[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22514-22515]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 22514]]

   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1487, NATIONAL MONUMENT NEPA 
                             COMPLIANCE ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 296 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 296

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1487) to provide for public participation in 
     the declaration of national monuments under the Act popularly 
     known as the Antiquities Act of 1906. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida).
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 296 would grant H.R. 1487, the National Monument 
NEPA Compliance Act, an open rule providing one hour of general debate 
to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Resources.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources' amendment in the 
nature of a substitute as an original bill for purpose of amendment 
which shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule further 
authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  H.R. 1487, the National Monument NEPA Compliance Act, would provide 
for much needed public participation prior to the designation of 
national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Unfortunately, 
under current law such designations can be made by the administration 
acting without the benefit of public input into the decision-making 
process.
  For example, on September 18, 1996, President Clinton designated the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah without informing 
or consulting with the citizens of the State or their elected 
congressional representatives. This incident is especially troubling in 
light of documents obtained from the Clinton administration indicating 
that the monument in question was being planned for months. Incredibly, 
Mr. Speaker, State officials in Utah were not even notified, or I 
should say were notified only at 2 a.m. in the morning of the day that 
the proclamation was signed into law.
  Enactment of H.R. 1487 will ensure that this never happens again. Mr. 
Speaker, the bill requires the President to actively solicit public 
participation and comment before creating any national monument and to 
consult with the Governor and the congressional delegation of the 
affected State at least 60 days prior to the designation.
  After all, the establishment of a national monument is a significant 
step with far-reaching consequences for surrounding States and 
communities. Simple common sense dictates that local jurisdictions at 
least should be consulted before any land use change as dramatic as the 
designation of a national monument.
  The authors of H.R. 1487 have proposed a mechanism for doing exactly 
that. The bill received bipartisan support in the Committee on 
Resources, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment 
of H.R. 1487 would have no significant impact on the Federal budget.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt both this 
open rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me 
the time.
  This is an open rule which will allow consideration of H.R. 1487, a 
bill to clarify the requirement for public involvement in the 
designation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act.
  As my colleague from Washington explained, this rule provides 1 hour 
of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. Under this rule 
germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, the normal 
amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the aisle 
will have the opportunity to offer amendments.
  The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits the President to protect a 
historic or scientific landmark by designating it as a national 
monument. This bill requires that the President seek public 
participation and consult with the affected Governor and congressional 
delegation before making such a designation. Although the bill was 
reported out of the Committee on Resources on a voice vote with 
bipartisan support, some changes are needed in the bill to clarify 
congressional intent. Since this is an open rule, Members will have the 
opportunity to offer amendments improving the bill. The rule was 
adopted by a voice vote of the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues 
to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he 
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the 
chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Today is an important day 
where we have a chance to restore the right to the American people and 
their elected representatives to have input in public land discussions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about two things. First, I want to 
talk about United States Constitution.
  The Constitution gives the authority over the public lands to the 
Congress. It does not give the authority to the President. Yes, 
Congress can delegate a certain amount of that power to the Executive 
Branch, but Congress also has indisputable right to take that power 
back if it is being abused. The antiquities law is being abused. Huge 
national monuments have been created

[[Page 22515]]

and are currently in the process of being created for political reasons 
and to avoid congressional scrutiny and public input. Congress has the 
right to stop this abuse and has the obligation to stop this abuse.
  This public participation, Mr. Speaker, it is very important in a 
democracy that the public have the right to participate in important 
decisions. I think it is particularly important for all the public to 
participate in public land decisions. It is after all, it is their 
land; is it not?
  As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, on September 16, 1969, the 
President of the United States did the same thing in Arizona and 
declared 1.7 million acres a national monument. How many of us were 
aware of this? Very, very few. In fact my AA called up the White House 
the day before and said, We are hearing this rumor. Is it true that the 
President is going to declare part of southern Utah, a piece bigger 
than most of our eastern states; it would take all of the eastern 
States for a lot of my colleagues in one fell swoop.
  Oh, no, we do not know anything about it; we have heard the same 
rumor. Yet later in that day, the next day they declared this huge, 
huge piece of land a national monument.
  Now why did they do it? Well, we wanted to know. Of course we wanted 
to know. I chair the Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks; I 
really thought I had a right to know. Did not Governor Leavitt have a 
right to know? Did not our two senators have a right to know? Did the 
rest of the delegation? What about the people in Utah; did they not 
have a right to know? Apparently not, Mr. Speaker.
  So we subpoena all these papers, the volumes of papers after a little 
hassle with the White House. Do my colleagues know what they said? We 
are doing it for political reasons. We are doing it because the 
environmental community will think it is wonderful. As my colleagues 
know, these folks from New York and other areas, they think that is 
great. What about the people who live there? Do they not have a say in 
anything?
  So we have a national monument, yet to this day I do not think anyone 
has delineated what it really protects. So we have this huge piece of 
ground of rolling hills, of sagebrush and rattlesnakes, and I sure hope 
somebody enjoys it because everyone that goes there only goes once, and 
anyway all this little simple bill is about is to say: ``Let us have a 
little notice, Mr. President. We don't want to take away your rights.''
  In the last term on this floor, we passed one that said let us reduce 
it to 50,000 acres. We have 73 national monuments, most of them are 
very small, and let us make sure that the President names what the 
historic or scientific area is.
  How big is 50,000 acres? Pretty good chunk of ground. Realize all of 
Washington, D.C. is 38,000 acres; bigger than Washington, D.C., and yet 
the other body did not see fit to pass the legislation.
  So this bill is about public participation. All we are saying is the 
Governor of the State, the congressional delegation of the State really 
ought to have the courtesy, that word that does not seem to be so 
prevalent recently, just the courtesy for someone to let us know when 
we are going to do this, 60 days so someone can react.
  I urge support of this rule, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I appreciate 
the work of the Committee on Rules providing for an opportunity to 
fully consider this matter. Hopefully we have come to a resolution and 
an agreement with regards to public participation in the notification.
  The 1906 law that we are amending has had an important history. Over 
105 monuments have been declared over the history of presidential use 
of this power, which is, I think, essential to try to keep intact with 
some public participation, notification requirements as are outlined in 
the bill. This is a meaningful step, a necessary step, and I think it 
will provide for the opportunity where emergencies dictate for the 
President to take alternative action. I intend to offer an amendment 
during the consideration of the bill. I appreciate the format and the 
House consideration of this matter, and this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an open rule to H.R. 1487.
  H.R. 1487 was written out of concern that there was a lack of public 
involvement in the designation of national monuments under the 
Antiquities Act. Although I had several concerns with the original 
legislation, Mr. Hansen and I worked together and offered an amendment 
that Members on both sides of the aisle could support. As a result, I 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that passed the 
committee by voice vote.
  Because of the bipartisan work on this legislation, I see no reason 
why this Chamber should not fully discuss the merits of this 
legislation under an open rule. Mr. Hansen and I worked through our 
differences to achieve an equitable solution to a problem that divided 
this House last year. I plan to offer an amendment today whose intent 
states that nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify the 
current authority of the President to declare a national monument as 
provided to him under the Antiquities Act. I am offering this amendment 
because the Resource Committee's report didn't accurately represent the 
intent and scope of my substitute amendment.
  I realize that this legislation does not accomplish everyone's goals, 
but I also must acknowledge that it is legislation that we can all 
support. Mr. Hansen and I have worked on this legislation to try and 
resolve the issue of the monument declaration procedures and are 
pleased to offer a proposal that hopefully can win broad support. I 
would like to express my thanks to the Rules Committee for the positive 
response and action in approving an open rule for the House 
consideration. This House should openly debate and openly discuss the 
merits of this proposal and this important presidential power. I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________