[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8280-H8285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1127, NATIONAL MONUMENT FAIRNESS 
                                  ACT

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. It will allow for 
consideration of H.R. 1127, which is a bill that amends the 1906 
Antiquities Act to limit the ability of the President to establish 
national monuments. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
described, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Resources.
  Under this rule, five amendments printed in the committee report are 
allowed, each debatable for 10 minutes. No other amendments may be 
offered.
  First of all, I do want to thank the members of the Committee on 
Rules and the gentleman from New York for making in order most of the 
amendments that were submitted, including four Democratic amendments.
  Unfortunately, Members were notified on Thursday, September 25, that 
they had until Monday noon to submit amendments. That is only 2 working 
days. This modified closed rule only permits amendments that were 
submitted in advance, and these will be debated under severe time 
restraints. Thus, the House is denied the opportunity for full and fair 
debate normally permitted under an open rule.
  On rare occasions, these restrictions are acceptable for matters of 
the highest priority or when urgent House action is required. However, 
this bill fits neither requirement. The bill was reported more than 2 
months ago, and the House could have taken it up at any time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is not only low priority, it is entirely 
unnecessary in my opinion. This measure eliminates the President's 
ability to create new national monuments under 50,000 acres without 
specific congressional approval. However, Congress already has the 
power to add to, change, or reverse the designation of national 
monuments.
  The bill would tie the President's hands in dealing with threats to 
our Nation's natural, historic, and scientific resources. If we pass 
the bill, the President will certainly veto it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8281]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The fact 
is that this bill is being considered under severe time restraints and 
severe limits in terms of the amendments that are written in the rule.
  While I appreciate the fact that the Committee on Rules did respond 
to my request to offer the amendment that I resubmitted, with the 
modifications to it, but the fact is that the nature of the time 
allotments on this, and the limitations on this are simply not 
justified.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, let the gentleman understand that we made 
in order all amendments that were filed, including the gentleman's, and 
even gave him the opportunity to modify.
  Because of the windows of opportunity, we have put a time limit of 10 
minutes on each amendment. However, if the gentleman desires more time, 
I am sure that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] or the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] would be willing to grant more time. 
This was sort of the understanding that we had.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and, of course, I 
acknowledge exactly what he had repeated as I yielded to him. The 
concern is and the reason is that there is no urgency in terms of this 
matter, the issue of this matter has been before the Congress, an 
introduced measure since the beginning of this Congress. It has been 
over 3 months actually since this bill, the so called Monument Fairness 
Act, was acted on by the House Committee on Resources. The effort at 
this late date and at this time, in fact, to try and squeeze in this 
bill, as it were, this week or next week simply does not do justice to 
the nature of the issue that is before us.
  I say that because this 1906 act, this antiquities law that is 
proposed to be substantially cut and modified by this proposal, is one 
of the foundations of modern conservation law in terms of what has 
happened in this century as our Nation and our people and values came 
to realize the importance of conserving the great landscapes that make 
up our Nation which are the legacy of future generations of Americans.
  It is hardly the time in the 20th century, when we have come to a 
realization where the United States has led the world, really, in terms 
of conservation and preservation of these special landscapes, that we 
would propose at this date to move into the 21st century without 
extending and maintaining this essential power for the President.
  While it is true that in the past 90 years we have developed the 
national parks, we have developed fish and wildlife areas and important 
landmark laws like the 1964 wilderness law, Madam Speaker, while it is 
true that we have developed these new laws that addressed the 
preservation of landscapes and provide Congress and, in a more limited 
way, the States and the administration an opportunity to act, in fact, 
deal with the risks and the problems that face these essential 
landscapes, the fact is that this fundamental power of the 1906 act is 
a very pervasive one and a very important one in terms of being the 
foundation of our efforts to, meet the objectives and goals of the 
American people in preserving these important natural, cultural, and 
scientific areas.
  As a matter of fact, this is the legislation that is the essence of 
having developed important crown jewels that we hold up now as proudly 
as the accomplishments of this century as areas of landscape 
preservation, like the Grand Canyon, like Denali in Alaska, like 
Glacier Bay in southeast Alaska, and many, many other areas that are 
equally important and recognized by all America as our special places 
and valued.
  To bring this bill up and to consider it with these abbreviated sorts 
of amendments and to try to jam it to conclusion in this session and in 
this manner is inappropriate and, I think, does not reflect well on the 
deliberative process that I would think would accompany a significant 
change in natural resource policy that is important to this House and 
our Nation.
  Stripping away the President's power, the power that 13 Presidents 
have exercised in 105 different instances in creating and designating 
and declaring these national monuments, is a very important landscape 
and environmental law that we should not take away, initiated, by, of 
course, the pioneer of the modern conservation movement, Theodore 
Roosevelt, in 1906 and used through most of the Presidents, including 
President Clinton.
  If we disagree with the actions of a President, whatever President it 
is, this Congress has the opportunity to act and historically has 
acted, effectively in terms of addressing this issue, but not to upset 
the very power that the Presidents have, in an emergency to act to 
protect our landscapes and resources for future generations of 
American.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen], 7 minutes.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New York 
yielding the time to me on this important piece of legislation.
  Everyone has alluded to the idea of what Theodore Roosevelt was able 
to do. One of our great Presidents, no question about it, was the man 
who took care of conservation, started the ball rolling. What did he 
have to work with back at the turn of the century? Was there any 
legislation there that would allow him to go out and see these 
beautiful parks of America, let us take care of it? There was nothing 
there. So the 1906 antiquities law came along.
  What does it do? Does it offer any protection to anything? Absolutely 
not. Nothing. So the President did not have the 1915 park bill. If he 
had, he would have used it, and later it was used. He did not have the 
1969 NEPA bill. He did not have the 1964 wilderness bill. He did not 
have the 1976 FLPMA bill, Wild and Scenic River, Horse and Burro Act, 
did not have any of those things. What he did have? He had the 1906 law 
that has far outlived its usefulness.
  What does that law say? The law says that the President of the United 
States sees an area, this should be protected for archeological reasons 
or historic reasons, and every President but one always stated the 
reason. Rainbow Bridge is a reason; two trains came together where it 
was. Whatever it may be. This President forgot to state the reason in 
this one. What does the next sentence in the law say? It is very clear. 
It says that he shall use the smallest amount of acreage to protect 
that archeological or historical thing.
  Now we have a very interesting thing that occurred. On September 18, 
1996, safely in Arizona, the President of the United States stood up 
and he declared 1.7 million acres as a national monument. Did this 
President say, here is this archeological thing I have tried to 
protect? Wait a minute, here is this historic thing I want to protect? 
He did not say a word about it. In fact, he had never even been there, 
different than Teddy Roosevelt who had been to all those areas. 
President Roosevelt had seen those areas, had walked on them, hunted on 
them, knew about them. He was an expert on it.
  Does this President even know where it was? He did not even know 
where the thing was. Why did he do it? What is the historical nature? 
Did anyone say anything about this? Did I hear that from this side or 
this side? What was the archeological reason? Can anybody give it to 
me? And what is the smallest amount, as the law says? Should we now cut 
the President off and say, Mr. President, you cannot do this anymore; 
we have other laws?
  No. There may be a hairy mammoth up there in northern Minnesota that 
we will find, and I would assure my good friend from Minnesota, who 
would want a national park there or national monument, the President 
could go up, under this law, and he could take 50,000 acres and no one 
says a thing about it. Come on, think about it.
  Do any of you guys in here know anything about surveying? I do not 
know

[[Page H8282]]

very much. Let me say this: How big is 50,000 acres? The size of 
Washington, D.C., is 50,000 acres.
  He can do that anywhere in any one of your States. He can go in and 
plunk it down right in the middle of Ithaca, NY, or wherever he wants 
to. You have 50,000; we do not say a thing about it. All we are saying 
is, this law has outused its purpose. Now let us just bring it to 
50,000.
  What does this bill say? It says, in the event the President of the 
United States wants more than 50,000 acres, he had better talk to the 
Governor. Does he have to listen to the Governor? No. But we are saying 
for 30 days he has to talk to the Governor of the State and then he has 
to come to Congress. And, incidentally, we all admit that Congress is 
given the right to take care of the public lands of America; the 
Constitution gives them that. And then he can come to Congress, and 
Congress can say, all right, Mr. President, we will give you more or 
less.
  If he goes over, this bill says, for 2 years it sits there, and then 
it sunsets, unless Congress moves on it.
  I would just say to my friends, please do not get conned into the 
idea of saying there is protection here. Does the antiquities bill stop 
coal mining in an area? No. You can still mine coal in a national 
monument. Does it stop mineral development? No. Conoco is drilling 
exploratory in the Grand Escalante Staircase as we speak. Does it 
prevent grazing? No. Grazing will continue. On the contrary, the 
national monuments are there to be seen.
  This flies in the face of what the environmental community thought 
they had. They shot themselves in the foot on this one. They thought 
they got protection. What did they get? They got hundreds of people 
standing there. I was down there not too long ago. I was in the 
Government vehicle; State people were with me, all these folks standing 
around. They said: Hey, you folks are government. Tell us what is the 
national historic thing that I came to see in the monument, and where 
is the monument? We said: Folks, you are standing in it. I hope you 
enjoy it.
  Next question: What is there to see? We do not know. So they are 
going there, all these people now. It is great for Escalante. It is 
great for Cannonville. It is great for Tropic. It is great for those 
little communities where they did not have a tax base. Now they have 
people coming in by the hundreds, and they are building motels, and 
they are building gas stations. And now all we can see out there is a 
panorama of people trying to find something to see like they do Rainbow 
Bridge, like they do the Golden Spike, like they do the other 
monuments. But there is nothing to see.
  So why did we do it? Well, we have been asking the White House: Why 
did you do this anyway? Strangely enough, we are now even subpoenaing 
the records. They actually said I could look at them, and I did. There 
was not one thing in there about protecting it. And, in fact, the 
chairman of the President's Environmental Protection Council said this: 
This ground is not worthy of protection. That is in black and white.
  So then you ask yourself, what about the time it happened? Do you 
know what they said? They said: Who do we want to stand with us safely 
on the south rim of the Grand Canyon? Do we want the mainstream Utah 
folks? That was not stated. What was stated: Do we want the enviro 
crowd to accept it wildly?
  Let us be honest, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, this was 
done for political purpose only. That is it. It had nothing to do with 
anything as far as protecting an area. My dad ran uranium mines down 
there. I can tell you, I agree with Kathleen McGinney, it does not 
deserve protection.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman have a bill to repeal the declaration 
of the President with regard to the Escalante Grand Staircase national 
monument?
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, let me say this to the gentleman. If we 
had any sense and the President had time enough to talk to us, we would 
have said the Grand Staircase Escalante should be 50-mile mountain, and 
it should be Paria-Hackberry. I would agree, it is almost national park 
status. There is one little tiny part of it. They did not talk to us. 
In fact, no one from the delegation was even alerted, which I find a 
little offensive.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, life is certainly full of 
inconsistencies, and nowhere is that more evident than on the floor of 
the House of Representatives today. We have before us something called 
the rule on the National Monument Fairness Act of 1997.

                              {time}  1230

  Of course this act has nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. It has 
to do entirely and completely with trying to, in some misguided way, 
strike back at the administration for declaring a national monument in 
the Grand Staircase in Escalante in southern Utah, an act which, as a 
matter of fact, has been hailed by people all across the country, 
including many in Utah and many public officials in Utah.
  Why we are doing this is certainly beyond me, but inconsistent it 
certainly is. In introducing the rule on this act, the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules inveighed against the closed nature in which the 
President engaged in establishing this national monument while, in 
fact, that was not a closed process at all. It was a very open process 
and heralded in many places all across the country. What is closed, in 
fact, is this modified closed rule in which we are seeking to address 
this very important issue.
  Another inconsistency. Just recently, in a budget bill, we passed 
legislation which appropriated $5 million for the purchase of the 
Reagan ranch in California. Now, that may be a very good idea. I do not 
know. And I am sure most people do not know because there were no 
hearings. There was no open process. No one knew anything about it. The 
people in the surrounding area, I understand, are very upset about the 
fact that this ranch has now been purchased, or is about to be 
purchased, for $5 million. Talk about a closed process, this majority 
here seems to have the patent on closed processes.
  Let us talk for a moment about one of the specific amendments here, 
the amendment that is being introduced by my good friend from Utah 
which would set up a process whereby before any national monuments can 
be designated, 30 days notice has to be given to the State. That may 
not be a bad idea, but then it goes further and it says that after 2 
years, after the monument has been designated for 2 years, the Congress 
is going to have to take some affirmative action.
  What that means is, in effect, that the National Monuments Act will 
be made null and void, because virtually any Member of the Congress 
would be able to hold it up.
  Now, my dear friend from Utah was talking a few moments ago about how 
a national monument can be installed anyplace in the country by whim of 
the President. Not so, my colleagues. That is not the case at all. 
First of all, national monuments can be declared only on public land, 
and the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument involves public 
land in the State of Utah, and that is what this is about.
  This is about designating land that is owned by all of the people of 
this country, public lands owned by all of the people of this country 
to be a national monument.
  Now, we were told also that there are no specifics in this 
proclamation. Quite the contrary, Madam Speaker. The proclamation that 
the President used in declaring the Grand Staircase Escalante National 
Monument is replete with specifics. Let me mention just a few.
  The monument holds many arches and natural bridges, including the 
130-foot high Escalante Natural Bridge, with a 100-foot span, and 
Grosvenor Arch, a rare double arch. The upper Escalante canyons in the 
northeastern reaches of the monument are distinctive: In addition to 
several major arches and the natural bridges, vivid geological features 
are laid bare in narrow serpentine canyons. It goes on and on. There 
are innumerable specifics in this proclamation that set forth precisely 
why this area was designated a national monument.

[[Page H8283]]

  So what we have before us today is not an act that seeks fairness, it 
is an act that seeks some perverse kind of revenge for having done 
something that some people may not approve of, although is approved of 
by the overwhelming majority of the American people and by notable 
public officials in the State of Utah, including the Governor of the 
State of Utah.
  This was, in fact, the right thing to do. The President has used this 
act in precisely the way it was intended to be used, precisely the way 
13 other Presidents have used it in the past. And if this act were in 
effect when other national monuments were intended to be enacted, they 
never would have taken place. The people of this country would have 
been deprived of some of the most important aspects of our natural 
heritage.
  This rule is a bad rule, Madam Speaker, and the amendments that it 
makes germane are bad also and they ought to both be defeated.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am shocked, literally shocked, at my colleague from New York, whose 
district borders mine, complaining about this rule. The rule is totally 
open to every Member of this Congress to offer amendments. We made in 
order every single request that we had, with the exception of the 
gentleman's colleague, who now has turned his amendment into a germane 
amendment and we are about to move to make that amendment in order as 
well.
  I really hesitate to be critical of my colleague, but he ought to 
know that what he said is not true about the rule. The rule is fair and 
open and it is supported by everyone in the Chamber.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will not yield to the gentleman from New York, because 
the gentleman would not yield to another colleague.
  Well, I will yield to the gentleman to show how fair we are.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I would point out to my friend that only 
2 days time was given to file amendments and there is only 10 minutes 
allowed for debate on each of the amendments that have been allowed. So 
in my colleague's own language, and appropriately so, this rule has 
been described as a modified closed rule, and closed it certainly is.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman had 
requested an amendment, it would have been made in order.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources. He is really one 
of the most respected Members of this body because he always tells it 
like it is.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I have been listening to this 
thing with great interest. If my colleagues read the bill, it is a very 
simple and very good bill.
  It limits the President's ability. Up to or below 50,000 acres, he 
can do anything he wants to do. If we read the Antiquities Act, it was 
never meant to be used as Jimmy Carter used it when they set aside 87 
million acres in my State as a national monument. It was never meant to 
set Escalante aside. That was never the intent of the Antiquities Act. 
It was to save the Statue of Liberty or some historical house or 
something that was being threatened by, in fact, outside encroachment.
  The most interesting thing I hear today is this body, especially that 
side, is willing to let the President run this country by himself when 
the Constitution says we have the authority, and only the Congress of 
the United States, to set aside and designate lands. I am not about to 
elect a king. He may think he is a king, but I say he is just a 
President and he has to answer to this Congress.
  This gentleman from Utah puts it very clearly, that we now say, all 
right, sir, Mr. President, if there is a Statue of Liberty or a 
Washington Monument or Mount Vernon being threatened, he can declare 
that a national monument if they are not already. But if there is 
anything larger than 50,000 acres, which is bigger than the gentleman's 
district, then he has to come back to the Congress. And what is wrong 
with letting the Congress do the job instead of just letting the 
President do the job?
  But more than Escalante, I want to tell my colleagues a little thing 
about Escalante. No one was consulted in the State of Utah. The 
Governor was not; our colleague was not. In fact, he was washed down 
the drain by this President on behalf of the environmental community. 
Washed out of this Congress. He was defeated because this President did 
not have the decency to communicate with those elected close by.
  And by the way, it is not a monument. It is actually an area that is 
basically of little value other than the coal. It is ironic to me this 
large massive amount of coal is now off limits.
  The second thing is there is private land involved here, 200,000 
acres of land owned by the State of Utah, that is surrounded by, now, 
this monument. There are private land holdings within the monument that 
are no longer of any value. It is a taking without compensation.
  We are trying to solve a problem that this President has abused; that 
Jimmy Carter abused. It is a bill that should be passed, and I would 
suggest, respectfully, let us go with the amendments that have been 
offered by the gentleman from Utah; let us pass this legislation; let 
us put, I suggest, Congress back in the role of selecting the lands 
that should be a monument.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking minority member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this rule.
  It is unfortunate that we are being rushed both in this rule and I 
guess in consideration of the underlying legislation. This is a bill 
that was reported out of our committee in June, and now we find, just 
before the House is in a rush to leave for the religious holidays, that 
we have this bill jammed to us on the floor and time limitations placed 
upon the amendment.
  This is an important bill. Understand that. This is not a minor bill, 
this is an important bill, and it should be open to full and fair 
debate because this bill stands the Antiquities Act on its head.
  Now, those who are supporting this legislation would have us think 
that somehow the President was wandering around the country willy-nilly 
declaring areas to be national monuments and to preserve Federal lands. 
That is not the case at all.
  They would have us believe there has been no consultation, no 
discussion, no awareness of this. The fact of the matter is there has 
been years of consultation, years of discussion within the Utah 
delegation, within our committee, within the Congress, within the 
Senate, within the House, among the Governors, among the 
administration; and the fact of the matter is that nobody could arrive 
at a conclusion about the protection of these lands.
  The people of Utah have expressed over and over again that they want 
an expansive Utah wilderness bill to protect these lands and other 
lands in that State. The President took these lands to protect them.
  Why did he protect them? Because when we go out to Utah and we travel 
the lands, we will see an interesting phenomenon: people driving 
tractors across the land, people punching roads into the land because 
they think that that somehow will disqualify them from being nominated 
as a wilderness area. And it is going on on a weekly and daily basis 
out there, so somebody had to take action.
  Now, under the existing law, the President took action, as he 
properly did and rightfully did, to protect the lands in this State 
that belong to the people of the United States, all of the people of 
the United States. But the Senators from Utah and elsewhere have 
filibustered, they have blocked amendments. They would not let this 
happen. The President took the action to protect the lands.
  Now, the gentleman from Utah, the Senators from Utah or anybody else 
who wants, can come here and introduce legislation to modify the 
Escalante area. The gentleman says some of it is worthy of a national 
park and the rest is not much. Bring that bill to the floor. Let us 
have that debate.

[[Page H8284]]

  Many people think that the wilderness area should be much larger than 
that. There are many other areas that should be protected. The 
gentleman has his own bill. Other people have brought bills in the past 
to modify actions of the President. Some 40 times we have modified 
those actions.
  But rather than deal with that, rather than deal with this on the 
merits, is it too large, too small, is it the right area, the wrong 
area, is it a valuable area or an invaluable area, they would rather 
gut the Antiquities Act. They would rather put it back into the hands 
of the Senators who have filibustered the protection of these lands in 
the first place. That is what they want to do.
  That stands one of the crown jewels of environmental protection on 
its head. It guts the Antiquities Act. When it is all said and done we 
put it right back into the hands of the great ``hall of whims'' down at 
the other end of the aisle here where they cannot resolve anything.
  We have asked year after year after year for a Utah wilderness bill. 
They cannot resolve it. So we are not going to let people lay waste to 
these lands because the politicians cannot make up their minds to do 
what the people in the State want them to do. That is what this debate 
is about.
  This bill is a bad bill, the amendments will not cure it, and we 
ought to defeat the rule and we ought to defeat the bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
certainly concur with much of his statement.
  The fact that President Carter, the fact that President Clinton used 
this action was precisely because there were imminent actions. And my 
colleague from Alaska, our chairman, surely knows that the protection 
of the D-2 lands, had it been extended, expired because Congress failed 
to act. The only tool he had available that would really work was this 
1906 act.
  Today we would not have the protection of many of these key areas in 
Alaska but for the fact that the President had this backup power. It is 
important to have the '64 Wilderness Act, the 1916 Park Act, and many 
others, but the fact is the President needs that so that he can protect 
the public interest, the national interest, in terms of these lands, 
whether they be in Alaska or Utah.
  The gentleman disagrees, and I respect the fact that we have 
disagreement with regards to this, but the President acted in this 
instance because there were mineral leases that were going to go on.
  Talking about consultation, there are major flaws in terms of these 
bills.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. VENTO. The fact is that when there is an instance where there is 
a conservation action that may take place with regard to wilderness 
designation or park designation, we have a group of individuals in this 
country that will go on seeking mineral leasing, seeking permits, 
simply with the effort to in fact frustrate, and at great expense to 
the taxpayer. We have to go back at that particular point if we want to 
achieve the conservation, the preservation of that land, and pay for 
what the taxpayer already owns, that is, the Federal Government already 
has. We have to go back and pay, basically, in essence being 
blackmailed in these instances in order to conserve these lands. That 
is wrong.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is 
right. My colleague wants to keep alluding to Katie McGinty's memo. But 
the fact of the matter is, with advanced notice, the Senate would have 
tried to stop this, would have tried to put this into an appropriations 
bill, and left these lands unprotected.
  That was the fact that was on the ground and evident to everyone in 
this Nation before the President had the courage to act and protect 
these lands.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I intend to close for our side, if the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] would like to yield back the balance of 
his time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers. I would just say that the 
chairman has referred to this as being an open rule. It is really a 
modified closed rule.
  I just want to correct that particular statement and say that the 
bill is a high priority from the standpoint if you are an 
environmentalist and really care about these lands. On the other hand, 
the bill can wait and it is not necessary that we continue to stay here 
and debate this piece of legislation.
  I would just say that I would hope that people would consider this 
rule and vote according to what the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] and what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and what the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] have said about this. I think 
they have made very, very good points about this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Cook], a very distinguished new Member of this body.
  Mr. COOK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the time in the closing arguments here.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of the rule on the 
underlying legislation, the National Monument Fairness Act. With all 
due respect to my friends and colleagues from New York, Minnesota, and 
California, I just cannot see what the real problem is. Because, Madam 
Speaker, I think this act will only enhance the ability of a President 
to work with Governors and State lawmakers to preserve America's scenic 
wonders, something I feel very strongly about, something that ought to 
be done.
  The Antiquities Act can be a wonderful tool for enshrining 
significant natural, archaeological and historical sites. H.R. 1127 
will still allow a President to declare national monuments, up to 
50,000 acres, in the same way that he declared the Escalante Grand 
Staircase.
  But when he is going to designate a monument that size, 1.7 million, 
in fact, anything over 50,000, he is going to have to consult with 
State legislatures and Governors. Because if he does not, there will be 
sunsetting provisions or some other way to make sure appropriate 
notification, not denial, of the opportunity to use the Antiquities Act 
is done.
  History shows us that this bill will not affect very many of the vast 
number of prospective sites. The vast majority of all previously 
declared areas are much, much smaller than 50,000 acres. But common 
sense and fair play dictate the large piece of land in a State that is 
to be set aside as a national monument, the Governor and the States' 
legislatures ought to be consulted. Failure to do so absolutely flies 
in the face of representative government and democracy itself.
  That kind of offense is really unnecessary. This would totally be 
prevented by the simple notifications required.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I sum up very briefly, not using all of our time that 
we have. I just want to quote one more time, if I might, because it is 
really what this bill is all about that the rule makes in order; and 
that is the statement by Katie McGinty, the chair of the President's 
Council on Environmental Quality, when she wrote, ``I will say again, 
any public release of information would probably foreclose the 
President's option to proceed,'' that is, hiding it from the American 
people.
  Interior Department Solicitor John Lishy said something similar when 
he said, ``I can't emphasize confidentiality too much. If word leaks 
out, it probably won't happen.''
  That is what this legislation is all about. The American people are 
always entitled to know what their Government is doing.
  Now, the rule is a fair rule, whether it is modified closed, modified 
open. It is a rule that made in order every single request by every 
single Member for any germane amendment, including the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert], the noted environmentalist, over here, who I 
will offer an amendment in a minute to this rule, making in order his 
amendment, which is now germane to the issue. And that is out of 
fairness.

[[Page H8285]]

  We have then taken care of anyone and everyone who wanted to offer 
amendments to this, including the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Hinchey]. Had he wanted an amendment, it would have been made in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     specified in section 3 of this resolution as though it were 
     amendment numbered 6 in House Report 105-283. That amendment 
     may be offered only by Representative Hansen of Utah or his 
     designee and shall be debatable for 10 minutes.
       ``Sec. 3. The amendment described in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Monument Fairness 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF NATIONAL MONUMENT STATUS AND 
                   CONSULTATION.

       Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906, commonly referred to 
     as the ``Antiquities Act'' (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431) is 
     amended by adding the following at the end thereof: ``A 
     proclamation of the President under this section that results 
     in the designation of a total acreage in excess of 50,000 
     acres in a single State in a single calendar year as a 
     national monument may not be issued until 30 days after the 
     President has transmitted the proposed proclamation to the 
     Governor of the State in which such acreage is located and 
     solicited such Governor's written comments, and any such 
     proclamation shall cease to be effective on the date 2 years 
     after issuance unless the Congress has approved such 
     proclamation by joint resolution.''.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that that amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

                          ____________________