[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5451-H5452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NATIONAL MONUMENT FAIRNESS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 1996, President Clinton 
went out to safety on the south rim of the Grand Canyon and stood there 
and declared 1.7 million acres of Utah as a national monument. He had a 
right to do that. It is called the antiquity law that was passed in 
1906, and the reason it was passed is Teddy Roosevelt and others could 
see that we were ruining many of the prehistoric things that were 
around. We were finding all these things that had been there for years 
and destroying them. So he had a right to do that. I do not object to 
the right.
  What I do object to is the interpretation of the law. The law is very 
clear. It says that the President of the United States will do this for 
two purposes, and he will state these purposes. First, is to protect 
the archeological part of it, and another, historic site. This 
President did not declare either one.
  And the next part of the law is the key, and it says he shall use the 
smallest acreage available to protect that particular thing--1.7 
million acres--bigger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined; and no 
one told us what was there, except we know that there was

[[Page H5452]]

tons and tons of coal that is low-sulfur coal, high-Btu coal, and what 
would inure to the children who are educated in the State of Utah is 
5.6 billion acres; money, billions of dollars, excuse me, that would 
inure to them. Also, a lot of the coal would be exported that would 
help people in other areas.
  But the President had a right to do that. However, when they talk 
about protection, that is a misnomer. There is very little protection 
in the antiquities law.
  Since that time Congress wisely has determined. The park bill has 
gone in since that time. The National Environment Protection Act has 
gone in. The Wilderness Act, the FLPMA Act. All of these acts, Wild and 
Scenic River Act, do this.
  We go back and we check what other Presidents have done, President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Kennedy, President Carter, but 
from time to time some extreme environmentalist says we have got to 
protect this, really not realizing it does not protect anything. What 
it really does is it takes away the protection of the management plans 
of BLM and Forest Service.
  So we find ourselves in a position where the President protected 
nothing, he abused the power of the Presidency, he hurt the people of 
the West, and I cannot understand why he would do it. But he has the 
right; I would agree with that.
  Now, I have introduced a bill, which is H.R. 1127, called the 
National Monument Fairness Act. What does it do? A lot of people, after 
he introduced the 1.7 million acres, Senators, Congressmen, came to me 
as chairman of that committee and said, ``Well, I don't want that to 
happen to my State. I want a law that takes it away so it can't 
happen,'' and they name their State.
  I think the President should have the right to do some of these 
things in a small amount as the law brings it about, so I have 
introduced this with 50,000 acres. He cannot go into these millions and 
millions of acres for political purposes.

                              {time}  1600

  The nice thing about our President, he was fast to say that he did it 
for political reasons. If we look at the idea all the way through it, I 
have been subpoenaing papers from the White House and the Department of 
the Interior, and every one of them says that ``We are doing this for 
political reasons. How will this play with the environmental community? 
How will this play with the rich movie stars? How will this play with 
the celebrities?
  When they finally decided to do it, they did not do it in the Oval 
Office, they did not do it in Utah, they went to the Grand Canyon, 
safely in Arizona. The nice thing about it there is one of the things I 
subpoenaed said, we do not want mainstream Utah there, we want the 
environmental community there. That is a great thing to say to our 
people.
  Anyway, carrying that on, what does my bill do? The bill allows the 
President to do up to 50,000 acres, much as the law originally 
intended. Over that he would have to confer with the Governor and the 
legislature of the State, and as the Constitution gives the right of 
the lands of America to this House and the House over there, that is 
what they would have to do, is go through Congress.
  I would hope people would realize that this is not an environmental 
bill at all. This is a bill on abuse of the President's power, which I 
think more and more people are coming to realize, whether they are 
Republicans or Democrats.

                          ____________________