You neighboring county, I think Kane
County, their website, I think, and the county also includes
Grand Staircase, describes the monument as a dramatic multi-
huge landscape that is rich in natural and human history. The
website goes on to say the monument offers an impressive array
of educational, recreational and other multi-use opportunities
for visitors young and old to enjoy.
Do you share Kane County's view of the Grand Staircase
Monument as they describe it?
Mr. Taylor. It is a beautiful place. There is no doubt
about that. But there are many things that could be done there,
not just a place to visit. There is, like I said, tons of coal
that would last the Nation for many, many years with the needs
of power.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, I looked at the website, coal mining and
Kane County's website never appears as part of the promotion.
Mr. Taylor. That is right because you have stopped it.
There is one mine in Alta right now that they are mining on
private ground.
Mr. Grijalva. That doesn't attract a lot of visitors, I
figure. But anyway, thank you, Mayor, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I think, Mr. McClintock, you have
sat here longer than anyone else on my side. You are recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rasker, your figures needs some means of comparison.
They invite the question, compared to what? For example, you
have testified that in Pima County adjacent to the Ironwood
Forest National Monument per capita income grew by 10 percent
from the monument's creation in 2000 through 2008, suggests
that, hey, these are great for the economy. That comes to about
1.25 percent annual growth per year. That sound anemic to me.
Did you compare this to the state economic growth in the
same period or the national economic growth? 2000 to 2008 was a
period of very significant economic growth, and I suspect far
higher increases in per capita income than 1.25 percent a year.
Dr. Rasker. What we did in every case for every county we
looked at next to all 17 of the national monuments, we compared
them to their peers. So for example if----
Mr. McClintock. No, no, no, that is not what I asked you.
Did you compare it to the state economies in the same period or
the national economies which I suspect were performing far, far
better than the numbers you are reporting from the counties
adjacent to these national monuments.
Dr. Rasker. We did, yes. We look at----
Mr. McClintock. And what was your conclusion? What was
annual per capita income grown between 2000 to 2008 nationally?
Dr. Rasker. I don't have that figure memorized.
Mr. McClintock. Well, don't you think that would be
relevant?
Dr. Rasker. It did grow faster than the state.
Mr. McClintock. Did it grow faster than the national
economy?
Dr. Rasker. I don't have the memorized. I could look it up
for you.
Mr. McClintock. The point is the national economy was
chugging along pretty well then. These areas were depressed
compared to the national numbers. That suggests they were
harmed, not helped.
Let me tell you I represent Modoc County in the northeast
corner of California. The Federal Government owns most of Modoc
County. It has been utterly impoverished by environmental
restrictions on timber and mineral development, but they still
have a struggling grazing operation which is basically
supporting them. One of the areas contemplated to be closed by
invoking the Antiquities Act is about a half a million acres of
BLM land in Modoc County that will be declared a monument under
the Antiquities Act and destroy what remains of Modoc County's
employment. Will they perform better or worse that the national
numbers? I am not sure, but I will tell you this; they will
perform far less than they could have with those grazing
operations in place, which I suspect is Mayor Taylor's
experience as well, is it not?
Mr. Taylor. That is true.
Mr. McClintock. The Antiquities Act was meant, in 1906,
solely to protect open archeological digs from looting. It gave
the President the ability when an archeological site was
discovered on public lands to designate it as a monument to
protect it from looting. How does that in any way comport with
the President simply with a sweep of the pen setting a half a
million acres in Modoc County off limits to the grazing
operations that are pretty much supporting what is left of that
county's economy? Mr. Taylor, any thoughts on that?
Mr. Taylor. Well, it doesn't make sense to me why you would
tie up all that land to protect the looting. Right now if you
ask me, the colleges and whatnot are looting because they come
there. They take it away and nobody gets to see it then.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Taylor, you had mentioned job losses as
a direct result of the designation in your area, is that
correct?
Mr. Taylor. That is correct.
Mr. McClintock. How many job losses and what kind of jobs?
Mr. Taylor. Well, we had a forest industry which sets right
to the side of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
We lost 65 jobs at the end of 2009 and 2010, and I believe----
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Rasker, if I could, Mr. Rasker, would
you please explain to us how that is good for the economy?
Dr. Rasker. I don't think the loss of any jobs is good for
the economy.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that is the first thing you have said
today that makes any sense.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rasker, are you able to offer some theories as to why
local economies seem to improve after a monument designation?
Is it the attraction for retirement, or quality of life, or a
variety of reasons?
Mr. Bishop. Dale, can I get you to pull that microphone
into your face here so you can be heard?
Mr. Kildee. My question was what do you feel attracts
people to come to a place and the economy improve after the
designation? Is it because it is a place for retirement or
improvement of quality of life or other reasons?
Dr. Rasker. It is a good question. This has been studied
quite extensively by a lot of academics, and there is a variety
of reasons. One of them is places that are attractive places to
live are also attractive places to do business. It is a good
place to recruit employees. There are also attractive places to
retire.
And the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the
two counties next to it, non-labor income, retirement and
investment income is about 36 percent, so it is over a third
and it has grown significantly. So you have an aging
population, retiring baby boomers. You have several professions
that are more foot loose than they ever have before being able
to locate in rural areas, and then you have on top of that
tourism, so those are some of the reasons.
Mr. Kildee. Mayor Taylor, what role does PILT, the payment
in lieu of taxes, what does that do in your area? Now I know
the PILT dollars go to the county rather than to the city
itself. What role do the PILT payments play in your area?
Mr. Taylor. I apologize for not knowing the answer to that.
I really don't know.
Mr. Kildee. But it did indicate that Congress was not
insensitive to economy of an area when it set up the PILT
program. We are concerned. We all come from localities, right?
Mr. Taylor. Correct.
Mr. Kildee. And you are the Mayor of an incorporated city.
It might be interesting, you know, to have your treasurer or
someone on your staff to just--even though I think this money
flows directly to the county, you are part of that county, and
see how the PILT program does assist your economy.
Mr. Taylor. I believe that it assists in our schools, but
can I answer this way? I look at all the ground, the 1.8
million acres that have been tied up back east. A lot of that
ground is private ground. They pay taxes on that ground. What
would that do to my community if there was a tax base?
Let us say you sell that 1.8 million acres to somebody for
fair market value, and then let us collect taxes on that each
year, and it doesn't matter whether you sell it to an
environmental group or whatever that wants to take care of it.
It would bring an income into my community. Look at the coal
and the oil and the natural gasses. Those items would bring a
heck of a lot more money than what you are talking about. That
is my opinion.
Mr. Kildee. Well, I just wanted to point out that we have
not been maybe sensitive enough. Maybe we should do more on
PILT. Maybe we should appropriate more money for the PILT
program.
Would you support selling any of the national monuments to
get more money for other purposes?
Mr. Taylor. Of the national monument? I would love to see
some of the coal being able to be used and the oil and the
timber industry, you bet. Timber is a renewable resource. I
think we could do something with it rather than just burn it,
just a controlled burn. I do believe that some of that could be
sold off.
Now, there is a beauty in Escalante, and I would love, I
would love to have people come there and spend millions. If you
would have them come and do that, that would be great for my
community, but right now, history has said in the last 10 years
or so that that is not happening. We are not getting that
revenue that was promised. We are down in numbers. Our schools
are about to die. We have a uranium facility in Ticaboo, which
is in Garfield County, that could use the uranium that could
mill the uranium that comes off the Arizona strip. That is an
impact to our communities. We need that help.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. Mr. Labrador, you are next.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rasker, I represent Idaho and even though Craters of
the Moon is not in my district, there are only two districts in
Idaho. I am just looking at your data here, and I have some
questions.
First, just a quick question. When you say services
employment what do you really mean by services?
Dr. Rasker. It is a category used by the U.S. Department of
Commerce. It is fairly broad and it includes engineers,
doctors, lawyers, but it also includes relatively lower paying
industries such as those you often find in tourism.
Mr. Labrador. So when you talk about service jobs here in
your report are you talking about high wages or low wage jobs?
Dr. Rasker. It is a combination of both.
Mr. Labrador. And do you know what the average wage is that
is being represented here in your report is?
Dr. Rasker. In the service industries?
Mr. Labrador. Yes.
Dr. Rasker. It depends on the area that we are looking at.
In Blaine County, of course, the average service industry is
quite a much higher than it would be in surrounding counties.
Mr. Labrador. Correct. Correct. I am just looking at your
report and you said that there was an increase in activity, but
we know in Idaho that some of our higher paying jobs are in the
mining industry and sometimes in the agricultural industry, and
service jobs typically don't pay as much because you are
talking a lot about, you know, hotel and other services, and
according to your report we saw from 1998 to 2008 an increase
of 15.7 percent in service jobs, is that correct?
Dr. Rasker. Pardon me. Let me look up the statistics for--
now which monument are you talking about?
Mr. Labrador. Craters of the Moon region.
Dr. Rasker. Craters of the Moon. From 2000 to 2008, the
monument was designated in 2000.
Mr. Labrador. Correct.
Dr. Rasker. So population growth, 4 percent; job growth of
19 percent.
Mr. Labrador. But most of those jobs came in the service
industry, correct?
Dr. Rasker. That is correct, yes, and some of it is also
retirement-related, so in the health care industry.
Mr. Labrador. But if we look at agriculture, for example,
there was a decrease in the number of jobs during that time, is
that correct?
Dr. Rasker. Let me look for a second. Agriculture lost,
mining grew, and travel and tourism grew.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Actually, but if you look at mining, for
example, from 1998 to 2008, there was a 7 percent increase in
mining job.
Dr. Rasker. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Labrador. In non-mining jobs, there was a 13 percent
increase, is that correct?
Dr. Rasker. That is correct. You got faster growth in the
service industries than you do have in mining, yes.
Mr. Labrador. Exactly, and what I am saying in Idaho
typically service industry is a lower paying industry than the
mining jobs that typically have much higher paying jobs. So in
those communities of the higher paying jobs actually lost
ground versus the lower paying jobs in the service industries.
Would you agree with that?
Dr. Rasker. It depends which community you are talking
about. There are some communities where you have access to
major markets where some of the service industry workers are,
doctors, engineers, architects, and then you have other
communities that are more isolated where those types of
professions are more difficult to have those in those remote
areas.
Mr. Labrador. So your data is really not telling us
anything because you are not really comparing the wages and the
things that--the types of jobs that were actually--you know,
the amount of money that people are making in those jobs that
were created.
Dr. Rasker. Wages differ from industry to industry. What we
asked is whether there was an increase in economic growth
following the designation of the monument.
Mr. Labrador. And as the question was asked by Mr.
McClintock earlier, between 2000 and 2008, Idaho was one of the
fastest growing states in the United States and one of the
fastest growing segments of the United States, so that growth,
and I want to make this clear, your data doesn't show any
correlation between the creation of the monument and the growth
of that area, correct?
Dr. Rasker. It shows a very strong correlation. It just
doesn't prove cause and effect.
Mr. Labrador. So you don't give any credit to the fact that
Idaho was having actually the strongest growth and the most--
you think most people are moving to Idaho because of the
monument creation, is that what you are trying to tell us?
Dr. Rasker. No, I am not.
Mr. Labrador. OK. So people are moving to Idaho because it
is a great place to live that had low taxes, low regulation and
a lot of other things, and a great place to live just like Utah
and other places, that is why people are moving to those
stages, not because a new monument was created.
Dr. Rasker. Well, I think protected public lands like
monuments are part of that quality of life that attracts
people.
Mr. Labrador. All right, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with apologies to
all for my late arrival. I would like to ask a couple of
questions that might be revisiting territory that has already
been covered, but I think it is important and I certainly would
like to understand better.
Mr. Rasker, when you look at the jobs that are created you
said jobs grew faster than the population with employment,
increasing more than four times faster than the 8 percent
population growth during that period. This is in Garfield and
Kane Counties near Grand Staircase-Escalante.
How did this compare with the rest of the state?
Dr. Rasker. Slower than the state as a whole.
Mr. Holt. And how did it compare with similar rural
counties?
Dr. Rasker. Kane County was a little bit faster than its
rural peers in the state, and Garfield County was a little
slower.
Mr. Holt. And this is a net growth after discounting for
any loss of jobs from resource exploitation or minerals mining,
is that right?
Dr. Rasker. That is correct. It is just a net increase in
jobs.
Mr. Holt. OK. Now, Mr. Labrador, I guess, was asking you
about the kinds of jobs and you said it was a full range. Now,
I see from your prepared testimony and maybe you have already
covered this, but it is worth clarifying, you say that in the
area adjacent to Canyons of the Ancients the per capita income
grew by 15 percent and near Grand Staircase-Escalante by 30
percent. Do I read this correctly? So, the per capita income
actually rose.
Dr. Rasker. In the counties adjacent to the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the real per capita
income grew by 30 percent after the designation.
Mr. Holt. So, there were some low paying jobs created but
overall salaries went up. Now, did you also look at what that
meant for taxes? The Mayor was talking about the loss of taxes
from the loss of mineral extraction and so forth. Do you know,
was there a net gain in taxes, taxes paid?
Dr. Rasker. We did not investigate changes in taxes over
time.
Mr. Holt. OK. I think I won't take the Committee's time for
other questions now. I thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
questions, but I will make a few comments.
All of these bills seem to me to be very modest, very
moderate, very minimal attempts to give the people a little
more say about what happens to the land around them, and remove
a little secrecy which has been in the process to some extent
in the past.
I can well remember the great lengths the Clinton
Administration went to to keep secret the designation of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument and midnight phone calls,
and all sorts of efforts were made to keep the people there
from knowing what was happening or understanding what was
happening to them.
To restrict all this land all over the country really helps
foreign energy producers, but it really hurts lower income and
working people by destroying jobs and driving up the prices.
These bills, it seems to me, want to keep a minority of wealthy
environmental radicals from running roughshod over the rights
of the majority of the people who live in those areas, and I
think it is very significant that while we have a researcher
who doesn't live in the area telling us how good this is, but
the man who actually--the witness who actually lives there
among the people has told us from his heart how much this has
really hurt the poor people and the families who live in this
area.
I have noticed in the past that all these environmental
radicals seems to come from very big business or universities
or government, and from cities and they are not ranchers or
farmers and small business people who are out there having to
meet payrolls and who are having to scrape by to make a very
difficult living. We already have 30 percent of the land in
this country is owned or controlled by the Federal Government,
and we have another 20 percent that are owned or controlled by
state and local governments and quasi-governmental agencies, so
that means half of the land is just pretty much tied up and
then we keep putting more and more limitations and restrictions
on the remaining land that is in the private hands, and if we
don't wake up in this country and realize how important private
property is to both our freedom and our prosperity, we are
going to--we are never going to be able to recover economically
and we are going to drastically change what this country has
been throughout its history.
So, I thank you very much for giving me this time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I have a few questions I would like
to ask. Mr. Rasker, let me start with you.
When you did your study did you include data from every
surrounding county on these 17 national monuments?
Dr. Rasker. Yes, we did.
Mr. Bishop. Every one. Because when I look at the map that
you supplied to me there is a vast discrepancy. Several of
these maps you have shown me where the entity is, as was for
the counties, there are some surrounding counties that were not
included. Almost all of those surrounding counties have a high
degree of unemployment. Why were they not included? Either your
map is wrong or your data is wrong. Which one is it?
Dr. Rasker. What we did we looked at counties that had
access to the national monuments so they were really----
Mr. Bishop. So you didn't do every surrounding county.
Dr. Rasker. No, if there was a----
Mr. Bishop. And some of these counties--let me finish this
because I have only got five minutes. Some of these counties
that were left off are very suspect. Let me go to Grand
Staircase-Escalante specifically.
Did you include Kane, Garfield, or Kane, Garfield and
Washington County?
Dr. Rasker. We looked at Kane and Garfield.
Mr. Bishop. But not Washington County even though it is
covered on your map as covering Washington County? So if you
are just doing Kane and Garfield, that is great. You say in
your report that there are 8,200 jobs in Kane and Garfield
County. That is unique when you have a population of less than
12,000 in that county, not counting kids and 10 percent of the
one county's population is unemployed. How in the hell can you
come up with those numbers?
Dr. Rasker. In-commuting has gone up?
Mr. Bishop. What?
Dr. Rasker. In-commuting has gone up, and most of the job
growth has gone to locals. We don't have much population
growth.
Mr. Bishop. They are commuting to Escalante?
Dr. Rasker. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Taylor, how long does it take you to get
from St. George, the nearest lodge, to the Escalante Monument?
Mr. Taylor. Two and a half hours.
Mr. Bishop. OK. What type period did you use when you were
making your study? Were they done during high tourism peaks?
Dr. Rasker. We looked at annual data.
Mr. Bishop. Say what?
Dr. Rasker. We looked at annual data.
Mr. Bishop. And it was not adjusted for seasonal work?
Dr. Rasker. No.
Mr. Bishop. I wish to ask unanimous consent to put in a
letter from Garfield County in here which once again in this
letter they are using their statistics. They tell you quite
frankly that real personal income has decreased, real income
per capita has decreased, school enrollment has decreased
within the county. This is in direct contradiction to the
report that you came up with. I ask that this be put in the
record. OK.
[NOTE: The statistics referenced above can be found in the
testimony of Mayor Jerry Taylor.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Taylor, let me go to some of yours. How
long after the monument designation was Escalante City
inundated with tourism and economic development resembling the
benefits that Mr. Rasker has claimed?
Mr. Taylor. We are still waiting.
Mr. Bishop. National monuments are only supposed to include
land owned or controlled by the Federal Government. How were
private and state lands impacted by the Clinton designation?
Mr. Taylor. I believe that some of the state lands had to
be traded for Federal land somewhere else which impacted our
community.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, there was supposedly a trade because when
the Grand Staircase-Escalante was made, the Administration had
no clue what happened to state trust lands that affected
education.
Mr. Taylor. That is right.
Mr. Bishop. So they made a deal with the trade. Secretary
Babbitt was here several weeks ago and said they had
consummated that trade. It is interesting to note the details
of that trade have never been consummated. The land that we
were promised in other areas has yet to be given to the State
of Utah over a decade later.
Mayor, can you tell me what impact the Grand Staircase has
had on local schools and your city and county resources?
Mr. Taylor. Well, our schools are in trouble right now. We
have declined since 1996, and they are in real trouble. We need
that rural funding to keep us alive.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Taylor, going back to one question that
Representative Kildee asked you about PILT again. In your view,
is PILT supposed to replace taxes that are lost for property
taxes or is it supposed to compensate for lost jobs? Is it
anywhere equal to the value, PILT funding equal to the value
that you would get from actual taxation?
Mr. Taylor. No.
Mr. Bishop. Does it compensate for lost jobs?
Mr. Taylor. No.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Rasker, one of the fundamentals of
economics is opportunity costs. Do any of your analysis look at
foregone economic opportunities like lost jobs, revenue, lease
extraction, energy potential?
Dr. Rasker. No, we only looked at growth since designation.
Mr. Bishop. I do appreciate the first thing you said saying
that the cause/effect relationship is no way proven by any of
the data you have, but actually looking at the Grand Staircase-
Escalante the data is suspect. Looking at the maps you provided
and not doing counties that are adjacent to these elements but
indeed have high unemployment makes your data suspect, and I
agree with you, there is no cause/effect relationship between
the data you have given us and the existence of these monuments
that are here.
Let me just say in the last four seconds, contrary to what
has been said, there has been harm created by Grand Staircase-
Escalante; just school trust lands, there was harm that was
done to corridors, for the electricity to the co-ops, there was
harm done to private property holders, and to come to some kind
of resolution of the 2477 harm that was done, and one of the
things we have failed to realize is that in the autocratic
world of 1906, when a Czar, a Kaiser, and King Edward were
still fighting Lord Salisbury for control of the foreign policy
having a President make these kind of arbitrary decisions was
greatly accommodated in the world of an autocratic leadership,
but it was never intended to be that way, and having
legislative function in an Executive Branch it is wrong, it is
wrong, it was wrong then, it is wrong today, and it needs to be
abdicated, it needs to be corrected, and any of these bills
will do that, and I appreciate that.
Are there any other additional questions for any of our
guests? If not, I appreciate you both being here. Thank you for
coming here. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for
waiting. Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity of having you here
with us. Once again I am sorry for my slip up in the process.
Mr. Taylor. No, we are fine.
Mr. Bishop. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arizona
Good morning, first I would like to take this opportunity to thank
Chairman Rob Bishop and my fellow Arizonan Ranking Member Raul Grijalva
for allowing me to take part in today's hearing.
A fundamental aspect of good government is the rule of law. The
rule of law includes due process. Currently, under the existing law, a
president can unilaterally, without any public input, without one
congressional hearing, and without any of the hallmarks of
transparency, remove millions of acres of public land from public
access and public use. This law needs to be changed, but until it is,
the western states at highest risk for federal abuse need exemptions.
The National Monument designation process, as any public land
designation, is of particular interest to my constituents. Arizona's
First Congressional District is comprised of over twenty-six million
acres of federally-administered and Native American lands, which is
nearly 70% of the total land. Due to the prevalence of this public
land, the way these lands are administered by the federal government
has a direct impact on almost every person residing in my district.
Rural Arizona communities depend on the multiple-use of public
lands for their livelihoods. As I traveled throughout my district
during this August recess, my constituents expressed concerns about
access to our public lands at nearly every corner of my 58,000 square
mile district. These concerns ranged from the ability to develop
domestic sources of energy, timber harvesting, grazing, hunting,
fishing, and family recreation
Too often we find that some federal land designations are causing
endless bureaucratic delays, litigation and restrictions that could
completely lock-up much of the large and needed store of wealth and
recreational opportunities our vast system of public lands can provide.
In a district like mine, dominated by federally administered lands,
these burdens disproportionately stifle economic productivity, leading
to some of the highest unemployment rates in the country and in some
cases threatening the ability of the affected communities to provide
public education and other basic services to their residents.
There is a reason the ability to set aside federal land generally
rested with Congress. These federal land designations have significant
direct impacts on our constituents. Sometimes these access restrictive
designations are absolutely necessary for the preservation of our
natural and historic treasures. Unfortunately, in other instances,
these designations are counterproductive and cause more harm than good.
Congressional authority to establish these land designations is an
integral part of the transparent and public process that will ensure a
designation is not only appropriate, but accepted by our constituents.
This is why I believe it is critical this Congress reforms the
National Monument designation process. While it is extremely important
to protect our country's natural and historical treasures, no
President, regardless of what party he belongs to, should have the
power to unilaterally declare a land designation that has some of the
most stringent restrictions on public access.
When Congress abdicated its duty to designate National Monuments
and gave this power to the President via the Antiquities Act of 1906,
Congress never intended the President to use that authority the way it
has been utilized. At the time, the law was enacted over concerns about
protecting mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and artifacts--collectively
termed ``antiquities''--on federal lands in the West. By definition,
the sites were to be very small--``the smallest area compatible'' with
preserving the antiquity.
Unfortunately, since given this power, many Presidents, Republican
and Democrat, have abused it. Today, there are over 100 National
Monuments located in 26 states, covering some 136 million acres. Some
of these sites span over one million acres. At 140,000 square miles,
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument is the largest protected
area proclaimed.
Without a doubt many of the existing National monuments are
extremely valuable natural and historic treasures. Nine National
Monuments, with major contributions to our tourism economy, are located
in Arizona's First Congressional District, Many of them draw in
visitors to hike, hunt, camp or recreate around the monuments. My
district's economy has a significant services component tied to tourist
sites like the Grand Canyon National Park and some of these National
Monuments. I appreciate the need for protections of sites; however, the
public deserves the opportunity to have their voices heard on any land
designation that may restrict our right to access.
Legislation I introduced alongside Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ-06),
H.R. 2877, and many of the other bills being discussed today will
ensure that the designation of National Monuments has an open and
transparent process. By ensuring no further extension or establishment
of national monuments in Arizona can be done without the authorization
of Congress, we would ensure the public gets to be a part of land
designations that affect them.
The opposition to my bill will likely paint my initiative as an
attack on the Administration or playing politics with our public lands.
Regardless of what political party controls the government, these
initiatives make sense. In some case proximity to a national monument
or like site increases the value of land or makes it more appealing to
the consumer. In many other cases, the exact opposite is the case.
Shouldn't our constituents have the ability to express concerns or
support, depending on the specific proposal?
In last year's Interior Department internal document that revealed
the Obama Administration's plans to designate new National Monuments
under the Antiquities Act, the Obama Administration even states that:
``the acceptance of preservation status is best achieved when
the public has an opportunity to participate in a land-use-
planning or legislative process.''
I introduced this legislation for that very reason. The people
should be a part of land designation decisions. When they are, there is
public buy-in. Isn't that what we call these lands, ``public lands?''
Thank you again for allowing me to participate in today's hearing.
I look forward to continuing to work to reform the National Monument
designation process.
______
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Devin Nunes, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 302,
H.R. 758, H.R. 877, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147''
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today.
Last year, an internal document from the U.S. Department of
Interior (DOI) revealed that the Administration was considering making
additional national monument designations pursuant to the Antiquities
Act of 1906. The proposed designations would restrict, without
Congressional approval, access to millions of acres of public lands,
thereby preventing energy production, recreation, and other job-
creating economic activities.
With the national unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent and 14
million Americans unemployed, we cannot afford to allow additional
economic activity to be forever foreclosed by the stroke of the
President's pen. Additionally, given the impact monument designations
have on our country, we certainly cannot allow the President to create
them unilaterally. Accordingly, I have introduced the National Monument
Designation Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 758), which will
ensure any future national monument designation is done on an informed
basis and is accomplished through a transparent process involving
Congress. It is supported by a coalition of nearly 50 organizations.
Pursuant to the ``Property Clause'', Article IV, Section 3, Clause
2, of the United States Constitution, Congress has the expressed power
to ``make needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory and
other Property belonging to the United States.'' Through the
Antiquities Act of 1906 and other acts, Congress has delegated
considerable land management authority to the President. For example,
the Antiquities Act, which was enacted in response to thefts from and
the destruction of archeological sites, allows the President to
proclaim national monuments on federal lands that ``contain historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of
historic and scientific interest.''
President Theodore Roosevelt first used the authority to create
Devil's Tower in Wyoming. Today, there are 71 monuments covering
approximately 136 million acres. While the Act has been used
appropriately in some instances, it also has been abused.
President Clinton, asserting that Congress had not acted quickly
enough, used his authority 22 times to proclaim 19 new monuments and to
expand three others; with one exception, the monuments were designated
in his last year of office. They also totaled 5.9 million acres. In the
instance of the Giant Sequoia National Monument, they devastated the
timber industry in Tulare County, California, and left an enduring
legacy of double-digit unemployment and diminished communities in
California's 21st Congressional District, which I am privileged to
represent.
As a life-long resident of Tulare County, I saw, and still see, the
devastation caused by President Clinton's pen. I understand well the
anger and frustration that many of my constituents felt when, with no
meaningful opportunity to provide input on this momentous decision,
their lives and communities were changed forever.
Congress must not allow such abuses of the Antiquities Act to be
repeated. Rather, if the Antiquities Act is going to remain law, it
must be improved, particularly with the revelation that the current
Administration might use the Act to designate monuments totaling as
many as 13 million acres.
The National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability
Act would provide the necessary improvements. It would also provide
much-needed transparency to what is an opaque process.
While the bill preserves the right of the President to act quickly
to protect national treasures that are under threat, it also ensures
his or her actions are confirmed by Congress. Specifically, Congress
would have two years to affirm the President's decision to protect the
national treasure in perpetuity. This will restore the balance between
executive decisions and public input.
The bill would also require the President to provide notice and the
actual language of the proposed designation to Congress, Governors,
local governments, and tribes within the boundaries of the proposed
monument. Additionally, it would require the Administration to provide
notice of public hearings and allow opportunity for public comments.
The President would then have to report to Congress on how the
designation would impact local tax revenues, national energy security,
land interests, rights, and uses.
These reforms would ensure the Antiquities Act is used
appropriately and in accordance with its original intent. Any monument
decisions would be made with all the pertinent information available,
with full public participation, and Congressional approval rather than
in the dark of the night at the behest of radical environmentalists.
Accordingly, I look forward to working with you and our colleagues
in the House to enact the National Monument Designation Transparency
and Accountability Act.
______
Statement submitted for the record by the Society for American
Archaeology on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846 and
H.R. 2147
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) appreciates this
opportunity to present the following testimony on the above-listed
pieces of legislation being considered by the subcommittee this
morning. These bills would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 (the Act)
to varying degrees, but the intent of each is to prevent current and
future administrations from unilaterally designating new National
Monuments. We recognize the tensions that federal land management
decisions can create, particularly in the Western U.S. Nevertheless,
SAA opposes these bills on the grounds that they will do great harm to
the first, and one of the most effective, conservation statutes the
nation has.
SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in
1934, has been dedicated to the research about and interpretation and
protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With nearly
7,000 members, SAA represents professional archaeologists in colleges
and universities, museums, government agencies, and the private sector.
SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other nations around
the world.
The Act is one of the most valuable tools that we possess for
protecting critical historic and natural resources located on our
nation's public lands. Conserving the archaeological record of those
who lived before us was a primary reason that Theodore Roosevelt, one
of our most far-seeing Presidents, championed the passage of the law in
1906. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that some of the nation's
most important and valuable archaeological sites, including Chaco
Culture and Casa Grande Ruins, are still in existence today thanks to
the protection afforded them as National Monuments.
More than one century and 124 monuments after enactment of the Act,
the statutory framework concerning National Monuments remains well-
balanced. The Act allows the President to proceed quickly to protect
important cultural and natural objects and values on federal lands.
Congress has its own authority to alter the boundaries and direct the
management policies of existing monuments, and designate new ones
legislatively. Historically, the creation of some of the monuments was
controversial. The majority were not. Given the fact that many
communities in the West derive their economies from multiple uses of
federal lands, some opposition was inevitable. Nevertheless, we believe
that these disputes should be seen not only as exceptions to the rule,
but also as part of a larger disagreement over the effect of federal
land management policies on Western state and local economies.
These differences of opinion should not be ignored. The answer,
however, is not to weaken the Act. Instead, we respectfully suggest
that whatever difficulties there are between the White House, Congress,
and states affected by the creation of Monuments be addressed through
greater openness and consultation during the deliberation process,
prior to either administrative or legislative designation. Greater
discussion could alleviate a substantial amount of the mistrust that
currently exists.
SAA thanks the subcommittee for its time and consideration of this
important issue.
______
Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the
Interior Concerning Six Bills to Amend the Act Popularly Known as the
Antiquities Act of 1906
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Administration on six bills--
H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147--to
amend the Act popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906
(``Antiquities Act'').
The Administration strongly opposes these six bills. The
Antiquities Act has been used by Presidents of both parties for more
than 100 years as an instrument to preserve and protect critical
natural, historical, and scientific resources on Federal lands for
future generations. The authority has contributed significantly to the
strength of the National Park System and the protection of special
qualities of other Federal lands--resources that constitute some of the
most important elements of our nation's heritage. The six bills, which
would limit the President's authority in various ways, would undermine
this vital authority.
Of the six bills under consideration, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R.
2147 would bar the use of the Antiquities Act to extend or establish
new national monuments in Montana, Idaho, and Utah, respectively,
unless authorized by Congress. H.R. 817 would require Congressional
approval for national monuments designated by the President and would
be applicable to designations in any state. H.R. 302 would require the
approval of a state legislature and governor before the President could
designate a national monument and would prohibit restrictions on public
use of national monuments until there is a public review period and
state approval of the monument. H.R. 758 would require national
monument designations to be approved by Congress within two years of a
presidential proclamation in order to maintain their national monument
status and would also impose certain requirements affecting the
processes for proposing and managing national monuments.
The use of the Antiquities Act was addressed in some of the
listening sessions associated with the America's Great Outdoors
initiative last year, and the public voiced strong support for the
designation of unique places as national monuments. As a result of this
public input, one of the recommendations of the America's Great
Outdoors report, issued in February 2011, was to implement a
transparent and open approach in the development and execution of new
monument designations. The Administration supports conducting an open,
public process that considers input from local, state, and national
stakeholders before any sites are considered for designation as
national monuments through the Antiquities Act. All proposed
designations would respect valid existing rights on federal lands and
any other relevant provisions of law.
The Antiquities Act was the first U.S. law to provide general
protection for any cultural or natural resource on Federal lands. In
the last decades of the 19th Century, educators and scientists joined
together in a movement to safeguard archeological sites on Federal
lands, primarily in the West, that were endangered by haphazard digging
and purposeful, commercial artifact looting. After a generation-long
effort to pass such a law, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the
Antiquities Act on June 8, 1906, thus establishing the first general
legal protection of cultural and natural resources on Federal lands.
The Antiquities Act set an important precedent by asserting a broad
public interest in the preservation of natural and cultural resources
on public lands. The law provided much of the legal foundation for
cultural preservation and natural resource conservation in the nation.
It created the basis for the Federal government's current efforts to
protect archeological sites from looting and vandalism.
After signing the Antiquities Act into law, President Roosevelt
used the Antiquities Act eighteen times to establish national
monuments. A number of those first monuments include what is now known
as Grand Canyon National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, Chaco
Culture National Historical Park, Lassen Volcanic National Park,
Tumacacori National Historical Park, and Olympic National Park.
Since President Roosevelt, thirteen U.S. Presidents have used the
Antiquities Act one hundred and thirty-six times to establish or expand
national monuments. Congress has redesignated thirty-four of these
national monuments as other types of national park units. The National
Park Service continues to administer another seventy-five as national
monuments. Some of our most iconic national monuments established by
presidential proclamation include Devils Tower, Muir Woods, Statue of
Liberty, and Acadia National Park. In addition, the Bureau of Land
Management administers fourteen national monuments designated by
presidential proclamation, including Aqua Fria in Arizona and Canyons
of the Ancients in Colorado, which preserve significant archeological
sites, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers three
national monuments.
Most recently, President George W. Bush used the Act to issue
proclamations that established six national monuments. The 2006
designation of the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York
City preserves a section of what was the largest historic African and
African-American cemetery in the country, honoring the early
contributions of Africans and African-Americans to the development of
our nation. President Bush also designated the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands Marine National Monument, renamed the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument, which is the largest national monument ever
proclaimed. In 2008, President Bush established by proclamation the
World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument to recognize the
sacrifices made by military and civilians during the conflict. It
protects the USS Arizona Memorial, one of the most heavily visited
sites managed by the National Park Service, as well as the Tule Lake
Segregation Center in California, where Japanese Americans were
confined against their will, and other important sites. Another three
monuments were established in 2009 to protect marine resources. These
sites are the Mariana Trench Marine, Pacific Remote Islands Marine, and
Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments.
Without the President's authority under the Antiquities Act, it is
unlikely that many of these special places would have been protected
and preserved as quickly and as fully as they were. As Congress
intended when it enacted the Antiquities Act, the statute provides the
necessary flexibility to respond quickly to impending threats to
resource protection, while striking an appropriate balance between
legislative and executive decision making.
The Antiquities Act has a proven track record of protecting--at
critical moments--especially sensitive Federal lands and the unique
cultural and natural resources they possess. These monuments have
become universally revered symbols of America's beauty and legacy.
Though some national monuments have been established amidst
controversy, who among us today would dam the Grand Canyon or turn Muir
Woods over to development? These sites are much cherished landscapes
which help to define the American spirit. They speak eloquently to the
wisdom of retaining the Antiquities Act is its current form.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Administration.