[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 137 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8398-H8413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NATIONAL MONUMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 256 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1127.

                              {time}  1842


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1127) to amend the Antiquities Act to require an act of Congress and 
the concurrence of the Governor and State legislature for the 
establishment by the President of national monuments in excess of 5,000 
acres, with Mr. Snowbarger in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting bill that we 
have in front of us at this time. It is a fairness act, is what it is.
  On September 18, 1996, the President of the United States, William 
Jefferson Clinton, stood on the south rim of the Grand Canyon and 
declared 1.7 million acres of land as a national monument in the State 
of Utah. What did he do this under? He did this under the 1906 
antiquities law.
  Does he have the right to do it? You bet he does. He has the right to 
do that. President Carter earlier had done a similar piece of 
legislation in Alaska of around 53 million acres.

                              {time}  1845

  Why is this bill around? Because in 1906 the President of the United 
States had no way to protect the gorgeous parts of America that should 
be protected. Wisely, Teddy Roosevelt could see a reason to do it, and 
out of that we got the Grand Canyon, we got Zion, we got some beautiful 
areas. All of those should be protected.
  Later on, in 1915, we got a park bill. That park bill is what 
President Roosevelt probably would have used, but he did not have 
anything. There was nothing to protect it. Later on, Congress passed 
the 1964 Wilderness Act. Later on, in 1969, they passed the NEPA Act. 
In 1976, they passed the bill called FLPMA, or Federal Land Policy 
Management Act. And besides that there was the Wild Washington Trail 
Act, there is the Scenic Rivers Act, and the list goes on and on.
  So Teddy Roosevelt did not have a tool to use. He did not have a way 
to do it so he used this. Since that time, other Presidents have used 
it and we now have 73 national monuments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to say that the majority of people 
in here could tell me what was a distinguishing feature of the Golden 
Spike National Monument. They would say, of course, what it is is where 
the two trains came together. How about the Rainbow Bridge National 
Monument, where we see that beautiful red arch? Everyone could 
distinguish that one. So we say, well, what did we do on this one; what 
is the distinguishing feature? He talked about archeology, but he did 
not distinguish it. He talked about geology, but he did not tell us 
what it was. But we have 1.7 million acres.
  Now let us go back to the law, where we put our hands in the air and 
took an oath that we would obey the law. That is the next thing; is 
that he would use the smallest acreage possible to do it. Smallest 
acreage to preserve what? What did we come up with to preserve 1.7 
million acres?
  To give my colleagues an idea of 1.7 million acres, that is pretty 
big. We could take Delaware and two other States and put it in that and 
they would become a national monument.
  The bill we have in front of us says, well, if we are really mad at 
the President, as some of our colleagues say, if we are vindictive, if 
we want revenge, if we want to get even, let us repeal the law. I hope 
we rise above that. I hope we are bigger than that. I hope we should 
say this should still be on the books.
  So we said what would be a reasonable amount of acreage for the 
President, and we came up with the figure 50,000 acres. Can people in 
this room equate with 50,000 acres? I will give them a hint. How big is 
Washington, DC? Anybody in here know? How about 39,000 acres. So all of 
Washington, DC is only 39,000 acres.
  So we are saying we are going to give the President 50,000 acres; he 
can do it wherever, whenever he wants. He can put it in San Francisco, 
he can put it in New York, he can put it in Minnesota, which I would 
suggest three great places there. Anyway, carrying that on, we are 
giving him 50,000 acres.
  Let us say the President says he wants more than that; he wants a 
bigger piece. This bill says the President now has to talk for 30 days 
with the Governor of the State and confer with him. But if he wants 
more than that, all he has to do is come to Congress. So this bill 
takes care of it.
  We are not hurting any environment. In fact, it would be a very 
interesting debate that I would look forward to entering into, saying 
what does the antiquities bill protect. I have the bill in my hands 
here. It protects nothing.
  In fact, if my colleagues do not believe that, go down to southern 
Utah and look at the people going there in hordes looking for something 
to see. When I stand out there as a Federal official and they say, 
where is the monument? I say, ``Friend, you are standing in it.'' They 
say, ``Well, what am I supposed to see?'' I say, ``I don't know, look 
around and enjoy it.''
  People say, well, we got rid of that coal mine before it protected 
anything. I would be willing to ask anybody in the 435, who has been to 
that coal mine other than me? I have been there a number of times. If 
my colleagues have not been there, if they want to see one of the 
ugliest places in the State of Utah, they should go stand at Smokey 
Hollow. Rolling hills of sagebrush and bugs and nothing else. And if 
anybody wants to stand up and say that is beautiful, I would certainly 
question it.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, what are we trying to do? This has nothing to do 
with the environment because it protects nothing. It has nothing to do 
with wilderness. Some of my colleagues have said, oh, the President did 
this because we did not pass the wilderness bill. Come on, get real.
  Let us go back to the things we took from the President and the 
Department of Interior. All of the correspondence, not one shred of it, 
not one scintilla, says anything about protecting, except Mrs. Katy 
McGinty, who says one other thing, she says, ``There is nothing here 
worth preserving.'' Right in her own words. So protection is not an 
issue, wilderness is not an issue, parks are not an issue.
  In fact, if wilderness was the issue, I sometimes wonder, when my 
friends on the other side of the aisle were in control, why they did 
not allow the Wayne Owens bill of 5.4 million acres. Did not even allow 
a hearing on it, as I recall, and when I put in the bill every year,

[[Page H8399]]

never even looked at it. So do not give us that stuff regarding 
wilderness.
  This, my colleagues, is something that when it was brought up the 
Governor of the State was not made aware of it. And the gentleman from 
New York, I read his statement in the Congressional Record saying the 
Governor of New York knew about it. I talked to the Governor today and 
he adamantly refuses that. He says that did not happen. I was not made 
aware of this.
  But to equivocate, my friend from New York, at 2 in the morning he 
got a call from the President of the United States and then it happened 
at 10. So if he wants to use that stretch, I have to agree with him.
  The Governor was not made aware of it, I was not made aware of it, 
the two Senators were not made aware of it, but in this they say we 
want the enviro crowd there, we do not want the Utah people.
  I urge my colleagues to realize this is a good piece of legislation 
and we should move ahead on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this important 
bill to the floor. H.R. 1127, the National Monument Fairness Act, is 
designed to limit the President's authority to create national 
monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The bill as reported from 
the Resources Committee would limit unilateral monument withdrawals to 
50,000 acres or the size of the District of Columbia. Anything larger 
would require consultation with the Governor and congressional consent. 
However, at the appropriate time, I will be offering a compromise 
amendment that addresses the concerns of most Members.
  This action was provoked when President Clinton, on September 18, 
1996, claiming authority under the Antiquities Act, stood on the south 
side of the Grand Canyon in Arizona and designated 1.7 million acres of 
southern Utah as a national monument.
  Over at the Resources Committee, we have met with administration 
officials, held hearings, and subpoenaed documents in an effort to sort 
this thing out. Thus far, this is pretty much what we've been able to 
come up with:
  The first time I or any other Utah official heard about the new 
national monument was on September 7, 1996, when the Washington Post 
published an article announcing that President Clinton was about to use 
the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create a 2 million acre national 
monument in southern Utah. Naturally, we were all somewhat concerned. 
In fact, I think most of us found it a little hard to believe. Surely 
the President would have had the decency to at least let the citizens 
of Utah know if he were considering a move that would affect them so 
greatly.
  When we expressed our concerns to the Clinton administration, they 
denied that they had made any decisions. They tried to make it look 
like the monument was an idea that was being kicked around, but that we 
shouldn't really take it too seriously or worry about it. As late as 
September 11th, Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt wrote to Utah 
Senator Bennett and pretty much told him that.
  Within the confines of the administration, however, it was clear that 
the monument was a go. The real issue was keeping it a secret from the 
rest of the world. By July of 1996, the Department of Interior had 
already hired law professor Charles Wilkinson to draw up the 
President's National Monument proclamation. In a letter written to 
Professor Wilkinson asking him to draw up the proclamation, DOI 
solicitor John Leshy wrote: ``I can't emphasize confidentiality too 
much--if word leaks out, it probably won't happen, so take care.''
  When I say that the Clinton administration went to great lengths to 
keep everyone in the dark, I should qualify that a little. On August 5, 
1996, CEQ chair Katy McGinty wrote a memo to Marcia Hale telling her to 
call some key western Democrats to get their reactions to the monument 
idea. There was a conspicuous absence on her list, however, of anyone 
from the state of Utah. Even former Utah Democrat Congressman Bill 
Orton was kept in the dark. Clinton didn't want to take any chances. In 
the memo, Ms. McGinty emphasized that it should be kept secret, saying 
that ``Any public release of the information would probably foreclose 
the President's option to proceed.''
  Why, you ask, did President Clinton want to keep this secret from the 
rest of the world until the day it happened? Because it would 
ruin their timing. This thing was a political election year stunt and 
those type of things have to be planned and timed perfectly. If news of 
the monument were to break too early it would be old news by the time 
Bill Clinton got his photo-op at the Grand Canyon.

  Lets back up a little and ask ourselves why President Clinton wanted 
to create this new 1.7 million acre national monument. The 
administration claimed that the move was taken to protect the land. At 
our hearing on this issue back in April, Katy McGinty told us that ``by 
last year the lands were in real jeopardy''.
  That sounds real nice, but the truth is the land wasn't in any 
danger, and even if it were, national monument status wouldn't do much 
to protect it. We have subpoenaed documents from the administration 
where they admit to both of these points. Take for example a March 25, 
1996 E-Mail message about the proposed Utah national monument from Katy 
McGinty to T.J. Glauthier at OMB: ``I do think there is a danger of 
abuse of the withdrawal/antiquities authorities, especially because 
these lands are not really endangered.'' There you have it--in Katy 
McGinty's own words. The administration didn't think that the land was 
in any real danger. The ``lands in Jeopardy'' excuse is nothing but 
that . . . An excuse.
  So the administration didn't really think the lands involved were in 
any real danger. Lets just ignore that for a minute and ask ourselves 
if creating a national monument out of those lands was a good idea from 
a protection standpoint;
  Does it stop coal mining in the area? No. You can still mine coal in 
a national monument and Andalex still has their coal leases. Does it 
stop mineral development? No. CONOCO is drilling exploratory oil wells 
on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument as we speak. Does it 
stop grazing on the land? No. Grazing will continue. Does it stop 
people from visiting the land? No. On the contrary, national monuments 
are like national parks, they are meant for people to come see. The 
number of people coming to see the area has increased exponentially 
since President Clinton created his new monument. Does it stop new 
roads from being built? No. In fact even more new roads will probably 
have to be built to accommodate the increased traffic. The land wasn't 
in any kind of danger, and even if it were, a national monument was 
probably the least effective method at the administration's disposal to 
protect it.
  Why did President Clinton pick the national monument idea when it 
actually protected the land less than the other options available to 
him? It was pure presidential politics. Utah was an expendable State 
and this dramatic action would assure some environmental votes in 49 
other States. The Clinton administration needed to do something 
dramatic to get their votes. Bill Clinton needed to stand there 
overlooking the Grant Canyon, with the wind blowing through his hair, 
telling everyone how he was following in Teddy Roosevelt's footsteps 
and saving the land by creating a new national monument. How profound. 
How courageous. It kind of brings a tear to the eye, doesn't it. Never 
mind the fact that creating this monument didn't really achieve any of 
the administration's stated objectives. Chances were that no one would 
figure that out until after the election anyway.
  Well, people are starting to figure it out now. For instance, a 
couple of weeks ago I read an article in the Salt Lake Tribune where a 
spokesman for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance called President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore ``election-year environmentalists'' 
because CONOCO is being allowed to drill for oil in the monument. 
Remember, these are the same people that were cheering and crying and 
hugging each other at the Grand Canyon a year ago. Today they are 
beginning to realize that they were all duped--that this was nothing 
but an election year stunt and that national monument status doesn't do 
anything for their cause.

  I doubt that the election year politics reason comes as much of a 
surprise to anyone. And I think we have all grown to expect that sort 
of thing from the Clinton administration. The second reason they 
created the monument, however, is a lot worse, and something we should 
all be a little concerned about. The Clinton administration created 
this national monument to circumvent the powers of Congress. 
Essentially to circumvent the democratic process itself. All of the 
documents produced by the White House make it clear that the extreme 
environmentalists were frustrated by their failures in Congress and put 
immense pressure on the President to circumvent Congress by abusing the 
Antiquities Act.
  Well, the rest is history. The rest of the world heard about the 
whole thing 11 days before it happened. By this time, none of us could 
stop it. Bill Clinton had his photo-op at the Grand Canyon, bypassed 
congressional power over the public lands, gave Congress the slap in 
the face that he had been wanting to give it for a long time, got the 
few extra votes he needed, and won the election. Meanwhile, the land 
isn't protected, hundreds of thousands of acres of private and state 
school trust land are hanging in limbo, and we are all wondering how we 
can stop this from happening again.
  Since September of last year, I have had several Congressmen and 
Senators call me to express their concern that the same thing could 
happen to their state. They are outraged. Many have proposed that we 
completely repeal the 1906 Antiquities Act. Others

[[Page H8400]]

have offered bills that would exempt their own states from the 
provisions of the act.
  Before we embark on a discussion on how we should change the act, I 
think it would be helpful to talk a little bit about the history of the 
Antiquities Act of 1906. Why did we need it? What did Congress intend 
for the legislation to do? And how have Presidents used the act in the 
past?
  The roots of the Antiquities Act go back into the 1800's. The 1890's 
saw a dramatic rise in interest in archaeological objects from the 
American Southwest. Pottery, ancient tools, and even human skulls 
obtained from prehistoric ruins brought a handsome price on the market.
  As horror stories of looting and destruction of these sites reached 
Congress, they began to realize that something needed to be done before 
our archaeological sites were all destroyed. The problem, however, was 
that getting individual protection bills through Congress took a lot of 
time--too much time. These sites were being destroyed too fast. To 
solve this problem someone proposed that we give the President the 
authority to protect archaeological sites through executive withdrawal. 
This would provide a method to protect a large number of archaeological 
sites quickly.
  The debate over the legislation continued for about 6 years. By 1905, 
the proposed Antiquities Law raised the withdrawal limit from 320 to 
640 acres. In 1906, a prominent archaeologist by the name of Edgar Lee 
Hewett drew up a new antiquities bill that would allow the President to 
``declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and 
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific 
interest that are owned or controlled by the Government of the United 
States to be national monuments''. The size of such withdrawals would 
be in all cases ``confined to the smallest area compatible with the 
proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' This 
compromise bill quickly passed the House and Senate, and The 
Antiquities Act was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt on 
June 8, 1906.

  As we can see from the legislative history, Congress intended that 
national monuments be small in size and that they were for the purpose 
of preserving specific ``objects''. Congress specifically rejected the 
proposal that national monument withdrawals extend to national park 
type preservation of land.
  Mr. Chairman, some of our Nation's greatest treasures were protected 
in the early years following passage of the Antiquities Act. During the 
next several decades, public concern for conservation increased and 
Congress responded by passing powerful laws to serve the cause of 
conservation. In 1916 the Organic Act was passed, creating the National 
Park Service. In 1964 the Wilderness Act created the National 
Wilderness Preservation System. In 1968 the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
was passed. This was followed by the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. These 
laws made it easy to preserve large portions of land without forcing 
the President to abuse the Antiquities Act.
   The era of large national park type monument withdrawals came to an 
abrupt close in 1943 when Franklin Roosevelt created the Jackson Hole 
National Monument, covering 221,610 acres. After that day, the creation 
of large national monuments virtually ceased. In the last 50 years 
there have only been four occasions when new national monuments were 
designated by Presidential proclamation that exceeded 1,500 acres in 
size. Only 2 of those have exceeded 50,000 acres: President Carter's 56 
million acre withdrawal in Alaska in 1978 and President Clinton's 1.7 
million acre withdrawal in Utah in 1996.
  All of the other monuments created through Presidential proclamation 
during the last 50 years have been small and have fit the criteria of 
the 1906 Act relatively well.
  Mr. Chairman, one might ask, why have most of the Presidents during 
the past 50 years declined to use the Antiquities Act to create large 
monuments? Is it because none of them have cared about the environment? 
Of course not. The answer is that they have been busy preserving our 
lands within the new systems and frameworks that have been set up since 
1906. We have been creating wilderness areas, national parks, 
historical parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, etc. We have been 
following the systematic and democratic processes set forth in FLPMA, 
NEPA, NFMA, and other planning statutes. These new laws and systems 
preserve our lands more fully, and encourage public participation in 
planning for our public lands.
  By allowing Presidents like Bill Clinton to abuse the 1906 
Antiquities Act by creating multimillion acre monuments we are 
defeating the whole purpose of these conservation laws. Both President 
Carter and President Clinton used the 1906 Antiquities Act to 
circumvent the public land use planning procedures that Congress has 
created.
  That's not what democracy is all about. These are issues that should 
be debated, issues that need to be discussed and subjected to the 
democratic process. These are issues where people on all sides of the 
debate have legitimate concerns, and they need to be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, so what's the solution? How do we keep this sort of 
thing from happening again? The most obvious solution, and one that has 
been suggested to me by several Congressmen, is to just repeal the 
Antiquities Act. If the Antiquities Act were completely repealed, the 
President wouldn't be able to create any national monuments through 
presidential proclamation. This would eliminate Presidential abuse of 
the Antiquities Act, but would also eliminate the small, beneficial, 
archeological withdrawals originally envisioned by the act.
  There may be areas out there on the public domain that still qualify 
for national monument status under the criteria originally envisioned 
by the act. It is not at all unlikely that we could uncover new and 
important archeological sites. These areas will need the same type of 
prompt executive national monument protection that other archeological 
sites have received under the Antiquities Act. For this reason, I think 
it may be unwise to completely repeal the act.
  Instead, H.R. 1127 would limit the President's withdrawal authorities 
under the Antiquities Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I will offer an amendment at the appropriate time that 
would not affect the authority of the President under the antiquities 
Act of 1906 for proclamations under 50,000 acres or an area the size of 
the District of Columbia. The President will have the authority to 
protect historic and prehistoric resources, and other objects of 
scientific interest on Federal lands, as currently provided in section 
2 of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431). However, my amendment 
would provide for any national monument in excess of 50,000 acres to 
sunset after 2 years unless Congress approves of the action by way of a 
joint resolution. Moreover, my amendment would amend section 2 of the 
1906 Act by mandating that the President transmit such a proclamation 
to the Governor of the affected State for comment 30 days prior to the 
monument proclamation taking effect.
  Mr. Chairman, this compromise amendment has been worked out among 
many Members of this House and I must admit with much compromise on my 
part. However, I believe that the result of this amendment is that the 
authority of the President is assured for protecting resources as 
intended by the Antiquities Act of 1906, but has placed Congress in the 
appropriate constitutional role of determining designation of Federal 
lands on behalf of the people of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the Hansen substitute, 
defeat all other amendments and give back to Congress the balance of 
power this democracy demands.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure, H.R. 
1127. It is a measure which, in effect, would remove an important tool 
from this and future Presidents in the management of hundreds of 
millions of acres of the public's land.
  This bill upsets the balance between the executive and the Congress, 
blocking the President from declarations of key lands and resources 
when a crisis arises, often because Congress cannot or, more often, 
will not act.
  I think it is instructive in this case to examine why the House is 
considering this legislation today. We in Congress have for at least 
the last 10 or 15 years been debating the status we would give the 
incredible wildlands of Utah, the red rock country.
  I have seen those lands, Mr. Chairman, and I have made no secret of 
the fact that I am an advocate of creating federally designated 
wilderness areas in Utah, but of course there is great disagreement at 
all levels on this issue from here on the Capitol Hill all the way to 
the affected communities in Utah. Unfortunately, while Congress has 
been considering this issue, industrial and other exploitative 
interests have had their eyes and are attempting to get their hands on 
many of these Utah lands. The Kaiparowits Plateau in southern central 
Utah is an example.
  In the face of congressional disagreements, and in an effort to 
protect these lands from further leasing and development, the 
President, last year, utilized the nearly 100-year authority granted

[[Page H8401]]

our chief executives and designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument in south-central Utah because of its superior 
natural, historic, scientific and ecological values.
  Now, I have heard the gentleman from Utah comment on the fact the 
President did not state the reasons for it, but there are four pages 
laid out of various types of geologic and scientific and interesting 
type and important type of plant life, historic materials dating from 
the various Native American groups all the way through pre-Colombian 
history, such as the arrival of the Mormons that have occurred in the 
artifacts and the products that are present from this culture.
  So the President did, against the backdrop of years of congressional 
debate, years of hearings involving members of the affected 
communities, use the powers embodied within the purpose of this act, 
the Antiquities Act of 1906.
  It is clear, in times when Congress is embroiled in controversy, when 
Federal natural, scientific, and cultural resources are at risk, the 
President needs tools to act to specifically designate Federal lands. 
Teddy Roosevelt, the first great conservationist President of this 
century, passed and signed the Antiquities Act in 1906. T.R. used that 
power in this act 18 times. Perhaps most notably was President 
Roosevelt's action to establish the Grand Canyon as a national monument 
in 1908. Presidents in general have designated 105 monuments using the 
Antiquities Act, including astounding areas that define our 
preservation and conservation achievements: as I said, Grand Canyon, 
Bryce Canyon, Death Valley, the Alaska's Glacier Bay, the Statute of 
Liberty and many, many others.
  That, my colleagues, is an effective law. It worked throughout the 
past nine decades and it should be used the next nine decades, but 
today it is under attack. While supporters of this bill say they are 
seeking fairness and seeking to improve the Antiquities Act, I think 
the facts show that the effect of their action would render this law 
ineffective and unworkable and our special Federal lands for tomorrow 
would be without the protection and safeguards inherent in this 
important law.
  This fairness act requires congressional authorization for all newly 
designated national monuments over a certain size. Supporters of this 
legislation claim the President abused his power under the act and that 
intensive new congressional oversight powers are needed to check 
executive authority. I disagree with the allegations. President Clinton 
acted following years of debate on the issue. This act has been used 
rarely since 1950, and only in situations where cherished natural 
resources were in immediate danger of degradation.
  To require cumbersome congressional oversight procedures would 
greatly weaken this law in a manner that contradicts the intended 
purpose and the need. In fact, the 1906 act, as a law, preserves the 
authority of Congress to overturn or to alter monument designations 
made by the President. And Congress has often done so, not to diminish 
them, in fact, but to enlarge them.
  I think it is instructive, Mr. Chairman, that none of my colleagues 
are attempting to rescind the President's designation of the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument today. They know that the 
American people would never support such a move. Instead, the advocates 
of this measure are attempting to accomplish their goals in a 
backhanded manner. This action has far more impact.
  The new monument in Utah will not be affected, but they would hobble 
forever the ability of future Presidents to act as they have done for 
the last 91 years in 100-some actions taken to preserve our special 
legacies. The measure places a 50,000-acre limit on the President's 
designation of powers under this Antiquities Act.
  I suppose if I were in the District of Columbia and all I could see 
was out to the beltway, I might think that is what comprises this great 
country. But the fact is that we have one of the greatest stewardship 
responsibilities in terms of managing hundreds of millions of acres of 
land, and it is public land. That is what we are designating in this 
area. This is land owned by the American people and managed for the 
benefit of the American people. That is the purpose.
  So if we have an inside the beltway view, maybe 50,000 acres sounds 
like a lot, but if any of my colleagues have had the opportunity to 
work, and I know many of my colleagues have, to see the depth and 
breadth of this great country and the areas that have been left as they 
were touched by the creator of this land, we have a responsibility in 
terms of stewardship.
  We needed this to stop the robber barons in the 1900's, and Teddy 
Roosevelt stopped them. And I think our Presidents in the future need 
that same power. Let us not go back to those thrilling days of 
yesterday when conservation took a second seat to the special 
interests.
  I know my colleagues do not want to do that, but that is the effect 
of removing this power. We need this because we need balance in this so 
we can act and move to establish wilderness and to establish parks and 
to establish these other resources in this country. I ask my colleagues 
to vote against this measure.
  This measure, H.R. 1127 places a 50,000-acre limit on the President's 
designation powers under the Antiquities Act. Supporters of the bill 
claim that most designations in the history of the act have broken this 
threshold. But look, Mr. Chairman, at the national monuments that have 
been more than 50,000 acres: the Grand Canyon, Olympic National Park, 
Glacier Bay, Grand Teton, Joshua Tree, Arches, and many others. They 
are today the grown jewels of our park system. I would hope that this 
Congress will be willing to prevent future Presidential declarations 
and designations of such natural treasures.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form. This 
Congress should not gut the law that is the foundation for all the 
great landscape conservation acts have been built upon. The intense 
passion and reaction to Presidential monument declaration isn't new. 
Such opposition had plagued the Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Bill 
Clinton. The Antiquities Act is the bed rock that our conservation laws 
are built upon it is as relevant today as it was in 1906. It has not 
been eclipsed but reinforced by law to designate parks, wilderness, 
wild and scenic rivers, and a host of other actions almost all at the 
sole disposal of Congress.
  I will, in recognition of the House agenda, offer an amendment that 
greatly improves H.R. 1127. First, it will allow--not require--a year 
of congressional review following Presidential declarations of national 
monuments before the designation becomes final. This time period will 
give Congress a chance to review, study, and even alter new 
designations. My amendment also, importantly, will protect proclaimed 
areas from development during this review period. No final action would 
be taken nor would the administration of the lands change save to 
maintain the status quo.
  I hope the House adopts my amendment. This is a major change to the 
existing law and circumstance but retains the essence of this 1906 
Antiquities Act.
  It is ironic Mr. Chairman that this Congress and majority members 
that lead the Resources Committee boast of a willingness to take on 
more work, more responsibility to designate and manage more land use 
and the decisions related to it. Frankly, this committee has more to do 
than there is time on the clock. This measure is not an action to 
restore a--congressional role regarding monuments rather the result 
would be to submarine the 1906 act and the limited role that Presidents 
have had since 1906. This measure deserved and demands the strong 
opposition and rejection by this House as the transparent effort to 
move us many steps back to the days of the 19th century robber barons--
say no to this bill and this policy. Say yes to our children and let's 
leave them a legacy for the 21st century.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I just listened to the previous 
speaker speak, and since 1943, there was an Effigy Mounds National 
Monument by Mr. Truman of 1,481 acres; Russell Cave National Monument, 
310 acres by President Kennedy; Buck Island Reef National Monument, 850 
acres by Mr. Kennedy; Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Monument, 19,236 
acres historical; Marble Canyon National Monument, 26,000 scientific, 
by Mr. Johnson; 1978, and the reason I am speaking, the Alaska 
Monuments, 56 million acres; and then, of course, the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, 1,700,000 acres.

[[Page H8402]]

                              {time}  1900

  Both of those, the Alaska one and the Escalante, were for political 
purposes only and that is all.
  We talk about robber barons. What about the coal deposits in that 
area that are now set aside so that people of every day can benefit 
from them? It is ironic that there are some other people at that time 
also interested in coal in foreign countries.
  This was used for political purposes only. There was no consultation, 
even with Mr. Orton, who was one of their colleagues. He got shot in 
the foot, in the head, and the back by his President for the 
environmental community.
  The bill we have before us today is a bill that will work. Fifty 
thousand acres is bigger than any other ones, than the political ones 
in Utah and Alaska. The true monuments, the true antiquities acts, have 
been applied with less acreage than is in this bill. This is a fairness 
bill. This is about if there is that much threat to an area, it can be 
saved by the President. If it is larger than that, and God help us, it 
never will be larger than that, they can come to the Congress.
  I am surprised the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] wants to give 
away the authority of this Congress, because under this Constitution, 
only this Congress can designate and classify lands. The gentleman also 
said, we can come back and undo what they did in Escalante. With this 
President, who are they kidding? It will never get signed into law.
  Do my colleagues know what they did to me in Alaska? After 56 million 
acres, they came back with Mo Udall, bless his heart, John Seiberling, 
a few others I can mention, and they set aside 147 million acres of 
land, took it away from the people of Alaska, took it away from the 
people of America, and put it in little classified areas so that only a 
few and the elite can get to see. This is not what the Antiquities Act 
is all about.
  I am suggesting, respectfully, if we really want to save the 
Antiquities Act, if we really want to make it work, then we ought to 
take and adopt this bill. It is a fairness bill. It is a bill that does 
allow the President, by the stroke of a pen, to set aside 50,000 acres. 
If he wants more, he has to come back to us. And that is our role, and 
that is what we should be doing. This is a good bill, and I urge a 
``yes'' on this legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the ranking 
Democratic member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], as the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources, and also to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], for whom I 
have the highest respect not only in his capacity as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, but the privilege I 
have serving as ranking member of that subcommittee, I thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, for 
allowing me this opportunity to share my thoughts with our colleagues 
here in the Chamber.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill in its current form. 
H.R. 1127 amends the Antiquities Act, a law that has been in effect for 
91 years. Pursuant to this act, 105 national monuments have been 
designated, and 29 of these national monuments were later designated as 
national parks. Among the national monuments that have been later 
designated national parks are Grand Canyon National Park, Olympic 
National Park, Glacier Bay National Park, and Bryce and Zion National 
Parks.
  The Antiquities Act has been used by all but three Presidents in the 
past 90 years and has been the vehicle to protect some of our most 
cherished public areas. Given this successful history, I do believe the 
executive should, with modification, retain its current authority to 
proclaim national monuments.
  Not all of the Presidential proclamations have been received 
favorably by the officials from the States in which the national 
monuments were made. As a result of this dissatisfaction, the States of 
Alaska and Wyoming are now treated differently than the other States 
under the Antiquities Act.
  Some would say that these two States are now protected from having 
further monuments proclaimed within their boundaries. I want to bring 
this point to my colleagues' attention. This concept of inconsistent 
treatment among the 50 States should be addressed so that we are all 
returned to an equal footing.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the driving force behind this legislation is 
the President's designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument in 1996, shortly before the 1996 elections. It is my 
understanding that the President declared this area in southern Utah as 
a national monument without proper consultation with the elected 
leaders of the State of Utah.
  To make matters look even worse, the President issued this 
proclamation while he was physically, physically, Mr. Chairman, in the 
State of Arizona, as though he was afraid to set foot into Utah to 
issue the proclamation.
  Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the Utah congressional delegation on 
this point and feel it was improper for the President to act in this 
manner. I think any of us would have been offended if such an action 
were taken in our State or territory, and I do not believe the 
Antiquities Act should give the President license to proclaim monuments 
without consulting with the Governor and congressional delegation from 
that State.
  Nevertheless, the State of Utah provides a perfect example of 
congressional inability to reach final agreement on issues affecting 
the use of public land and the need for action from the executive 
branch of the Government.
  I believe there is general agreement that it would be beneficial to 
the Nation if parts of the public lands in southern Utah were preserved 
for future generations. And, in fact, there has been legislation 
introduced in each of the past five Congresses to preserve the scenic, 
environmentally-sensitive lands.
  The problem has been in getting the two sides to agree on a 
compromise. In fact, even the Utah congressional delegation has not 
been able to agree. The two competing bills have proposed designating 
1.8 million acres and 5.7 million acres of land as wilderness.
  Because of differences of how much land to designate and how this 
land might be used, and despite the efforts of legislators on both 
sides, Congress has not passed a bill. Furthermore, as best I can tell, 
Mr. Chairman, there is little prospect of legislation on this issue 
being enacted into law in the foreseeable future.
  Mr. Chairman, as other speakers have noted, Congress retains the 
power to negate Presidential proclamations. In the case of the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, I am not aware of any effort to 
prohibit funding for the national monument or to terminate the 
designation as a national monument.
  In fact, contrary to many arguments I have heard that designations of 
this nature hurt the economic development of the region, I believe the 
designation of this most recent national monument will provide an 
economic stimulus to the region. The future designation of part or all 
of this area as a national park could be even a greater economic 
stimulus.
  Mr. Chairman, at the Committee on Resources markup of H.R. 1127, I 
offered an amendment to require that at least 60 days before the 
issuance of a proclamation establishing a national monument, the 
President must consult with the Governor of that State in which the 
monument would be located. The rule for this bill provides the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] the opportunity to offer this 
amendment later on today, and I hope to address the amendment in more 
detail at that time. I believe this change will address the real 
problem while still giving the President the authority to take 
definitive, unilateral action.
  Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon] has the whole 1.7 
million acres in his district; and, all of a sudden, six little 
communities are now a national monument.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
the Third Congressional District in Utah [Mr. Cannon].
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] for yielding me the time and for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to explain exactly why we need to rein in 
the

[[Page H8403]]

power of the President to create national monuments. I represent Utah's 
Third Congressional District. Within its borders is the year-old Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
  Last fall, President Clinton stood across the State line in Arizona, 
as so graciously pointed out by the ranking member, on the other side 
of the Grand Canyon, and, with a few quick words and the stroke of a 
pen, created this 1.7-million-acre monument. It is massive, larger in 
scope than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
  To create the monument, President Clinton used the 1906 Antiquities 
Act. This designation was not about the environment. This was not about 
doing the right thing. It was about power, politics, and the deliberate 
abuse of Presidential power. Those are bold statements, but the events 
of last September justify them.
  September 7, 1996, 11 days before the designation, was a Saturday. 
Utahns, including the Utah congressional delegation, were startled to 
read in the Washington Post that President Clinton was planning to 
designate a massive national monument in southern Utah.
  The next Monday, Utah's two Senators and three U.S. Representatives 
placed calls to the White House and to the Interior Department to see 
if there was any truth to the Washington Post story.
  During a series of meetings that week, both Secretary Babbitt and 
Katy McGinty, the President's Chair of the Council on Environmental 
Quality, assured the Utah delegation that nothing was imminent. They 
explained that the administration had done some internal discussions 
but nothing was about to occur, and if it became more likely, the 
administration would closely consult with the Utah delegation.
  That was clearly untrue. Towards the weekend, word leaked that the 
President and Vice President were going to do an environmental event at 
the Grand Canyon the following Wednesday. The rumored topic was the 
announcement of a new monument in southern Utah.
  Alarmed and angry, the Utah delegation met with Secretary Babbitt and 
Ms. McGinty. This time they were asked to detail any general concerns 
about the concept of a monument in southern Utah. The Utah officials 
asked to see maps. They were told there were none. They asked for 
details. They received none.
  The day before the expected announcement, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt 
flew to Washington to meet with the President. President Clinton left 
the Governor cooling his heels while he boarded a plane to Chicago 
bound for Arizona.
  White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta met with Governor Leavitt. 
The Governor outlined a long list of concerns and proposed a Utah-
developed plan to protect the area without harming the local economy. 
Mr. Panetta promised the Governor that he would let him speak to the 
President that night. The Governor asked for a map of the proposal but 
again was told one was not available.
  Governor Leavitt spent the evening before the announcement waiting at 
the hotel for a call from the President. At 2 a.m., actually 2 minutes 
to 2 a.m., he had a conversation with the President where he outlined 
his concerns. The President did agree to consider a few of the 
Governor's points. But the President refused to allow logic, details, 
or local concerns to get in the way of his photo opportunity.
  Utahns, except for a few friendly Clinton supporters, were excluded 
from the announcement. To add insult to injury, Governor Leavitt, still 
in Washington, DC, picked up the New York Times to find a map of the 
monument, a map that had been denied to every Utah official but which 
apparently had been turned over to the press.
  On that day, I went down to the southern Utah town of Kanab where the 
residents released dozens of black balloons. The people of Kanab then 
suspected what we now know. At a time when the Green Party in 
California was holding roughly 10 percent of the vote in public opinion 
polls, President Clinton saw southern Utah merely as an item to 
sacrifice on the altar of Presidential ambitions.
  Mr. Chairman, I sit on the House Resources Committee. Thanks to the 
leadership of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen], chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks 
and Public Land, we have been able to extract a slew of documents 
concerning the creation of the Utah monument. Though much remains 
hidden, we have learned much.
  First, this decision was not driven by a desire to protect our 
environment. On the contrary, documents indicate that the 
administration knew that the monument designation would not improve 
protection of these lands. The most fragile areas were already in 
wilderness study areas. In fact, the designation and attendant 
publicity has probably attracted more visitors than would otherwise 
come to this delicate area.
  Second, law and courtesy dictate that local officials and local 
residents have a chance to give input on decisions that directly affect 
them. In this instance, 6 weeks before the designation, the 
administration contacted the Democratic Governor of Colorado, the two 
Democratic Senators from Nevada, the former Democratic Governor from 
Wyoming, the former Governor of Montana, and even a Democratic House 
Member from New Mexico to discuss the Utah monument plan. They did not 
bother to contact any Utahns, not even Utah Democrats. I might point 
out that these people had expertise in the politics of the West but not 
in the particulars of southern Utah.
  Third, the administration went to great lengths to avoid public 
scrutiny of its proposal. The law requires that public land decisions 
be made in the open so as to be improved by the light of public 
scrutiny. We now know that the administration went to great lengths to 
avoid application of the public disclosure requirements of NEPA, FLMPA, 
and FACA.
  Because of its sloppy process, the White House failed to deal with 
problems created by its haste. Within the monument are vast deposits of 
coal and a large potential for oil, gas, methane, and hard rock 
minerals. The total value would be well in excess of $1 trillion. The 
10,000 residents of the two affected counties were counting on those 
resources to provide jobs for their children and grandchildren.
  Some of those resources are located on school trust land property 
held by Utah's schools. They contain mineral resources with value 
potentially in the billions. The Utah School Trust expected to reap 
millions a year from its lands within the monument.
  A year ago, the President stood in Arizona and promised that, 
``creating this national monument should not and will not come at the 
expense of Utah's children,'' and vowed to create a working group, 
including Utah's congressional delegation, to find equivalent lands for 
exchange.
  Of course, a year later, no working group exists, no member of the 
Utah delegation has been contacted, and the Utah School Trust has been 
unable to open negotiations. The only thing Utah's schoolchildren are 
left with is a Presidential promise that is already of questionable 
value.

                              {time}  1915

  The story of the creation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National 
Monument is important because it shows what can happen when respect for 
a legal process is casually set aside. America itself was founded on 
process. Our Constitution is an elaborate set of checks and balances 
designed to preclude precipitous action by any leader or any group.
  For this reason, I support the bill of my colleague from Utah.
  I dare the opponents of this bill to justify the administration's 
actions with regard to this monument. I challenge opponents of this 
bill to convince me or anyone in Utah that such abuse will not happen 
again. They cannot, and that is why we need this bill.
  Utah paid a price last fall for being in the way of a President's 
political agenda. This measure is a reasoned step in response to a 
gross abuse and is worthy of an affirmative vote.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in the last several years that I have had 
the opportunity to serve on the Committee on Resources, I have come to 
have a great deal of respect and even affection for the present leaders 
of what is now called the Committee on Resources,

[[Page H8404]]

the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen]; respectively the chairman of the Committee on Resources and 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. 
However, we also have occasional differences, and we certainly have a 
difference on this particular piece of legislation.
  This bill would restrict the President's ability to declare national 
monuments. This is a provision that has been in the law now for some 90 
years. We have had a large number of monuments that have been declared. 
I think 13 Presidents have used it, and 102 monuments have been 
declared over that period of time. This bill is not really about all of 
that; this bill before us today focuses its attention on simply one 
national monument declared by President Clinton last year, the Grand 
Staircase Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.
  That act by President Clinton was, I believe, one of the most 
important domestic acts of his administration. It set aside an area of 
southern Utah which is vastly important to the future of our country, 
and it is not the first time that this area has been considered for 
special consideration by a President. Many Presidents have looked at it 
and thought about declaring national monuments or treating it in some 
other special way, going back as far as the administration of Franklin 
Roosevelt. In fact, in Franklin Roosevelt's time, the Minister of the 
Interior during that administration recommended that vast portions of 
southern Utah be set aside as a national park.
  Now, this monument is something like 1.7 million acres, only a small 
percentage of the public land that is owned by all of the people of the 
United States located in southern Utah. People of the United States own 
more than 22 million acres administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management in southern Utah. This 1.7 million acres is just a small 
piece of that.
  So this legislation is designed to really destroy a process that has 
been in effect now for most of this century, has been used by 13 
Presidents, has resulted in the setting aside of 102 national 
monuments, including the Grand Canyon, some of the most important parts 
of our country, and it would be destroyed, that process would be 
destroyed, that privilege would be denied this President and future 
Presidents if this legislation were to pass.
  It would be a serious mistake to pass this legislation because it 
would mean that an honored process that has been very valuable to the 
people of this country would be destroyed, and the opportunity to set 
aside national monuments in the future would become much more 
difficult.
  For those reasons, I hope that the Members of this House will reject 
this measure, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your willingness to work with me 
to develop a compromise to allay some of the concerns that H.R. 1127 
has raised. As the gentleman knows, last Tuesday night we arrived at a 
compromise with which we both felt quite comfortable. Unfortunately, 
because of a problem with the rule, we were told that that compromise 
could not move forward. We had to delete the sections ensuring that no 
single Member of either this or the other body could block a resolution 
of approval. That is obviously an essential provision.
  I would include the compromise we reached for the Record at this 
point.

   Amendment to H.R. 1127, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Hansen of Utah

       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.

       The Act of June 8, 1906, commonly referred to as the 
     ``Antiquities Act'' (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432) is amended 
     as follows:
       (1) By adding the following at the end of section 2: ``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 39 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 as provided in section 5 of 
     this Act.''.
       (2) By adding the following new section at the end thereof:

     ``SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN NATIONAL MONUMENT 
                   PROCLAMATIONS.

       ``(a) Joint Resolution.--For purposes of approving a 
     proclamation referred to in section 2 that results in the 
     designation of a total acreage in excess if 50,000 acres in a 
     single State in a single calendar year as a national 
     monument, the term `joint resolution' means only a joint 
     resolution introduced in the period after the proclamation is 
     issued but before the expiration of the 2-year period 
     thereafter, the matter after the resolving clause of which is 
     as follows: `That Congress approves the proclamation 
     submitted by the President on____relating to the designation 
     of a national monument in____.' (The blank spaces being 
     appropriately filled in).
       ``(b) Referral.____A Joint resolution described in this 
     subsection shall be referred to the Committee on Resources of 
     the United States House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate.
       ``(c) Senate Procedures.--(1) In the Senate, if the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has not reported 
     such joint resolution (or an identical joint resolution) at 
     the end of 20 calendar days after the submission date, such 
     committee may be discharged from further consideration of 
     such joint resolution upon a petition supported in writing by 
     30 Members of the Senate, and such joint resolution shall be 
     placed on the calendar.
       ``(2) In the Senate, when the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources has reported, or is discharged (under 
     paragraph (1)) from further consideration of a joint 
     resolution described in this subsection, it is at any time 
     thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for a motion to proceed to 
     the consideration of the joint resolution, and all points or 
     order against the joint resolution (and against consideration 
     of the joint resolution) are waived. The motion is not 
     subject to amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A 
     motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed 
     to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution is 
     agreed to, the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished 
     business of the Senate until disposed of.
       ``(3) In the Senate, debate on the joint resolution, and on 
     all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, 
     shall be limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be 
     divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the 
     joint resolution. A motion further to limit debate is in 
     order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to 
     postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of 
     other business, or a motion to recommit the joint 
     resolution is not in order.
       ``(4) In the Senate, immediately following the conclusion 
     of the debate on a joint resolution described in this 
     subsection, and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the 
     debate if requested in accordance with the proclamations of 
     the Senate, the vote on final passage of the joint resolution 
     shall occur.
       ``(5) Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating to 
     the application of the rules of the Senate to the procedure 
     relating to a joint resolution described in this subsection 
     shall be decided without debate.
       ``(e) Passage by One House.--If, before the passage by one 
     House of a joint resolution of that House described in 
     subsection (a), that House receives from the other House a 
     joint resolution described in subsection (a), then the 
     following procedures shall apply:
       ``(1) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee.
       ``(2) With respect to a joint resolution described in 
     subsection (a) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
       ``(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if 
     no joint resolution had been received from the other House; 
     but
       ``(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the other House.
       ``(f) Rulemaking Power.--This section is enacted by 
     Congress--
       ``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in 
     this subsection, and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.

[[Page H8405]]

       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Antiquities Act regarding the establishment by the President 
     of certain national monuments.''.

  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] if he 
would agree with me that section 5 of the compromise was an essential 
provision, that it was dropped only because of a problem with the rule, 
and that the gentleman will work to ensure that it is restored as the 
bill moves through the congressional process?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] that yes, I agree with the gentleman on all of 
these points. I regret that we had to drop the language because of the 
problem with the rule and I will work to see it restored.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  With those assurances, I will support this compromise to enable the 
bill to begin moving forward.
  As I said, I will support the compromise embodied in the manager's 
amendment. That compromise improves on the bill by allowing a monument 
declaration to take effect immediately, rather than requiring a wait 
for congressional approval. In other words, in the case in point, the 
President could have done what he did after giving 30 days advanced 
notice to the Governor, along with a request for comment from the 
Governor. The President would consider those comments, but if he did 
not agree with them, he could still go forward with the declaration, 
and the declaration would be in effect for 2 years; but then there 
would be a sunset provision, and after 2 years, if Congress did not 
pass a joint resolution approving the monument, then the monument would 
be no more.
  I support this compromise because I believe my friends from the West 
have some reasonable complaints with the current system. It is not 
unreasonable to involve Congress in changes in the status of huge 
tracts of land, tracts of land of 50,000 or more acres, as is the case 
in point. The President still has the authority to move forward with 
the designation of smaller tracts of land, and I think that is an 
appropriate responsibility for the President. But in the rare cases 
where we have large tracts of land in excess of 50,000 acres, I think 
we should have some congressional involvement, but we ought to make 
darn sure that no single person can block consideration by the 
Congress.
  However, congressional involvement must not make the 1906 Antiquities 
Act a dead letter. The act has served this Nation well and it should 
not be fundamentally altered.
  If our original compromise had remained intact, that standard would 
have been met unequivocally. Unfortunately, the compromise was blocked 
by the Committee on Rules because we were told last week that the bill 
had to come to a vote last week.
  I support the current version of the compromise only because I have 
the commitment of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of 
the subcommittee, to restore the original compromise as we move 
forward. The gentleman has acted in good faith, and I know he will 
continue to do so, but I must be clear: If this bill comes back from 
Congress without the full compromise in place, I will enthusiastically 
and vigorously oppose it.
  We need to pass a bill that gives Congress a reasonable chance to 
review Presidential declarations, but we cannot pass a bill that allows 
any single Member of Congress to veto a monument declaration. That was 
the problem with the original bill, and it is still a problem with the 
manager's amendment. The problem would have been solved by the 
procedures that had to be dropped from the compromise.
  So again, I thank Chairman Hansen for his help. I urge support for 
the manager's amendment, and if it passes, for final passage of the 
bill. I do so because this puts us on a path to a reasonable 
compromise. A reasonable compromise will balance congressional and 
Presidential responsibilities in a way that does not threaten the 
protection of western lands.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
to arrive at a final product that will meet that standard.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento] shall temporarily control the time for the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is recognized.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not necessary; it is not desirable; the 
House should reject it.
  Since 1906, Presidents have used the authority under the Antiquities 
Act to protect very, very special parts of this Nation's public lands. 
Under that authority, President Roosevelt set aside the heart of the 
Grand Canyon and many other priceless areas. Under its authority, 
President Coolidge set aside Carlsbad Cavern, and President Harding 
protected the Indian Mounds in Ohio.
  In the 105 times that the act has been used, it has included, in 
Colorado, usage by President Taft to set aside the sandstone pinnacles 
of the Colorado National Monument; by President Hoover to protect Great 
Sand Dunes; and President Hoover as well to take care of that very 
special dark chasm known as the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Those 
were not mistakes. They were not attacks on the West. They were wise 
actions, taken under sound authority, and that authority should not be 
undermined.
  If Members of Congress are displeased with the way the President, any 
President, uses this authority, there is a remedy. Congress can modify 
or overturn any monument a President establishes. This can be done and 
it has been done, and if the sponsor of this bill, for instance, is 
opposed to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, he can 
introduce a bill to modify or repeal it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have limited time. I would be glad to 
yield when I am finished.
  Mr. HANSEN. We are more than happy to do it. We have one prepared 
almost and it will be coming. I want everyone to realize that. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Certainly.
  Mr. Chairman, I suppose it has a very good chance of having it 
reported out of the Committee on Resources and probably scheduled for 
action on the floor, but that is not the bill before us.
  Later, when we consider amendments, there will be a proposal to 
change this bill to make monuments temporary unless approved by 
Congress. We should not do that either. That would merely give some one 
Member of the other body, under the rules that obtain over there, the 
ability to block any monument. That is not the kind of way we want to 
do business around here.
  We should do the right thing. We should do the careful thing. We 
should do the conservative thing. We should reject this bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very 
modest, commonsense, much-needed and eminently fair proposal.
  This legislation is needed primarily because of something Senator 
Hatch referred to as the most arrogant abuse of power he had seen in 
his 20 years in the Congress. He was referring, of course, to the sneak 
attack by the Federal Government just before the last election to lock 
up 1.7 million acres in the State of Utah to produce what is called a 
national monument in the Escalante-Grand Staircase section of southern 
Utah. However, there are several reasons why this particular land grant 
has been questioned like no other in U.S. history.
  First, it was done with no public discussion or hearings of any type, 
no vote by the Congress, no vote by the Utah State Legislature, no vote 
by the

[[Page H8406]]

people of Utah. In fact, the Governor of Utah testified that the first 
notice Utah public officials had was when they read about it 9 days 
beforehand in press reports.
  The second serious question is the secrecy, the coverup. Not only 
were high-ranking officials not notified, the documents the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Cannon]) mentioned earlier, the administration 
documents, said that it cannot be emphasized enough, this is the 
administration talking, that public disclosure would have stopped the 
designation because such an outcry would have been created. It almost 
makes me wonder if we have people running our Government today who want 
to run things in the secret, shadowy way of the former Soviet Union or 
other dictatorships.
  Third, this 1.7 million acres contains the largest deposit of clean, 
low-sulfur coal in the world. Senator Hatch testified, and the 
gentleman from Utah, [Mr. Cannon] mentioned a moment ago that this coal 
alone is worth over $1 trillion. Who has the second largest deposit? 
The Lippo Group from Indonesia, who just happened to make some very 
large campaign contributions about the time this land was locked up.
  In one small rural county in Utah, this means the loss of 900 jobs. 
Not only does it mean jobs lost, but it means higher prices. It means 
higher prices for every individual and company which uses coal in this 
country.
  Environmental extremists, who almost always come from wealthy or 
upper income backgrounds, are really destroying jobs and driving up 
prices all over this country. Rich environmentalists who have enough 
money to be insulated from the harm they do are really hurting the poor 
and working people of this country.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support this very fair 
proposal by the gentleman from Utah.

                              {time}  1930


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that they should refrain from 
using personal references to Senators.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for the privilege to join him in support of H.R. 1127.
  My father always told me, ``If it is not broke, don't fix it.'' The 
Antiquities Act was not broken, but the Clinton/Gore administration 
abused the process. It is time to bring people back into this process. 
Thirteen Presidents have used it, and in my view, two have abused it. 
Those who have said we are going to upset the balance, I do not believe 
we are going to upset the balance. We are going to bring balance back.
  I come from a large, rural district in Pennsylvania where there is a 
lot of public ownership. I want to tell the Members, people are very 
concerned about regulations and declarations and laws that are passed 
and how it impacts rural America. Utah is 73 percent public land. They 
had no input. They deserved better. They have a right, when regulations 
and declarations are coming at them, to have an input. The President 
should explain why 1.7 million acres was needed. Was it to increase the 
ability of foreign friends to import a simpler type of coal? That is a 
public debate that should have happened.
  This bill does bring balance back to the process. States and local 
governments should have input. Citizens need a voice. This act, if 
amended, will still allow Presidents to act. Utah deserved better.
  I urge Easterners, my fellow Easterners from the East, and urban and 
suburban legislators in this body, to be a whole lot more sensitive to 
rural America. Regulations and laws and declarations have a huge impact 
on rural life. We are taking away their very ability to earn a living 
and to exist and live where they want to live. I urge all Members to be 
much more sensitive.
  This bill is modest. It gets at the problem because this 
administration broke it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the National 
Monument Fairness Act. Like many Members, I was outraged by the 
President's decision to designate a whopping 1.7 million acres of land 
in Utah as a national monument last year. In what was obviously driven 
by politics and not resource conservation, the President did not 
consult with and in fact ignored the Governor of Utah, the State's 
congressional delegation, and most importantly, those affected by his 
action, the local population.
  Tellingly, the President made his announcement in Arizona, surrounded 
by hand-selected members of the green movement, far away from the 
people of Utah. We need to ensure that a President cannot circumvent 
the will of the people like this again. This bill would ensure that the 
President works with Congress and with affected Governors before 
designating large tracts of land as national monuments.
  Let us make sure Congress is allowed to do the job the people sent us 
here to do, to represent them. It is crucial that we never again allow 
the President to ignore our constituents. Again, I urge a yes vote on 
this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to rise to point out to my colleagues 
that while each of us represents about 600,000 people, and our 
respective Senators represent entire States, the only elected official 
in this Nation that represents all the people is the President.
  That is why I think, in constructing this, and I have been a staunch 
advocate of the authorizing and the other powers of this body, as I had 
the privilege to chair the Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands for 
many years, the fact is, though, in looking at this in toto, we have to 
have a balance. In other words, when Congress does not act, there has 
to be some recourse in terms of action. We have to have the power to 
act.
  The other issue with regard to the nature of declarations and how 
public we go is a real concern, because once we indicate a willingness 
or an interest in designating or declaring lands, we often find that 
individuals will put in various types of claims. Some of those claims, 
in my judgment, with regard to mineral claims or with regard to water 
permits and other types of activities, are spurious. They are designed 
to do one thing. That is to exact as many dollars as they can out of 
taxpayers in order to make the conservation designation that is 
intended. In fact, it happens all the time when we are considering 
measures for wilderness or measures within this body.
  Of course, as Members know, when action is imminent in terms of a 
declaration, as it would be in this case, and it is a major flaw that 
we are going to have with some of the amendments that are being offered 
here today in terms of notice, because they are fatally flawed in the 
sense that they prevent and in fact compound the very problems that the 
President may be taking issue with.
  The other issue is with regard to President Carter's action, the D-2 
alliance, and I am sorry that my friend, the chairman, has left the 
floor, because we failed to meet the deadlines with regard to those 
lands being set aside in this Congress after many years.
  In failing to take action at that time in 1980, in essence, the 
President had recourse to in fact try to provide some temporary 
protection. This is the one law he had at that time that he could use 
to actually address that very serious problem with regard to the 
disposition and designation of those lands in Alaska, which points out 
that all the other laws that have been passed that the gentleman 
commented about earlier, the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Hansen], 
really did not do the job, because the President has to have some 
recourse.
  What the chairman is doing with this bill, irrespective of what the 
merits are concerning, and of course I do not find politics unusual in 
this Congress or among those that are candidates or serving as 
President, it is sort of a given, but the fact is that we are taking 
away the power they have to act, as I think is reasonable, and Members 
may think unreasonable. This is taking away the ability to act. That is 
the

[[Page H8407]]

fundamental flaw with this particular bill.
  We have the ability to change this if we think there is a mistake by 
acting ourselves.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Let me point out that not a single argument mounted on the other side 
of the aisle on this issue has addressed the bill as amended by the 
manager's amendment. The manager's amendment would allow the President 
to designate any amount of land. It would simply provide that that 
designation would expire within 2 years. So all the discussions on the 
other side about emergency need on the President's part is just a 
distraction from reality.
  The other shocking argument we hear from the other side is that they 
oppose sunshine. If my colleagues around this Capitol listen to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Cannon], detail the outrageous 
abuse of power by this President in what he did this time around, that 
is not sunshine. Refusing to discuss the issue and misleading the Utah 
delegation is not sunshine; it is keeping the American people and the 
people of Utah in the dark, and it is wrong.
  The Antiquities Act was broken by this President, but he raised an 
issue, and that is, we need to look at what is wrong with it and fix 
it. How we can fix it is to allow the Congress to have a say.
  Let me point out how he broke the act. The act says specifically when 
the President chooses to exercise this power, he must in all cases 
confine the area designated to the smallest area comparable with the 
proper care and management of the objects that are protected. Mr. 
Clinton did not do that in this case. He designated 1.7 million acres, 
vastly more than needed to be designated.
  All we are asking on this side is that when the President takes that 
action, that the measure come back to Congress for a vote. I thought, 
Mr. Chairman, that we were a Nation of laws and not a Nation of men. I 
am glad that the previous Presidents designated the Grand Canyon, but 
this Congress came back in after that and made the Grand Canyon a 
national park.
  What opponents of this bill do not want is they do not want a public 
debate. They do not want open consideration of this issue. They want 
raw power in the hands of the President to be exercised in the dark of 
secrecy. I asked the gentleman on the other side of the aisle if he 
would yield on that point and he would not yield on that point. Their 
goal is not to allow the American people to know what the President is 
doing and to give him a free hand.
  Clearly, the President in this case abused the Antiquities Act, and 
this is a reasonable measure to protect it; to say for 50,000 acres he 
can do whatever he wants, but when he goes above 50,000 acres to 1 or 
22 million acres, then he ought to have to consult the people.
  The President may represent all the people. He lost in the State of 
Utah. It seems to me it is fair to give the people in this Congress 
whom we represent a voice in these issues.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. As 
many of my colleagues have said, it is unnecessary, and it is premised 
on a misleading argument that it will open the door to wanton acts by 
the President of the United States. There is no history in this act 
that that is the case. In fact, this President acted properly, within 
the law, within the act, and in the best interests of the American 
people.
  The fact of the matter is that many of these lands that the President 
finally chose to protect by the use of the Antiquities Act have been 
under discussion, but those discussions have been filibustered, 
delayed, obstructed by members of the Utah delegation with respect to 
these lands and to other lands that need to be protected, public lands 
that are owned by the people of the United States, and lands that are 
open to the exploitation by the mineral extractive industries that 
could go onto these lands and start taking coal and petroleum and other 
products from these lands without regard to their preservation, as is 
now allowed because of the President's actions.
  The facts are that those processes grind on and those companies 
continue to get permits to extract those minerals. The bill the 
gentleman is introducing here today is basically an overturning of the 
Antiquities Act. It is a gutting of the Antiquities Act.
  He says he wants to give 30 days' notice. With 30 days' notice, as we 
saw in the New World Mine, people rushed in, people rushed in to file 
claims and try and perfect claims when they heard the President was 
going to do this. In the time between the time we started considering 
the California desert and the time that we did the California desert, 
we ended up with people filing mining claims, perfecting mining claims, 
knowing that the government would then have to come along and try to 
deal with them.
  The notion that somehow this current law would be improved upon if 
the Congress had 2 years in which to act, the Congress can act at any 
time it wants. It is acting tonight with consideration of this 
legislation. The gentleman from Utah says he has a repeal of this, or 
to overturn the President's act, coming. That is fine. People can vote 
yes or no.
  But these are the lands of all the people of this Nation. The 
President from time to time has to take positions to protect those 
lands, because the legislative process is unable to respond. The 
legislative process, if we gave them 2 years, we have the very same 
problem. We have the Senators from Utah or elsewhere that decide they 
want to filibuster this act, and all the political dynamics kick in, 
with what else is going on in the Senate, and somehow we cannot report 
out provisions to protect these lands and we are right back where we 
are today before the President acted.
  That is why, that is why we should keep the current law as it is. It 
provides for the protection of the lands. And if the Congress is so 
outraged, they can come back and modify, they can come back and repeal, 
they can come back and change the provisions of the Monuments Act.
  If we listened to these people, we would have the President pick. 
Maybe this year he could pick the Grand Staircase, but that exceeds 
50,000 acres, so he could not pick that one. But once he set notice 
that he was going to do the Grand Staircase, people would start filing, 
and the power would plateau, because they could see the handwriting on 
the wall. The President might be prepared to act.
  Then people in the Canyon of the Escalante, they could start to file 
on those actions. All of a sudden, what we have done is caused the 
taxpayer a huge liability because we have decided that these people 
should have a right to file on these public lands for extractive 
permits.
  The fact of the matter is that when we look at these lands and we see 
them and how they are intertwined, one of the things I thought we 
learned over the last 20 years is setting arbitrary acreages does not 
necessarily guarantee the protection of the ecosystem, the lands, the 
assets, or the interplay between those resources.
  But again, this law that is being presented here tonight or this 
proposed law that is being presented here tonight is simply one to kick 
the teeth out of this act, and to somehow try to see if they can 
embarrass or punish this President for the actions he took. This 
President should neither be embarrassed nor should he be punished 
because he took these actions on behalf of the American people.

                              {time}  1945

  And he did it properly so, and he did it over the actions that for 
years and years of people who decided that they were going to stand in 
the way of these public lands, they were not going to allow this to 
happen. And I think that is why the President acted and the President 
should be very proud of his actions and the American people should be 
very proud of these actions.
  The authors of this legislation, they say they do not know why the 
President did that because there is nothing there. But then they say 
there is everything there because people are coming to see the 
antiquities and the geologic sites and the cultural sites and the 
beauty of this area.

[[Page H8408]]

  Obviously, the people of this country understand the assets and value 
of these lands that are there, and they are obviously supportive of the 
efforts by the President to protect these lands. Now they can come 
there to utilize them, and, fortunately enough, we were able to get 
resources for interpretation of these sites and guidance at these 
sites. This can again be a wonderful experience for America's families, 
the millions who take to their automobiles and their vacations to visit 
and see these wonderful lands of the West, and the arches, and the 
bridges and canyons, and the rivers and ecosystems, and the riparian 
areas that are so unique to anything else that is offered in the United 
States.
  We should continue with the current law as it is. Should this 
legislation pass the House, I would be surprised if it has much of a 
life after that. But people should not vote for a bad bill just because 
it is not going to go anywhere. We should turn this bill down and 
protect the Antiquities Act and protect the prerogatives of the 
President and, more important than that, protect these valuable, 
valuable lands of the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the Presidents have used this well 
and have done a good job with it. If we wanted to punish the President, 
we would repeal it. Of all of these hundred and something things, very, 
very few of them are over 100,000 acres, over 50,000 acres. It can 
still be used. This is just a modest approach to it.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of Members have talked about the idea of the 
threatened land that we are talking about. Those who put this together 
did not realize that. Let me quote from their letters to the White 
House, to another person in the White House, and I will not mention 
their names.

       I realize the real remaining question is not so much what 
     the letter says, but the political consequences of 
     designating these lands as monuments when they are not 
     threatened.

  Let me repeat,

       when they are not threatened with losing wilderness 
     stature, and they are probably not the areas of the country 
     most in need of designation.

  Right from the White House.
  Another one where they talk about, all we are worried about is how 
the ``enviros'' will react. This has nothing to do with the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante. It is talking about balance of power.
  We talked about my amendment which I think will more than handle this 
area. And let me point out, there is no reason to be an apologist for 
the President or for anybody here. It was a mistake that was made, and 
therefore this is a very modest, reasonable approach to take care of 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to 
the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1127

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. CONSULTATION WITH THE GOVERNOR AND STATE LEGISLATURE.

       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 under this section issued by the President to 
     declare any area in excess of 50,000 acres in a single State 
     in a single calendar year, to be a national monument shall 
     not be final and effective unless and until the Secretary of 
     the Interior submits the Presidential proclamation to 
     Congress as a proposal and the proposal is passed as a law 
     pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article 1 of the 
     United States Constitution. Prior to the submission of the 
     proposed proclamation to Congress, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall consult with and obtain the written comments 
     of the Governor of the State in which the area is located. 
     The Governor shall have 90 days to respond to the 
     consultation concerning the area's proposed monument status. 
     The proposed proclamation shall be submitted to Congress 90 
     days after receipt of the Governor's written comments or 180 
     days from the date of the consultation if no comments were 
     received.''.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Antiquities Act to require an Act of Congress and the 
     concurrence of the Governor and State legislature for the 
     establishment by the President of national monuments in 
     excess of 50,000 acres.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed or 
considered as though they were printed in House Report 105-283, which 
may be considered only in the order specified, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debated for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for the voting on the 
first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Chair is advised that amendment No. 1 will not be offered and, 
consequently, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 105-283.


                  Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
       Page 3, line 14, strike ``unless and until'' and insert 
     ``until 1 year after''.
       Page 3, beginning on line 16, insert a period after 
     ``Congress'' and strike all that follows through the period 
     on line 18 and insert in lieu thereof: ``During the period of 
     review, Federal lands within the proclamation area are hereby 
     withdrawn from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal 
     under the public land laws, from location, entry, or patent 
     under the mining laws, and from disposition under all mineral 
     and geothermal leasing laws.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will 
each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with regards to this that 
will make it workable.
  The fact is, the problem is with Congress not acting, and all the 
other versions that we here over 50,000 acres provide for Congress to 
sit on its hands and do nothing, and if they do that, that is simply 
enough not to, in fact, provide for the protection of these lands.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very straightforward amendment. 
It says that the President can make the declaration, and if Congress 
does not act within a year, that declaration takes effect. During that 
pendency, during that period of time, those lands would be protected. 
They would be protected from mineral entry and from other types of 
appropriation.
  These lands are all public lands we are talking about. They are owned 
by the Federal Government and by the people of this country, who are 
the Federal Government. The fact is, that is what this is about: To 
take away the power. This keeps the power in the hands of the President 
but gives us the opportunity, with the other types of proposals, to 
provide for the opportunity to act on this for Congress.
  This would be, of course, a limitation in the powers of the President 
in this particular instance, but it would not inure to the damage in 
terms of what happens to taxpayers in this instance. It would provide 
for the conservation, and the other precepts of the Antiquities Act 
would be kept in place.
  This makes sense. Instead of requiring Congress to act, my amendment 
preserves an option for us to act, and it would not permit us to get by 
by simply sitting on our hands. In fact, that is, of course, what the 
case is today with many of the other laws that we have, whether it is a 
park designation or wilderness designation. Just by doing nothing, we 
can avoid facing the issue. This gives the President the opportunity to 
do his job as steward of such lands.

[[Page H8409]]

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a couple of questions, the 
gentleman from Minnesota said this would keep the power in the hands of 
the President. It would keep the power in the hands of the President to 
create a monument of over 50,000 acres?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman: To make the declaration.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the 1-year limit for Congress that the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has come up with, to finalize the 
monument designation as the Vento amendment would enact, simply does 
not allow enough time for Congress to act to the Presidential 
proclamation. In fact, it takes way the power that this bill provides 
to Congress in order to pass the proposed designation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to keep in mind, a case in 
point would be the most recent Presidential abuse of the Antiquities 
Act designating 1.7 million acres of mostly sagebrush and pinyon 
juniper in southern Utah as a national monument.
  Mr. Chairman, it is well over a year since the purely political 
monument was established, yet there continues to be frequent 
congressional discussion of this blatant and insulting abuse of 
Presidential power designated as a national monument proclamation, so 
this amendment really does nothing.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting when I hear some say this is only 
Federal lands and we all own it. That is not what the antiquities law 
says. Let us go to the law when all else fails. It says ``on lands 
owned or controlled by.'' Well, they control everything, if we want to 
take the extreme interpretation of it. In fact, in this 1.7 million 
acres there are 200,000 acres that belonged to the schoolchildren of 
Utah. There are countless pieces of private ground that are 
encompassed. There are cities that are encompassed, but now they are 
``controlled by.'' So I do not know where we get this type of thing. I 
really do not see a reason for this particular amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that those lands are not part of the 
monument.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they are inside the 
monument. What choice have they got? If they are completely surrounded, 
they are in the monument. Believe me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Cannon].
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota has said 
several times today, and in the prior debate on the rule, that the 
problem is that Congress has not acted. Now, what the premise of that 
is is that there is a problem out there that needs to be solved. It is 
an urgent problem that requires what the Governor of Utah called a 
dictatorial action.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a straw man. The fact is, what we are 
saying here is that the people of Utah were somehow out committing 
depredations on this area. Remember, this is an area bigger than New 
Hampshire and Delaware combined. It is a huge area that has only about 
10,000 people in the periphery, not even on the area.
  Therefore, I would like to just point out that I do not think it is a 
reasonable thing for this body to look at itself and say we need to 
give up any authority we have because of some potential depredations 
and give dictatorial powers to the Presidency. I think in a matter of 
balance in this body that we should retain that balance, as opposed to 
the Presidency, and at the same time give him the ability to do what we 
need to do with monuments.
  Mr. Chairman, no one could love monuments more than I. I grew up with 
Arches National Monument. I grew up with that monument. It is now a 
park, but I have a hard time calling it a park because it was such a 
wonderful monument.
  We want monuments. America wants monuments, but we want them done in 
the light, not in the darkness, not hiding in saying, if people find 
this out, we will not be able to do it, not suggesting a straw man of 
people going out and making claims on land. Those are not fair things 
to do. We need policy and balance, and that is what this bill 
represents.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out and express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], my friend, 
for his candor in his remarks in support of this particular amendment. 
He said, and I quote quite directly, ``This leaves the power in the 
hands of the President.'' And indeed that is precisely what the 
proponents of this amendment want to do. They want to leave the power 
under the Antiquities Act in the hands of the President.
  Mr. Chairman, that might be a good idea and under prior Presidents 
probably was a good idea. But, regrettably, the most recent incident 
demonstrates that that power is awesome and can be, and in this case 
regrettably was, abused.
  Even if my colleagues do not think it was abused in this case, they 
ought to be concerned about the power of the President to act 
unilaterally; to, as he did in this case, ignore the Utah delegation; 
to, as he did in this case, ignore the Governor of Utah, who is sitting 
in a hotel in Washington, DC, desperately trying to see the President.
  I suggest that people who believe in sunshine, who believe in 
process, and who believe in the rule of law, should reject this 
amendment, because it leaves in the President's hands the power to 
unilaterally designate a national monument of 50,000 acres, as our bill 
would do, but to go beyond that and to designate 1.7 million, or 5 
million, or 10 million, or 22 million, or, for that matter, 22 billion 
acres, and to ignore the Congress in doing that.
  That simply is not good public policy in this country today, where we 
believe in the rule of law, where we believe in representational 
government, where we believe public policy should be debated openly in 
the Congress between people who represent all kinds of different views.
  Mr. Chairman, to leave the President with that sole power to be 
abused when he wants to, as sadly happened in this case on the eve of 
an election, is a mistake, is wrong. I cannot believe that anyone does 
not see that. Sunshine is what we need. If my colleagues trust people 
and believe in representative government, I urge them to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that this amendment does achieve a balance. 
I think we had a balance in terms of powers, in terms of many units, 
conservation units and other units we can designate. And my colleagues 
are failing to understand that in terms of opening up any of this to 
public announcement prior to the declaration, we will invite in various 
groups to make claims, and then the taxpayers have to buy back that 
which they already own, whether it is a claim for minerals, whether it 
is a claim for water, whatever the claim may be.
  Mr. Chairman, I just think that that is wrong. It is one of the fatal 
flaws in the legislation, and all the variations that have been 
proposed by my subcommittee chairman have that particular problem in 
them. What we are saying here is, if this is an error on the part of 
the President, if Congress disagreed with it, within a year they could 
come back and prevent the declaration to occur.

                              {time}  2000

  The fact is that even in this instance, where they are making these 
claims and some have been talking about the fact that it was unlawful, 
I am not aware of any court decision or any action, I am not aware of 
any court decision or action or anything pending in which the 
Antiquities Act has not been successfully upheld as being a proper and 
legal power of the President and constitutional. Unless there is 
something I am unaware of, I would be happy to yield to anyone to give 
me the name of a case in the last 91 years where that has occurred.
  Of course, I think the issue here is, I think that maybe the last 
thing to

[[Page H8410]]

criticize, of course, is to say somehow this is political or that is 
political. There is a lot of politics that go on on the House floor, in 
our committees, and certainly I do not think the President is beyond 
that. But in this case, I think he did the right thing. I think that 
the laws were pending, measures were pending.
  The gentleman from Utah quite rightly recognized, as I led the 
committee, I did not hear that bill or move on that bill of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] that he was concerned about. I did 
not do that. Perhaps I should have. We could have averted this 
particular designation by the President.
  I think at that time he probably was giving me different advice than 
that which he might be giving me now. Today I think the advice he gives 
us is wrong. This is a prudent, a measured move that I have in this 
amendment in terms of providing for a year review and providing for the 
opportunity but avoiding the type of problem that can exist and has 
existed.
  My view is not seeing the view of the bills that we have before us 
that would put oil wells in the Grand Canyon. It would put mines in 
various areas. We have had it. Even today the claims that are being 
made in Escalante are being honored. We have to honor those types of 
claims that are being made.
  We are talking about Federal land and public land and, yes, there are 
lands that are included within these monuments. I hope that we could 
move fairly and expeditiously to deal with the trade-off of those lands 
so that they could be used and the benefit of that would be to the 
citizens and others in Utah that might be affected by that.
  That is a different issue, though. We are not doing this on the basis 
of one monument. We are doing it forever. When we do that, we deny the 
children of the 21st century their legacy. I urge an ``aye'' vote for 
the Vento amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 105-283.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Miller of California

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr.Miller of California:
       Page 3, strike line 8 and all that follows through page 4, 
     line 2, and insert the following:
       Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906, commonly referred to 
     as the Antiquities Act (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``At least 60 
     days before the issuance of a proclamation under this 
     section, the President shall consult with the Governor of the 
     State in which the proposed monument is to be located and any 
     other individuals or organizations the President deems 
     advisable, unless the President determines and publishes a 
     notice that a delay in issuing a proclamation will jeopardize 
     the values for which such monument is to be established.''.
       Amend the title to read ``To amend the Antiquities Act to 
     provide for consultation in the establishment by the 
     President of national monument.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], and a Member opposed, each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from American Samoa 
[Mr. Faleomavaega] will control the 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I noted during the general debate of this bill, from my 
perspective the problem with the Antiquities Act is that the President 
has the ability to declare national monuments without consulting with 
the elected officials from the State in which the monument is being 
considered. Mr. Chairman, my amendment deletes the language of H.R. 
1127 and instead amends the Antiquities Act to require that the 
President consult with the governor of the State in which the proposed 
monument is to be located at least 60 days in advance of issuance of a 
proclamation. The only exception to this requirement is if the 
President publishes a notice that a delayed issuance of the 
proclamation would jeopardize the values for which the monument is 
being established.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal seems to be the right mix of authority 
vested in the executive while still giving State officials notification 
of action being considered. This gives the State an opportunity to take 
any action it seems appropriate before a proclamation is issued.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] claim the time in 
opposition?
  Mr. HANSEN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, after looking at this, it appears to me the President 
has to consult with the governor of the affected State at lease 60 days 
prior to issuing a proclamation unless the President finds delay would 
jeopardize the value of such monument being established. As Members 
know here, I will be doing a manager's amendment which I think, my good 
friend from American Samoa, pretty well answers that. What it will say 
is when the President is ready to make his proclamation prior to doing 
that, he has 30 days in which to talk to the governor of that State.
  So I think in a way this would pretty well resolve it without these 
things occurring that have occurred where the governor of the State is 
stonewalled in a hotel in Washington, DC, trying desperately to get in 
to the President of the United States, trying to find out what is going 
on. I was stonewalled as chairman of the committee, both Senators were 
stonewalled. But I do have to agree that at 2 in the morning our 
governor did get a call and then it was done at 10, no time to even 
react.
  So I think the gentleman is on the right track, the gentleman from 
American Samoa, the gentleman from California. I support them, but I do 
not think they have gone quite far enough. With what they have said 
here, I can see where in their hearts they would see that maybe the 
Hansen amendment coming up would more than solve this. I would 
appreciate their support in this. I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I would suggest it be rejected.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I think the distinction here with this amendment in 
addressing the question of consultation with the governor of the State 
in which a designation will be made and transmitting the proclamation 
to that governor is a matter of legitimate concern and interest.
  But it is a far cry from this amendment to then be standing the act 
on its head and in effect sort of creating temporary monuments, as we 
may end up doing in this legislation, and then if the Congress does not 
act the monument goes away. That is to gut the Antiquities Act.
  This is to try to address a problem that a number of Members believe 
is legitimate and of concern in terms of the communications between the 
Federal Government and local governments that are going to be impacted 
by these actions. I think this is a good amendment. The gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega] has suggested this from the time of 
the hearings and during the legislative process. I believe that the 
amendment should be supported because I think this is a rational 
response, unlike the legislation

[[Page H8411]]

which then goes to the undermining of the entire current law with 
respect to presidential ability to protect these public lands.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer].
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would urge colleagues 
to reject the Miller amendment that is before us at the moment. I ask 
this body to remember exactly what it is that this debate is all about.
  This is not a discussion over safeguards against some prospective 
possibility of executive abuse where national monuments are concerned. 
This is a bill that is brought to us because of the demonstrated abuses 
that have already occurred, already occurred. What this amendment 
proposes to do is virtually nothing different than the President has 
already done in establishing the Escalante Grand Staircase National 
Monument.
  Think of this, 1.7 million acres set aside in a State where the 
governor was not consulted, where the governor of that State of Utah 
heard by rumor that this might occur within his State. The President 
did not even exercise the courage of making the announcement from the 
State where the monument was to be designated. He made it one State 
over in Arizona. He consulted the governor of my State in Colorado, Roy 
Romer, who now is chairman of the Democratic National Committee, 
consulted him weeks before; consulted Robert Redford, an actor; but did 
not consult one member of the Utah delegation.
  What this amendment suggests in front of us now is that the President 
will attempt to notify somebody. It does not say it has to be the 
governor of that State. It says that it may be some other individual, 
any other individual or organizations that he deems advisable. Well, 
who would that be?
  Let me just tell my colleagues from past experience, it was not the 
governor of the State of Utah where this monument was in question. In 
fact, that governor flew all the way here to Washington, DC, camped out 
in a hotel, asked for meetings with the President of the United States 
and was denied that opportunity until 2 in the morning before that 
President set aside 1.7 million acres.
  Let me suggest, this is not just an issue of great concern for those 
individuals here from Utah. It is of great concern to every Member of 
this Congress who has public lands within it or private land within it 
or State lands within it, because those are the kinds of lands we are 
talking about.
  The Antiquities Act that we think of was designed quite frankly for 
small monuments. In fact, prior to this 1.7 million acre set-aside, 
that is what we saw, small areas of land with some unique feature.
  But when this President decided to waltz into a State without 
notifying the congressional delegation, without notifying the Senators, 
without notifying one individual within that State of any elected 
capacity and set aside 1.7 million acres, we need to shut that 
authority off. We need to put that authority back in the hands of the 
people's House so that we can assure right here that our citizens and 
taxpayers, property rights holders and those who enjoy the use of 
public lands and who enjoy credible monuments have the opportunity to 
have input and a say-so and have full opportunity to deliberate the 
importance of those dramatic actions by this Congress.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Miller 
amendment that would allow the Antiquities Act to apply to all 50 
states.
  As you may know Mr. Chairman, Wyoming is fully exempt from the 
Antiquities Act--the President cannot designate a national monument in 
my State that is 50 acres, 5,000 acres, 50,000 acres or 5 million acres 
without the consent of Congress.
  The legislation that established this important exemption was passed 
into law in 1950. The law is very simple, and very straight forward. It 
reads: ``No further extension or establishment of national monuments in 
Wyoming may be undertaken except by express authorization of 
Congress.''
  The State of Wyoming took civil action in February of 1945 against 
the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, after he had 
used the Antiquities Act to designate the Jackson Hole National 
Monument.
  The State claimed national interference with the use and maintenance 
of State highways, together with the loss of revenue from game and fish 
licenses by the exercise of federal control.
  Finally, an agreement was reached between the parties and Congress 
that incorporated much of the Jackson Hole National Monument into Grand 
Teton National Park. In addition, legislation was also enacted that 
bars any future Presidential designation of any national monument in my 
State.
  The Miller amendment, if passed, would submit the people of Wyoming 
to the possibility of the same treatment that occurred in 1945--the 
designation of a national monument without as much as a single comment 
from the people who live in the affected state.
  President Clinton recently used the Antiquities Act to establish the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.
  He stood not in Utah, but on the north rim of the Grand Canyon in 
Arizona, to announce the creation of that monument. No member of 
Congress, local official or the Governor of Utah was ever consulted, 
nor was the public.
  In 1976 this Nation made an important public policy decision. 
Congress passed landmark legislation in the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) requiring great deliberation, careful process, 
and above all public input in determining how public lands should be 
used.
  I am not willing to submit my constituents--the citizens of the State 
of Wyoming--to a President, present or future, who is willing to skirt 
important environmental and public comment processes for purely 
political gain.
  We must require, and our constituents expect, full and complete 
accountability of our elected officials--the President through the 
Antiquities Act must be accountable to the citizens he represents. If 
he is not, I believe that power should be taken away.
  I am thankful that Wyoming had the foresight and courage to pass the 
law that exempts it from the Antiquities Act and from an outright abuse 
of power.
  I ask that my colleagues oppose the Miller amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is advised that amendments 4 and 5 will not 
be offered.
  It is now in order to consider the amendment made in order pursuant 
to House Resolution 256.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. hansen

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Hansen:
       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.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen] and a Member opposed, each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Since September 18, 1996, the Utah delegation, the Committee on 
Resources and many other Members of Congress have tried to figure out a 
way to both preserve the President's authority to designate national 
monuments in emergency situations but prevent the type of abuses the 
Clinton administration pulled last September in Utah.

[[Page H8412]]

  After much discussion in committee and with other Members, since then 
I have agreed on a compromise proposal that addresses these many 
concerns. My amendment allows the President to unilaterally designate 
any, any national monument up to 50,000 acres in size. Remember, this 
is the approximate size of the District of Columbia.
  If the President wants to designate a national monument over 50,000 
acres, he must submit the proposal to the Governor of the affected 
State 30 days prior to the proclamation. After the 30-day period, the 
monument is created. However, after 2 years, the monument designation 
will sunset unless the Congress has passed a joint resolution approving 
the President's action. Thus, if Congress does not agree with the 
monument over 50,000 acres in size, the land will revert back to its 
former status.
  I commend my colleague from New York for his willingness to reach 
this agreement. This is a compromise. It restores the balance of power 
between the President and the Congress while still allowing the 
President to act in emergency situations as originally intended in 
1906.
  I urge all Members to support this compromise which restores 
Congress' role in managing our Federal lands. I ask, what could be more 
fair than this? Fifty thousand acres he gets, like that. That seems 
very simple to me. Over that, he can still do it.

                              {time}  2015

  To me, that is a reasonable approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] claim 
the time in opposition?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this. I commend my 
colleagues for trying to work out a compromise for his legislation, 
which he realizes has some problems or is flawed, but the fact is that 
this is just a perfect political solution: The President is able to 
declare, and then Congress will do what Congress has done, and that is 
sit on its hands and nothing would happen.
  So it does not really put anything on us. It is the same problem that 
we had. We are right back where we started from. We are chasing our 
tail around a tree here. That is really what this amendment does.
  I appreciate the fact that they have 2 years to go out and convince 
the public, but we have had many decades to try to convince them about 
the red rock country of southern Utah and we still have not come to a 
conclusion by setting a certain amount aside for conservation purposes. 
That is the problem with this amendment.
  Far worse than that, this amendment says that 30 days before we have 
to send the proclamation to the Governor. I understand the gentleman's 
problem with the Governor and other people not being informed, but I 
want the gentleman to understand my problem. My problem is I do not 
think the taxpayers should get ripped off in the process. And once we 
set this proclamation in writing and put it out there, obviously it is 
open season in terms of making claims and making changes, and I think 
most of those are spurious, quite frankly. That is my concern.
  So we have those two problems. Those are two big problems with this 
amendment, which is a good political compromise, I guess. The 
Presidents can go off and designate monuments every 2 years, Congress 
can sit on its hands. The Presidents would be happy. They would get the 
political credit for declaring the monuments, and in 2 years they would 
not be there, they would monument-for-the-day, the monuments would be 
gone, and the public would be the losers.
  I think this is wrong. I think this process does not do it. The 
gentleman is not there yet with this amendment. This amendment is a bad 
amendment and its being offered as a compromise, I think, is a problem. 
It is no compromise for me, and its is no compromise for the 13 
Presidents that have used this power. This would take away the 
authority and the ability to act as stewards for these conservation 
areas.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Cannon].
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that argument we just heard is a 
strawman: The idea that taxpayers are going to be ripped off earlier. I 
think it was said there would be claims filed that would take the value 
that belongs to American people.
  If we look at those issues, and water was mentioned. The fact is 
water is already taken in these areas. We will not have spurious claims 
on waters. As to minerals, those that are known are pretty much taken. 
Those that are not known, if someone randomly goes out and decides to 
file a claim, they will not have value. And when they come back to the 
process of proving value, they will not have any.
  We do believe in America still in the rule of law and in supporting 
contracts and the obligations of the American people. In this 
particular case, in the case of Utah, I do not think there is any 
question but that the President abused his power. There is no question 
by people looking at this dispassionately at how he hid his actions.
  What we are talking about in this amendment is restoring balance to 
the process, limiting the extremes to which a President can go, and 
this President has said he would go or has gone. This is not only about 
the people of Utah, though. It is not just about the people in the 
western United States, the public land States. It is not just about 
those kinds of things. This is about the abuse of Presidential power 
generally and this is a particularly good bill that will rein in that 
power and allow this House its proper role in the balance of the policy 
decisions about how we use our public lands.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the Here Today Gone Tomorrow 
Monument Act. It would make two changes in the law regarding large 
presidentially proclaimed monuments. First, it would require the 
President to provide 30 days notice prior to a proclamation. And that 
is no surprise. As Secretary Babbitt has said, and I quote, ``The 
notice period would provide both incentive and opportunity to stake 
mining claims and carry out other development activities which could 
irreparably impair the ability of the President to protect the area.''
  That is not just speculation. The opponents of the Grand Canyon and 
Arches proclamations, to mention just two specifically, said they 
wanted to mine those areas. Second, it would sunset a monument 
proclamation after 2 years if Congress did not enact legislation 
approving it. That means that a single Senator opposed to a monument 
could block it by putting a hold on the bill or a monument could be 
gone tomorrow simply because of delays and oversights.
  We can be sure once the monument declaration expired, the people who 
wanted to stake mining claims would be out there in force. That is what 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] meant about protecting the 
taxpayers.
  Put another way, if this substitute had been in effect in 1908, the 
chances are that much of the Grand Canyon today would be an abandoned 
mining site; chances are that some of our other national monuments and 
others would be covered by mill tailings.
  The ``Dear Colleague'' of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
of last week made this same point. He said then, and I quote, ``A 
congressional approval process would enable any powerful committee 
chairman or a single Senator to single-handedly block monument 
declarations. And few monument declarations fail to attract at least 
one opponent. Just look back at the opposition that greeted the 
declaration concerning the Grand Canyon if you have any doubts.''
  These words are equally true of the substitute being offered today. 
That is why this amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from Secretary Babbitt 
to the Speaker regarding this legislation.


[[Page H8413]]




                                    Secretary of the Interior,

                                      Washington, October 6, 1997.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We understand that the House soon will 
     consider H.R. 1127, the proposed ``National Monument Fairness 
     Act of 1997,'' a bill strongly opposed by the Administration 
     and which I have stated would be the subject of a veto 
     recommendation.
       We have serious concerns with a new amendment to the bill 
     made in order last Wednesday. The amendment does not correct 
     the flaws in H.R. 1127, as noted in the attached Statement of 
     Administration Policy. If this amendment is adopted, I would 
     still recommend to the President that he veto H.R. 1127, as 
     the bill would continue to infringe upon the power vested in 
     him by the Antiquities Act.
       The Antiquities Act is one of the most successful 
     environmental laws in American history. Between 1906 and 
     1997, fourteen Presidents have proclaimed 105 national 
     monuments, including Grand Canyon, Zion, Joshua Tree, the 
     Statue of Liberty, Jackson Hole, Death Valley and most 
     recently Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These 
     designations have not been without controversy, but it is 
     clear that, without the President having the authority to act 
     quickly, many of America's grandest places would never have 
     been protected and preserved for future generations.
       The proposed amendment would require the President to 
     provide 30 days notice prior to a designation. Requiring 30 
     days public notice in advance of every land withdrawal 
     severely undermines the purpose of the Act, which in part is 
     to permit the President to protect federal lands on an 
     immediate and time-sensitive basis. The notice period would 
     provide both incentive and opportunity to stake mining claims 
     and to carry out other development activities which could 
     irreparably impair the ability of the President to preserve 
     and protect the area.
       Equally as damaging to our ability to protect public lands, 
     the amendment would make each covered Presidential 
     proclamation effectively temporary. It would require that 
     such proclamations be nullified if Congress does not act 
     affirmatively to ratify them within two years. Congress 
     currently has the authority and opportunity to act to 
     overturn any monument designation at any time by passing 
     legislation to do so. To make permanent monument status 
     dependent on affirmative Congressional action within a 
     specified time limit presents too great a risk that the 
     complexities of the Congressional process and scheduling will 
     undermine the protections for these special places that all 
     Americans want and deserve.
       I urge the House to defeat this attempt and any others that 
     would undermine the President's authority under the 
     Antiquities Act.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the presentation of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Babbit.

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  My two colleagues have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this. 
First of all, this leaves our public lands and the damage to public 
lands and the threat to public lands open to a policy by filibuster, by 
Senate holds, and by obstructionists. Those would be the people who win 
in the debate against protecting and creating the national monuments.
  The second point, as the gentleman said, there is no mining here. 
Well, there is mining. In fact, in the Grand Canyon there was 
previously. But this is a generic law. This is not about these lands, 
this million 7, this is about lands in the future that may be declared 
monuments where there are serious issues over water rights, where there 
are mining claims, where there are all these issues.
  If we give 30 days notice, we will have a gold rush out there for 
people who think they can come back and jack up the Federal Government 
for these things, because we deal with that in this committee and have 
for years and years and years by people who think they can then extract 
something from the Federal Government if they file a claim.
  So, remember this, we are not writing a law about Utah. We are 
writing a law about the United States of America, and there are many 
assets that people would find valuable and would try to perfect and 
would try to hold up the Federal Government. So whether or not there is 
water in this particular area that would be in contention or not does 
not speak to this law. That is why the 30-day notice provision and the 
2-year provision is simply bad public policy, because it leads into the 
policy of filibuster, the policy of hold rather than debate and action.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a hard time believing my good friends from the 
other side, knowing how articulate and how well versed they are in the 
law, have forgotten there is a FLPMA Act. This happened in 1906. There 
is a Federal Land Management Policy Act that covers everything my three 
friends have just talked about.
  One of those is emergency withdrawals. I will not quote the section, 
I am sure they know where it is. Another is general land withdrawals, 
and another is land classifications. So the opposition is using scare 
tactics here. With this act or without this act all three of these 
cover the problem.
  The gentleman from New York talked about the idea if this had been 
there in 1906. Please keep in mind that only two since 1943, only two 
declarations would be affected by this amendment: The one in Alaska and 
the one in Utah. All the rest are all right. So the vast, vast, vast 
majority of all the monuments would not be affected at all because we 
are giving the President 50,000 acres. Carte blanche. Take it anywhere 
he wants. In the middle of his district. Wherever he wants it, he can 
do it.
  So I say if there has ever been a fairness act that is reasonable, 
that restores the power to Congress where it belongs, this is the act. 
Nothing to do with the monument in Utah, nothing to do with the one in 
Alaska or the little teeny ones, like most of them are, of maybe 300 
acres. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment and support 
of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 256, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bob 
Schaffer of Colorado) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snowbarger, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1127) to amend the Antiquities Act to require an act of Congress 
and the concurrence of the Governor and State legislature for the 
establishment by the President of national monuments in excess of 5,000 
acres, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________