[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22515-22526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 NATIONAL MONUMENT NEPA COMPLIANCE ACT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Pursuant to House Resolution 296 and rule 
XVIII, 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. 1487.

                              {time}  0932


                     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. 1487) to provide for public participation in the declaration of 
national monuments under the Act popularly known as the

[[Page 22516]]

Antiquities Act of 1906, with Mr. Miller of Florida 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 Minnesota (Mr. Vento) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this important 
bill to the floor. H.R. 1487 was designed to inject more public 
participation and input into national monument proclamations. The bill 
as reported from the Committee on Resources is the result of a 
bipartisan cooperation between the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) 
and myself and would amend the Antiquities Act to require the President 
to allow public participation and solicit public comment prior to 
creating a national monument.
  It would also require the President consult with a congressional 
delegation and governor of the affected States at least 60 days prior 
to any national monument proclamations. H.R. 1487 as reported from the 
Committee on Resources requires the President to solicit public 
participation and comment while preparing a national monument proposal, 
to the extent consistent with the protection of historic landmarks, 
historic and pre-historic structures and other objects of historic or 
scientific interest located on the public lands to be designated.
  In addition, H.R. 1487 as reported requires the President to consult, 
to the extent practical, with the governor and the congressional 
delegation of the State in which the lands in question are located, at 
least 60 days before declaring a monument.
  I have several specific concerns regarding the qualifiers. The first 
is the possibility that a President could still ignore the public 
consultation and official notice provisions of the Antiquities Act 
because of ambiguous phrases such as, quote, ``to the extent 
consistent,'' and, quote, ``to the extent practical.''
  While such phrases are intended to give the President a certain 
amount of latitude to cope with unusual circumstances, they are not 
intended to give the President carte blanche to ignore the provisions 
of the Antiquities Act. Nor were they intended to preclude judicial 
review if the President does abuse the limited discretion.
  The committee strongly intended that the phrases ``to the extent 
consistent'' and ``to the extent practical,'' should not be interpreted 
as allowing the President to ignore the public participation and 
consultation provisions of the Antiquities Act simply because he can 
point to possible problems that may occur from delay.
  A certain amount of delay is inherent in a statutory scheme that 
requires public participation, and subsequent to the passage of this 
bill, Antiquities Act decisions should take considerably more time to 
make. The President, however, may not skip the public participation 
phase simply because it may take time. The President is expected to use 
other available provisions of law to protect the land if such 
protection is needed while public participation proceeds.
  For example, the President should use all other tools at his disposal 
to protect lands short of a monument declaration. An example of this 
would be the secretarial ability to conduct a segregation or 
withdrawal, under Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act, while public debate on the proposed monument proceeds.
  The second issue is the nature of public participation that the 
President is required to allow prior to a national monument 
declaration. The original bill would have required the preparation of 
an environmental impact statement pursuant to NEPA. The bill as amended 
does not address, I want that point to be clear, does not address the 
NEPA issue, but comparable public participation is still required.
  It is the committee's strong intent that the President, subject to a 
few modifications reflecting the peculiarities of national monument 
declarations and the intent of this legislation, should follow the same 
general public participation pattern that the Interior Department 
follows in compliance with NEPA.
  The President should provide at all stages of the public process full 
dissemination of appropriate information, meaningful hearings and allow 
generous comment periods.
  It is anticipated that the President may delegate the creation and 
administration of these procedures to an appropriate agency, such as 
the Department of Interior or the Department of Agriculture.
  The committee also expects any designation process under the 
Antiquities Act to address pertinent issues that are necessary for 
meaningful public comment and sound decision-making.
  Finally, H.R. 1487 would require any subsequent management plan 
developed for a national monument to comply with NEPA. The fact that 
the President has gone through an extensive public input process on a 
decision whether to declare a monument should not be interpreted to 
replace the NEPA process that is associated with the subsequent 
management plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Hansen), the chairman, for his work on this process. For the past 
5 years, there has been a great deal of concern and some acrimony 
concerning the designation of the Escalante-Grand Staircase National 
Monument by President Clinton in his home State of Utah.
  Clearly, that has propelled us to a point where we are seeking to try 
to make the Antiquities Act, the presidential power to declare national 
monuments, work in a way that does engage the public and does provide 
notification to elected Members of the House and Senate, and to the 
governor of the State. That is basically what this legislation does.
  I know that there are a lot of other initiatives that he has put 
forth with regard to this, but I think this one does get to the issue 
at least of notification so that there can be perhaps somewhat of a 
more open debate with regards to this matter.
  The legislation, as was amended in the Committee on Resources, offers 
a common sense approach to the designation of monuments under the 
Antiquities Act. I was pleased to work out the provisions with the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. He 
initially wrote H.R. 1487 out of concern that there was a lack of 
public involvement in the designation of national monuments under the 
Antiquities Act.
  Congress, of course, established the Antiquities Act in 1906 to 
provide the President an opportunity to protect historic landmarks, and 
pre-historic structures and other objects of historic or scientific 
significance that face possible damage or destruction due to Mother 
Nature or man's encroachment.
  I might say that the Antiquities Act only applies to public lands. 
Generally, of course, we are talking about Federal lands. It does not 
apply to State lands. It does not apply to private lands, although 
sometimes there are, in terms of the Federal lands, those lands could 
be within those parcels.
  At the time, of course, of its passage early in this century, 
Congress realized that its very nature as a deliberative body precluded 
the House and Senate from acting swiftly when important scientific and 
cultural objects or landscapes were at risk. Because of the potential 
threat with conflicting Federal land policies impacting public land, 
Congress recognized the need to expedite national monument designations 
and accorded presidents broad new powers embodied in the Antiquities 
Act of 1906. Congress did not identify a specific plan for the level of 
public involvement, or notification that may be appropriate in the 
designation of national monuments by the President.
  The fact of the matter is, even at that early date there was great 
controversy over it. In fact, then President Theodore Roosevelt was 
taken all the

[[Page 22517]]

way to the Supreme Court for his designation of the Grand Canyon, 
which, of course, was something over a million acre designation. It was 
a very large designation at the time, because Congress has, then and 
now continued to jealously guard its role in terms of land use 
questions.
  I mean, in fact, the committee that the chairman presides over is a 
committee that I chaired for almost 10 years; and I think that he will 
attest to, certainly I would, to the level of work that we are involved 
with. I think as a subcommittee, it probably acts on more legislation 
than almost any other subcommittee in the Congress. So it is, I think, 
an indication of not just the role of Congress but the exercise of that 
role in terms of making these land-use decisions.
  The President at that time, when this issue was contested in the 
Supreme Court, the President's powers were upheld and to, in fact, make 
the types of designations that he has made. Since then, as has been 
rolled off my tongue so many times, there has been 105 such 
designations. Many of them have, such as the Grand Canyon, become 
really the gem stones, the jewels and the crown, we might say, of our 
national land conservation system.
  Today, with the passage of various other public lands bills, such as 
the Organic Act or the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, the 
laws that govern parks, wild and scenic rivers, the Antiquities Act has 
leveled the playing field for the President. That is, we do a lot more. 
If Congress languishes on a public land designation, of course, the 
President possesses the authority to immediately protect the land in 
question under the Antiquities Act, as he did in 1906. Congress, 
conversely, has been, I think, very aggressive over the last 2 or 3 
decades in terms of moving to declare wilderness, to, in fact, 
designate parks and to, in fact, recognize the special qualities of our 
lands.

                              {time}  0945

  I might say that one of the issues in terms of the Antiquities Act is 
that Congress has given great authority to in fact the use of our lands 
for public education purposes, under the Morrill Act and the 1872 
Mining Act. There are laws that govern the appropriation of surface 
waters, largely, obviously, governed under the jurisdiction of some of 
the States, but nevertheless embodied in Federal policy. So there are 
many potentially conflicting uses of public lands under the governance 
of laws that frankly run to the earliest history of our Nation.
  The Antiquities Act obviously was intended to recognize largely, as 
is indicated in its body, and as I have repeated, the cultural, the 
historic, the natural qualities, the natural landscapes that have 
become recognized as being very important.
  As originally introduced, the measure we are considering I think was 
unworkable language that effectively would have undermined the 
authority of the President to designate threatened public lands as 
national monuments. This important power, while as important today as 
it was yesterday, obviously, being limited by other laws would have 
prevented the President from acting in a timely manner, indeed, if the 
need would arise.
  The legislation led Members to believe it required the President to 
follow, for instance, the National Environmental Policy Act compliance 
requirements, although the requirement was unusual in itself, since 
actions taken, congressional or judicial or presidential actions, are 
not subject to NEPA. This legislation actually forced the President not 
just to follow NEPA, but even go beyond the requirements of NEPA.
  The measure that was introduced attempted to identify the effects 
before any cause could be studied, and seriously deviated from the 
public view and comment period mandated in NEPA. It set, I think, an 
unfortunate precedent by subjecting the presidential actions to 
judicial review before a final decision on land designation was made. 
It allowed the President to withdraw land on an emergency basis for 
only a 24-month period.
  Even after all of that process, any time you have a deadline of this 
nature, it works against the land designation, because surely that 
would run out. Congress may not act. There are, obviously, a group of 
competing interests in place practically, by definition, when the 
President would make such a declaration.
  Finally, the time requirements on the environmental impact statement 
are such that land could still be open to development prior to the 
designation being made. For these reasons and many others, my 
colleagues in the committee and the administration, of course, strongly 
opposed the initial bill.
  Prior to the committee meeting, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
and I agreed to a substitute amendment. We achieved, I think, the goal 
of public participation and notification, and also an amendment that 
Members on both sides of the committee could support. The substitute 
amendment directs the President, to the extent consistent with the 
protection of the resource values of the public lands to be designated, 
to solicit public participation and comment in the development of the 
declaration, to consult the Governor and the congressional delegation 
60 days prior to any designation, to consider any and all information 
made available to the President in the development of the management 
plan, and to have the management plan of that area comply with the 
procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
  As a result, of course, of this agreement, the amendment passed the 
full committee by voice vote. I would say with regard to NEPA that very 
often our public lands, whether it is under the Bureau of Land 
Management, resource management plans under the Forest Service, where 
we have the Forest Practices Act, there is a plan under Park Service 
lands, Fish and Wildlife, almost all of our public lands come under a 
guideline where periodically, ideally, at least every 10 years, there 
is a revision of that plan. That plan for the land use has to go 
through a NEPA process. So I would say embedded in the data system that 
we have, there are NEPA plans that exist that give us a good view or at 
least a current view of what the National Environmental Protection Act 
policy is with regard to plans that are proposed, so there is a body of 
information concerning that.
  In fact, that does require public participation, and it is the action 
of the President, in this case in terms of the declaration of a 
monument, that does not in this instance, just as the actions of 
Congress or a court, do not require NEPA participation. Of course, once 
a monument is declared and a plan is put forth with regard to how to 
manage that, again, that would be subject. But the action itself would 
not be subject to NEPA.
  I am also going to be offering an amendment today to this measure. 
This amendment, which the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has 
indicated his acceptance of, states that nothing in the Act should be 
construed to modify the current authority of the President to declare 
national monuments, as provided to him under the Antiquities Act. It 
reaffirms the intent of the bill's substitute amendment, which 
establishes public participation and consultation on the national 
monument designation to the extent consistent with the protection of 
the resource values of public lands to be designated.
  I, of course, feel it is necessary to offer this amendment to rectify 
confusing report language to H.R. 1487 which did not accurately reflect 
the intent and the scope of our agreed-to substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Antiquities Act is a cornerstone, really, of the 
United States environmental policy. It springs from the earliest 
origins, in a sense, of the conservation movement under then President 
Theodore Roosevelt. It has been used throughout this century.
  I believe this legislation is a good compromise. It allows this 
Antiquities Act to come full circle regarding its participation 
provisions, something I think that is desirable. It still grants the 
President full authority to designate national monuments. It provides 
for public input, and allows for

[[Page 22518]]

each congressional delegation to take part in the consultation process.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I were 
able to work together on a potentially difficult issue that has divided 
the House for 5 years. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation, and hope that the Senate will act on it. I am optimistic 
that the President will accept these qualifications and process issues 
with regard to the Antiquities Act of 1906.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1487, the 
National Monument NEPA compliance Act of 1999. I thank the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his efforts in bringing this legislation to 
the floor.
  Since President Clinton abused the 1906 Antiquities Act in 1996 and 
designated the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument without any 
participation from the surrounding public interest directly affected, 
citizens from across eastern Washington have contacted me to express 
their concern about how this type of action could happen again and 
affect their livelihood.
  While I, too, want to preserve the heritage of our public lands, 
especially given their importance to the history, commerce, and 
recreational possibilities of our region, we should not be afraid to 
let people participate in this process.
  Mr. Chairman, experience has taught us that ambiguous laws and 
Federal directives give the power of interpretation and enforcement not 
to citizens and local elected officials, but to Federal agencies. This 
often means that they could set policy at odds with the priorities of 
local government, businesses, property owners, and other citizens. A 
great variety of individuals, from fishermen to farmers to businessmen 
to loggers to Native Americans, depend upon the public lands in the 
Pacific Northwest for their recreation and livelihood.
  I have made it a priority to protect the people's right of access 
against intrusive Federal programs, and most importantly, to give my 
constituents an opportunity to participate in such important public 
policy decisions. Such public input should be an integral part of this 
process, and can still lead to environmentally sensitive policies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote to include the public, and 
join me in supporting H.R. 1487.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill introduced by 
my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the National 
Monument NEPA Compliance Act.
  H.R. 1487 will provide a much needed fix to a very antiquated law. I 
commend the gentleman for introducing this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1906, the United States Congress provided the 
President of the United States or a representative, the opportunity to 
designate national monuments. When done correctly national monument 
designations are an important tool in preserving historic landmarks, 
and objects of historic and scientific interest. But, Mr. Chairman, the 
use of the Antiquities Act has been severely abused, most recently by 
the current Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1487 will provide a much needed fix to an 
antiquated law. H.R. 1487 ensures public participation in the 
declaration of national monuments. H.R. 1487 would require the 
President to consult with the Governor and Congressional delegation of 
the affected State at least 60 days before a national monument 
proclamation can be signed. This legislation would also require the 
President to consider any information developed in forming existing 
plans before such declaration.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill wholeheartedly and urge full House 
support of The National Monument Public Participation Act.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman 
from Utah (Chairman Hansen) for this legislation, the work that he has 
done, and the cooperation we have seen from the other side, as well.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1487, a bill that would require 
public participation, public participation in the declaration of 
national monuments under the Antiquities Act.
  Today the President can create a national monument on virtually any 
Federal land that he or she believes contains an historic landmark, an 
historic structure, or other object of historic or scientific interest. 
In doing so, the President is to reserve ``the smallest area compatible 
with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.''
  Do we suppose when Congress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906 that 
they thought a future president would use the act to protect 56 million 
acres in one fell swoop, as President Carter did in Alaska? Did Members 
think that the residents of Utah would one day wake up to learn that 
1.7 million acres of their State had in effect secretly been declared a 
national monument, again without any public hearings or comments?
  That is the real issue here: Did Congress truly intend to abdicate 
its jurisdiction and empower a sitting president with the authority to 
designate literally millions of acres, without even notifying the 
Governor or the elected congressional delegations of the affected 
States? I do not think so.
  This really hits home in my district. Farmers, ranchers, landowners 
in my district are frankly concerned. They are scared. They are scared 
that one morning they, too, will wake up to learn that the President 
has designated Steens Mountain as a national monument. They are afraid 
that the characteristics of that mountain will change with the 
impending influx of tourists who would travel to visit a national 
monument. We have seen this, and we have heard reference to the Grand 
Canyon. We know the kind of tourist activity that occurs after these 
things are highlighted.
  Last month the Secretary of the Interior visited Steens and made it 
clear that if some form of legislative designation is not placed on the 
Steens, then this administration will act before they leave office.
  Do Members understand why my constituents are afraid? They are afraid 
because something is going to happen that they do not have any ability 
to have any say in. That is what they are concerned about.
  I went down there over Labor Day weekend and spent a couple of days 
looking firsthand at Steens Mountain. I toured it with ranchers, 
recreationalists, local Department of the Interior employees, and 
others who live and work, and have for centuries, around this mountain. 
I wanted to understand what it was the Secretary was talking about, and 
what it was that was going on in the Steens.
  After a couple of days of walking and flying and horseback riding 
over this mountain, I ended up with more questions than answers about 
why the Secretary was making this threat. From what or from whom was he 
rushing to protect the Steens, and what will the local effects be of 
another divisive edict from Washington, D.C.?
  That is what people are concerned about about our Federal Government, 
is that they pay the taxes and have no say; that these things come down 
in the middle of the night, and they are left out of the process. That 
is wrong.
  Before someone blindly places a designation on Steens Mountain, we 
need to carefully ask, does the mountain really need Washington, D.C.'s 
protection or meddling, beyond the public and private cooperation that 
exists today, and has for nearly a century? From what I have seen, I am 
not convinced it does.
  Steens Mountain is a treasure. The current management and protection 
of it appears to be working well. But as we progress, let us first 
clearly identify what the problems are, and then take the time to 
carefully consider the needs of the mountain and those whose livelihood 
depends on it for ranches, recreation, and tourism, before it is 
subject to some sort of executive mandate driven by political whim.
  That is why this bill is so important, Mr. Chairman. It is an 
excellent bill because it gets at the very issue of public 
participation. What is wrong with

[[Page 22519]]

requiring the President to solicit public participation and comment and 
then consider it? What is wrong with requiring consultation with a 
State's delegation to Congress and the State's Governor? What is wrong 
with asking that a significant action affecting everyone have to meet 
the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Protection 
Act?
  This bill is an important piece of legislation that will go a long 
way toward alleviating the fears of the residents of Harney County and 
others who live near proposed monuments.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Hansen) for his leadership on this issue, and I rise in strong 
support of the bill H.R. 1487, a bill that will ensure public 
participation in the creation of national monuments.
  Quite frankly, I am surprised that there would be any type of 
opposition to this legislation. We are not abrogating the President's 
power or his authority under the Antiquities Act in any way except to 
require him to allow public participation into the process.
  He can still create monuments. No size limitations will be imposed 
except those already existing or contained in the original 1906 act. 
The President can still act quickly. In fact, he can even avoid public 
participation provisions in this bill if there is some unforeseen 
emergency that cannot be taken care of by existing withdrawal 
authorities.
  There is simply no reason to oppose this bill. All we are asking is 
that national monument proposals see the light of day before being 
sprung on Congress, a State, and the American public. Even President 
Clinton's most ardent supporters admit that the creation of the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument was unfair, discourteous, and 
partisan.
  I would like to add that it was also a slap in the face of the people 
of Utah and showed general disdain and lack of respect for democratic 
principles. There is nothing to stop it from happening again in my 
State or in my colleagues'.
  If we pass this legislation, the American public will be able to 
participate in the national monument proclamation process. That should 
not be too much to ask from any administration. In almost every other 
public lands decision, they are afforded the right to receive 
information on pending public lands decisions and afforded the right to 
submit comments.
  This is not anything unusual. In fact, it is the right way to conduct 
business. Mr. Chairman, if the public participation is good, and I 
submit that it is, then it should be applied across the board.
  H.R. 1487 is a great bill. It will inject light and open us into a 
process that needs to be more open. I intend to vote for H.R. 1487, and 
I urge all my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon). The district of the gentleman from Utah has the 
entire Grand Staircase in it.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1487, which is a 
bill to ensure public participation in the monument designation 
process.
  Our colleagues know all too well how President Clinton recently used 
the 93-year-old Antiquities Act to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument in my district in Utah. Although there are certainly 
lands within the monument that are worthy of designation, I believe 
that the process, or the lack thereof, was fundamentally flawed. Not 
one local elected official was included in the planning or evaluation 
of this designation. This, Mr. Chairman, is wrong and should not 
continue.
  Mr. Chairman, millions of people have moved to Utah or remained in 
Utah for generations to enjoy our beautiful landscape and pristine 
environment. Utahans are very proud of and cherish our State and want 
to work to protect our lands. To suggest that Utah officials that have 
been elected by these Utahans are incapable of making or at least being 
included in land management decisions affecting our lands is deeply 
offensive.
  This is exactly what occurred in 1996 when, literally, during the 
dark of night, the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument was drafted. Each and every public official in Utah 
was blindsided. For the last 2 years, businesses, citizens, and local 
government have had to react to the designation rather than to work 
with the administration to achieve some kind of beneficial outcome.
  Since 1906, when the Antiquities Act became law, Congresses have 
passed legislation which requires public participation and input. 
Unfortunately, in 1996, the people of Utah were never given the 
opportunity for input. Had we been included in the deliberations of how 
to protect this land, much of the bitterness and heartache that is felt 
in southern Utah regarding the monument could have been avoided.
  The use of the Antiquities Act in my district was wrong. It should 
not happen again. I am pleased that the gentleman from Utah (Chairman 
Hansen) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) were able to craft 
language to improve the process. I congratulate them both on their 
work. The Hansen-Vento language simply requires the administration to 
notify, and consult with, the governor and the congressional delegation 
of the State at least 60 days prior to any monument designations in the 
State.
  Mr. Chairman, there are rumors that many other monument designations 
are planned before the end of this administration, and to simply to 
require that the affected local officials be consulted is common sense 
and consistent with current law and congressional intent.
  This is a common sense approach that will require that a little light 
be shed on the land management practices of this administration. The 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento) worked hard on this bipartisan compromise legislation, and I 
urge all of our colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah 
(Chairman Hansen), and I want to congratulate him for his good work on 
this bill.
  We have a National Environmental Policy Act, and the intent of that 
act is so that, when public land management decisions are made in this 
country, those making the decisions are required to examine the 
environmental impacts, economic impacts, and social impacts. The 
process requires them to scope all those potential impacts and then to 
try to balance and mitigate how those will affect that decision-making 
process.
  The 1906 Antiquities Act obviously was drafted before the National 
Environmental Policy, and so it is not subject to the NEPA process. So 
we really do not have a very good process for how those decisions will 
be made.
  Of course, we have heard the President designated 1.7 million acres 
in the Escalante-Staircase as a national monument. He did so without 
any public comment at all. In fact, he sought secret input from 
selected groups but, in the process, actually ignored, even misled 
members of his own party and the local political leaders in making this 
decision.
  This was a profound decision. It impacted 1.7 million acres. In the 
past, monument designations were relatively small parcels. So this 
decision by the President highlighted the weakness and the shortcomings 
of the Antiquities Act.
  So this bill, while it does not subject that decision to the NEPA 
process, which I personally would prefer, does begin the process of 
opening it up. It requires the President to seek public comment and to 
consult with local leaders before making that decision.
  We have always felt, or in recent years we felt, that public land 
management decisions should be made in an open process, that we ought 
to seek the input of citizens in making that decision. Why? So that we 
get input from the wide variety of different opinions about how that 
decision should be made.

[[Page 22520]]

  This decision was made in secret. This decision was made in a fashion 
that actually misled local landowners, local political leaders, the 
governor, even the congressional delegation.
  So this bill, in opening up the process, is really about good 
government. I think open government is good government.
  Will this bill have any negative impact on the President's authority 
to protect the environment? No, it will not. The President has other 
emergency powers to withdraw lands temporarily and to propose permanent 
withdrawals to development if he feels there is a threat to the 
environment. This bill does not affect that at all.
  However, I would point out to my colleagues that that kind of a 
decision is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, and it 
would be my preference that we make this designation that way, too.
  But this does not affect the President's emergency powers, temporary 
powers, or his permanent powers. This is a good government bill. I urge 
that we support this bill because it will open the process. I urge all 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very 
modest, common sense, and much-needed proposal. I thank the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for yielding me this time, and I commend him for 
bringing this very fine legislation to the floor of this House.
  Our Founding Fathers established a Government which is supposed to be 
of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, what happened in Utah shows 
that what we have now is a Government of, by, and for the bureaucrats 
and a few elitists at the top.
  Unfortunately, what we saw with this Utah land grab was an abuse of 
power through a very old law that is really no longer needed. There 
were no checks and balances. There was no public discussion. There was 
no consultation with the Utah congressional delegation or the Governor 
of Utah. There was a deliberate attempt to keep this thing as secret as 
possible for as long as possible.
  H.R. 1487 simply requires the administration to solicit public 
participation and comment while preparing a national monument proposal. 
It also requires that the President consult with the governor and 
congressional delegation of the State in which the lands are located.
  To oppose this bill is to oppose even very minimal public 
participation in this process. What we saw with the designation of this 
1.7 million acres in Utah was a very real abuse of power.
  During a hearing before the House Committee on Resources in 1997, the 
Governor of Utah testified that the first reports that he had received 
regarding this proposal were from a story in the Washington Post. In 
addition, he testified that he did not receive official word of this 
proposal until 2 a.m. in the morning the night before the announcement 
was being made.
  At this same hearing, Senator Robert Bennett testified that his staff 
found a letter from the Interior Department to a Colorado professor who 
was responsible for drafting the proclamation. In this letter, the 
Interior Department official stated, ``I can't emphasize 
confidentiality too much. If word leaks out, it probably won't happen 
so take care.''
  This almost makes one wonder if we have people running our Government 
today who want to run things in the secret, shadowy way of the former 
Soviet Union and other dictatorships.
  People in other parts of the country should be concerned about this. 
We should all be concerned because of the political wheeling and 
dealing, the arrogance, the extremism of the way this designation in 
Utah was carried out. But perhaps even more importantly, if they do it 
in one place, they will do it in another if people do not speak out 
against this type of political shenanigans.
  With that said, let me just note that all this legislation would do 
is make a minor modification to make sure that the public can be 
involved in decisions that affect large portions of public land. This 
Utah land grab affected 1.7 million acres, which is three times the 
size of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the most heavily 
visited park in the country. So millions of people all across this 
country realize how significant this is.
  Mr. Chairman, is it really so bad that we allow the public to 
participate in such important decisions? I do not believe the President 
should be able to designate such a huge amount of land as a national 
monument without some extensive public discussion and meaningful 
participation.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a modest proposal. This is not a 
Western or an Eastern issue; this is a democratic issue that affects us 
all. If my colleagues think that we should have just a small group of 
people at the top making significant, important decisions like this in 
secret, without any real meaningful public involvement, then they 
should vote against this bill. However, if they think it should be the 
right of the American people to have at least a small say in what their 
Government does, then I hope they will vote for this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1487 so that we can put the 
people back in the process at least in a small way.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
second district of Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1487. This 
excellent bill will allow the public to participate and comment on any 
proposed national monument declaration. I commend the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) for his tireless effort to protect democracy.
  This bill requires the President to consult with the governor and the 
congressional delegation of the affected State 60 days prior to the 
designation of a monument. Now, this modification of the Antiquities 
Act, an act in large measure brought forth by one of the greatest 
Presidents of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt, is absolutely 
necessary to prevent the kind of abuse that this President was involved 
in in the creation of the Grand Staircase monument in Utah.
  The bill of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) still gives the 
President the ability to move more quickly, if necessary, to protect an 
endangered site. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and to vote 
to protect America from presidential excesses.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out the dilemma, frankly, that any 
chief executive faces with regards to these land-use decisions. As has 
been articulated accurately by my colleagues from the committee, the 
President has some emergency powers for 36 months to, in fact, withdraw 
public lands from mineral entry. Of course we have, through other land 
designations, excluded lands, some lands from mineral entry under the 
Wilderness Act and under other conservation designations that we make.
  But we are still, in terms of looking at our National Forests and 
looking at our BLM lands, looking at about a half million acres of 
lands that lie within them; and better than about two-thirds of them 
are still open to mineral open, which would constitute some 300 to 350 
million acres of land that would be open to such mineral entry and for 
other appropriations for water, for other uses, even under the 
Homestead Act and under other uses.
  So the President, one of the phenomena that occurs whenever there is 
a suspicion that a chief executive or, for that matter, that Congress 
is going to take some action to, in fact, prevent the use under the 
mining acts, under various other limitations, wilderness designations, 
road-type of access issues, very often we see a phenomena where those 
interests that have an interest in mining claims or perfection of those 
mining claims or access questions or riparian questions with regard to 
water, when they see we are going to take any such action, they begin 
to make such claims on these lands.

                              {time}  1015

  This is a problem that we face. And, of course, because we are much 
more

[[Page 22521]]

encumbered in Congress in terms of moving, we cannot just move without 
the Senate and without the President and without our colleagues 
supporting us, very often these instances of claims can take place and 
they really, in a sense, very much provide new barriers and provide new 
obstacles in terms of trying to clarify the use of such lands.
  So, too, the President faces the same problem in this issue of 
monument declaration. It is sort of all or nothing. If in fact, he 
shares with the public the fact that he intends to designate a piece 
north of the Grand Canyon, in the case of my colleague's concern, my 
friend and classmate, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), then, of 
course, there could be, obviously, activities that take place that 
would, in fact, contradict the various features that the President may 
seek in the end to protect. The particular corridor of my friend, who 
has introduced the bill, might be compromised in the process because we 
are not moving ahead on it. So I think this is the issue.
  In terms of being open, yes, I think we want to be open, but we do 
not want to undercut the very purpose that the Antiquities Act or, for 
that matter, any proposals that we might make in Congress dealing with 
wilderness or dealing with park designations. So there has to be some 
degree of nondisclosure, I guess, with regards to specific actions. And 
that is one of the dilemmas that the President faced in this case in 
terms of not sharing all the actions he was going to take.
  I would just say that there has been some challenge as to the nature 
of this, the appropriateness of this area, and some aspects about what 
is important about it. But it is a spectacular area. Southern Utah, 
since early in this century, has been recognized for the outstanding 
characteristics and landscapes that exist there. They are among some of 
the most remote areas on the North American continent. They were some 
of the last areas, in fact, to even be surveyed because of the remote 
nature of these vast lands that exist in southern Utah. In the 1930s, 
then Secretary of the Interior Ickes had proposed the designation of a 
significant-sized park in that area.
  Now, some pieces of that had subsequently been declared national 
monuments and have evolved into becoming part of the park system, 
including Zion National Park, and, of course, we had spoken earlier 
about the Grand Canyon, but I do not know if Bryce was specifically in 
that area or how it was declared. But, again, as I talk to friends that 
have visited these areas, they are absolutely astounded at the beauty 
and the serenity of these magnificent landscapes in Utah.
  And, of course, beyond that, since 1930, at the very least, all of my 
colleagues that are participating in this have been sponsoring 
legislation one way or another to place parts of what is the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, prior to its being designated, 
putting part of it into wilderness. There have been proposals from 
Members of Utah, from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), from others 
that have served in this chamber, Congressman Wayne Owens, to, in fact, 
declare significant portions of this area as wilderness.
  So they, too, have recognized that some of these landscapes are very 
special and deserving of our highest degree of protection that Congress 
and the national laws can accord; that these are special lands. Whether 
they agreed to precisely the boundaries and the final action and the 
process decision here will be debated for a long time. I will not get 
into that. I think the idea of having public participation, having 
notification is appropriate, where possible.
  We also have to understand the dilemma that we are actually in a 
sense trying to face and that has to be resolved in these cases where 
conflicting claims can be made, even after we have made proposals in 
Congress, or if the President were to lay his cards on the table, so to 
speak, any president, with regards to this. He would be faced with 
conflicting uses and claims that may be made, may be made in some cases 
not even in good faith, solely to extract a payment from the national 
government for the purchase of that use or that right to use that 
public land for water, for mineral entry, for access and for other 
factors.
  So we have to be cognizant of what is possible. We would hope that 
everyone would act in the spirit of good faith that this legislation 
would envision; that they would, in fact, conduct themselves in a way 
that would make the public participation meaningful, without 
contradicting and undercutting, at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, 
the efforts to protect these conservation lands.
  Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record the Presidential Proclamation 
regarding the Grand Staircase-Escalante.

 Presidential Proclamation--Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

       The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument's vast and 
     austere landscape embraces a spectacular array of scientific 
     and historic resources. This high, rugged, and remote region, 
     where bold plateaus and multi-hued cliffs run for distances 
     that defy human perspective, was the last place in the 
     continental United States to be mapped. Even today, this 
     unspoiled natural area remains a frontier, a quality that 
     greatly enhances the monument's value for scientific study. 
     The monument has a long and dignified human history: it is a 
     place where one can see how nature shapes human endeavors in 
     the American West, where distance and aridity have been 
     pitted against our dreams and courage. The monument presents 
     exemplary opportunities for geologists, paleontologists, 
     archeologists, historians, and biologists.
       The monument is a geologic treasure of clearly exposed 
     stratigraphy and structures. The sedimentary rock layers are 
     relatively undeformed and unobscured by vegetation, offering 
     a clear view to understanding the processes of the earth's 
     formation. A wide variety of formations, some in brilliant 
     colors, have been exposed by millennia of erosion. The 
     monument contains significant portions of a vast geologic 
     stairway, named the Grand Staircase by pioneering geologist 
     Clarence Dutton, which rises 5,500 feet to the rim of Bryce 
     Canyon in an unbroken sequence of great cliffs and plateaus. 
     The monument includes the rugged canyon country of the upper 
     Paria Canyon system, major components of the White and 
     Vermilion Cliffs and associated benches, and the Kaiparowits 
     Plateau. That Plateau encompasses about 1,600 square miles of 
     sedimentary rock and consists of successive south-to-north 
     ascending plateaus or benches, deeply cut by steep-walled 
     canyons. Naturally burning coal seams have scorched the tops 
     of the Burning Hills brick-red. Another prominent geological 
     feature of the plateau is the East Kaibab Monocline, known as 
     the Cockscomb. The monument also includes the spectacular 
     Circle Cliffs and part of the Waterpocket Fold, the inclusion 
     of which completes the protection of this geologic feature 
     begun with the establishment of Capitol Reef National 
     Monument in 1938 (Proclamation No. 2246, 50 Stat. 1856). The 
     monument holds many arches and natural bridges, including the 
     130-foot-high Escalante Natural Bridge, with a 100 foot span, 
     and Grosvenor Arch, a rare ``double arch.'' The upper 
     Escalante Canyons, in the northeastern reaches of the 
     monument, are distinctive: in addition to several major 
     arches and natural bridges, vivid geological features are 
     laid bare in narrow, serpentine canyons, where erosion has 
     exposed sandstone and shale deposits in shades of red, 
     maroon, chocolate, tan, gray, and white. Such diverse objects 
     make the monument outstanding for purposes of geologic study.
       The monument includes world class paleontological sites. 
     The Circle Cliffs reveal remarkable specimens of petrified 
     wood, such as large unbroken logs exceeding 30 feet in 
     length. The thickness, continuity and broad temporal 
     distribution of the Kaiparowits Plateau's stratigraphy 
     provide significant opportunities to study the paleontology 
     of the late Cretaceous Era. Extremely significant fossils, 
     including marine and brackish water mollusks, turtles, 
     crocodilians, lizards, dinosaurs, fishes, and mammals, have 
     been recovered from the Dakota, Tropic Shale and Wahweap 
     Formations, and the Tibbet Canyon, Smoky Hollow and John 
     Henry members of the Straight Cliffs Formation. Within the 
     monument, these formations have produced the only evidence in 
     our hemisphere of terestrial vertebrate fauna, including 
     mammals, of the Cenomanian-Santonian ages. This sequence of 
     rocks, including the overlaying Wahweap and Kaiparowits 
     formations, contains one of the best and most continuous 
     records of Late Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world.
       Archeological inventories carried out to date show 
     extensive use of places within the monument by ancient Native 
     American cultures. The area was a contact point for the 
     Anasazi and Fremont cultures, and the evidence of this 
     mingling provides a significant opportunity for archeological 
     study. The cultural resources discovered so far in the 
     monument are outstanding in their variety of cultural 
     affiliation, type and distribution. Hundreds of recorded 
     sites include rock art

[[Page 22522]]

     panels, occupation sites, campsites and granaries. Many more 
     undocumented sites that exist within the monument are of 
     significant scientific and historic value worthy of 
     preservation for future study.
       The monument is rich in human history. In addition to 
     occupations by the Anasazi and Fremont cultures, the area has 
     been used by modern tribal groups, including the Southern 
     Paiute and Navajo. John Wesley Powell's expedition did 
     initial mapping and scientific field work in the area in 
     1872. Early Mormon pioneers left many historic objects, 
     including trails, inscriptions, ghost towns such as the Old 
     Paria townsite, rock houses, and cowboy line camps, and built 
     and traversed the renowned Hole-in-the-Rock Trail as part of 
     their epic colonization efforts. Sixty miles of the Trail lie 
     within the monument, as does Dance Hall Rock, used by 
     intrepid Mormon pioneers and now a National Historic Site.
       Spanning five life zones from low-lying desert to 
     coniferous forest, with scarce and scattered water sources, 
     the monument is an outstanding biological resource. 
     Remoteness, limited travel corridors and low visitation have 
     all helped to preserve intact the monument's important 
     ecological values. The blending of warm and cold desert 
     floras, along with the high number of endemic species, place 
     this area in the heart of perhaps the richest floristic 
     region in the Intermountain West. It contains an abundance of 
     unique, isolated communities such as hanging gardens, 
     tinajas, and rock crevice, canyon bottom, and dunal pocket 
     communities, which have provided refugia for many ancient 
     plant species for millennia, Geologic uplift with minimal 
     deformation and subsequent downcutting by streams have 
     exposed large expanses of a variety of geologic strata, each 
     with unique physical and chemical characteristics. These 
     strata are the parent material for a spectacular array of 
     unusual and diverse soils that support many different 
     vegetative communities and numerous types of endemic plants 
     and their pollinators. This presents an extraordinary 
     opportunity to study plant speciation and community dynamics 
     independent of climatic variables. The monument contains an 
     extraordinary number of areas of relict vegetation, many of 
     which have existed since the Pleistocene, where natural 
     processes continue unaltered by man. These include relict 
     grasslands, of which No Mans Mesa is an outstanding example, 
     and pinon-juniper communities containing trees up to 1,400 
     years old. As witnesses to the past, these relict areas 
     establish a baseline against which to measure changes in 
     community dynamics and biogeochemical cycles in areas 
     impacted by human activity. Most of the ecological 
     communities contained in the monument have low resistance to, 
     and slow recovery from, disturbance. Fragile cryptobiotic 
     crusts, themselves of significant biological interest, play a 
     critical role throughout the monument, stabilizing the highly 
     erodible desert soils and providing nutrients to plants. An 
     abundance of packrat middens provides insight into the 
     vegetation and climate of the past 25,000 years and furnishes 
     context for studies of evolution and climate change. The 
     wildlife of the monument is characterized by a diversity of 
     species. The monument varies greatly in elevation and 
     topography and is in a climatic zone where northern and 
     southern habitat species intermingle. Mountain lion, bear, 
     and desert bighorn sheep roam the monument. Over 200 species 
     of birds, including bald eagles and peregrine falcons, are 
     found within the area. Wildlife, including neotropical birds, 
     concentrate around the Paria and Escalante Rivers and other 
     riparian corridors within the monument.
       Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 
     U.S.C. 431) authorizes the President, in his discretion, to 
     declare by public proclamation historic and prehistoric 
     structures, and other objects of historic or scientific 
     interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled 
     by the Government of the United States to be national 
     monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 
     the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the 
     smallest area compatible with the proper care and management 
     of the objects to be protected.
       Now, therefore, I, William J. Clinton, President of the 
     United States of America, by the authority vested in me by 
     section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 
     431), do proclaim that there are hereby set apart and 
     reserved as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 
     for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, 
     all lands and interest in lands owned or controlled by the 
     United States within the boundaries of the area described on 
     the document entitled ``Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
     Monument'' attached to and forming a part of this 
     proclamation. The Federal land and interests in land reserved 
     consist of approximately 1.7 million acres, which is the 
     smallest area compatible with the proper care and management 
     of the objects to be protected.
       All Federal lands and interests in lands within the 
     boundaries of this monument are hereby appropriated and 
     withdrawn from entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or 
     other disposition under the public land laws, other than by 
     exchange that furthers the protective purposes of the 
     monument. Lands and interests in lands not owned by the 
     United States shall be reserved as a part of the monument 
     upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States.
       The establishment of this monument is subject to valid 
     existing rights.
       Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to diminish 
     the responsibility and authority of the State of Utah for 
     management of fish and wildlife, including regulation of 
     hunting and fishing, on Federal lands within the monument.
       Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect 
     existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock 
     grazing on Federal lands within the monument; existing 
     grazing uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws 
     and regulations other than this proclamation.
       Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any 
     existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; however, 
     the national monument shall be the dominant reservation.
       The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the monument 
     through the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to applicable 
     legal authorities, to implement the purposes of this 
     proclamation. The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare, 
     within 3 years of this date, a management plan for this 
     monument, and shall promulgate such regulations for its 
     management as he deems appropriate. This proclamation does 
     not reserve water as a matter of Federal law. I direct the 
     Secretary to address in the management plan the extent to 
     which water is necessary for the proper care and management 
     of the objects of this monument and the extent to which 
     further action may be necessary pursuant to Federal or State 
     law to assure the availability of water.
       Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to 
     appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this 
     monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands 
     thereof.
       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
     eighteenth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen 
     hundred and ninety-six, and of the Independence of the United 
     States of America the two hundred and twenty-first.

                                               William J. Clinton.

  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining on each side at 
this point?
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Vento) has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who has long been an advocate of 
participation in the land use decisions of the great State of Utah.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, for offering me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the need to protect and 
preserve this very valuable piece of American heritage.
  The first point that I think that I would like to make in this 
context is that the land in discussion with regard to Grand Staircase-
Escalante is, of course, public land. It is land that is held in trust 
by the Federal Government for all of the people of the United States. 
And as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) pointed out so clearly 
just a few moments ago, this is land that has been regarded as having 
great value for archeological reasons, historical reasons, and for the 
sheer extraordinary beauty of the landscape itself. And that regard 
dates back to the early days of exploration of the West in our country. 
And in terms of political action, it dates back to the early days of 
the Roosevelt administration, that is the Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
administration, and even, in fact, to the administration of Teddy 
Roosevelt, who recognized also the extraordinary importance of this 
landscape.
  President Clinton, I think much to his credit and to the great joy 
and admiration of many people around the country, designated the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante as a national monument. He did so not completely 
out of the blue, as some people would contend, but he did so with very 
substantial indication and notice. It came as no surprise to me, it 
came as no surprise to any member of the Interior Committee at that 
time in the House, and it came as no surprise to a great many Americans 
who are concerned about these issues. The designation was a welcome one 
in almost every quarter.

[[Page 22523]]

  And, in fact, that designation has resulted in very substantial and 
significant economic benefits as well as those benefits that arise from 
the protection of this federally protected, publicly-owned land held in 
trust by the Federal Government. Those economic benefits can be seen 
very dramatically in the communities surrounding the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. They can be witnessed in the fact that a 
great many small businesses have now sprung up in that area. These 
small businesses are providing jobs for people in the community and 
they are also creating significant amount of wealth for those people 
who are the owners of these small businesses.
  That is true entirely for only one reason, the designation of this 
national monument and the hundreds and thousands of people who have 
traveled to that part of the country to witness this national monument. 
And in so doing, of course, they spend their money in the surrounding 
region, in hotels and motels, and restaurants, and in various other 
establishments, all of which has been to the benefit of the local 
economy.
  So the designation of this national monument was a very wise one. It 
was the culmination of a tradition of interest by various 
administrations, both Republican and Democratic, over the course of 
this century in the United States. It is much to the credit of 
President Clinton that this designation went forward, and it is much to 
the benefit not only to the Nation and to every member of our public 
who values the extraordinary beauty that is so apparent in this part of 
the country, the most dramatic that can be found anywhere in the West, 
but also for the preservation of the ecological resources of this 
region, the archeological resources of this region, and the opportunity 
that it has provided for significant economic growth in the surrounding 
communities.
  So this is a fine act, and any attempt, I think, to subvert the 
process by which presidents, again both Republican and Democrat, have 
used over the course of the years since it was first established to 
recognize the unique value of certain portions of our country and to so 
designate them then as national monuments, that process should not be 
subverted. It should be allowed to continue in the same vein that it 
has for many decades.
  Notice, of course, is fine, and the amendment that the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) proposed in the Committee on Resources, and which 
was adopted by that committee, is very neat and fitting and suitable. 
However, any attempt to undermine the intent of that amendment, which 
was adopted by the majority of the members of that committee, and which 
I believe would be supported by the majority of the Members of this 
House, any attempt to subvert that language is wrong, it is out of 
place, and it ought to be rejected.
  So I rise here in support of the activities of the gentleman from 
Minnesota on the Committee on Resources, in support of the President's 
naming of the Grand Staircase-Escalante as a national monument, and 
opposed to any action that might subvert those efforts.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, I would just suggest that there will never be agreement, 
I expect, on the process that occurred with regard to Grand Staircase-
Escalante. Our purpose here today is to obviously demonstrate the 
features of this area, to somehow talk about the problems that the 
President faces under the existing process, some of the problems we 
face under the process we have for designation of lands for various 
purposes, and some of the conflicting laws that we are trying to 
untangle in terms of clarifying or providing for public participation 
and notification so that there is a good understanding.
  In any case, I think this legislation is a positive step, a very 
positive step in terms of addressing what has been, obviously, a 
contentious matter with regards to this recent designation and 
throughout the history, frankly, of the Antiquities Act. So, hopefully, 
with that said, Mr. Chairman, and with the action today and action on 
our amendments, we will help alleviate some of these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard a lot about this 1906 Antiquities 
Act. Keep in mind that that is when it was passed, 1906; and from that 
time to this time, do we have other laws that protect the lands in the 
State of Utah? We have probably more than we need. We have the 1916 
Organic Act, where the parks came from; we have the 1976 FLPMA; we have 
the 1969 NEPA; we have the 1964 Wilderness Act; we have the Wild and 
Scenic River Act. We have so many acts we do not know which ones we are 
dealing with. So we have all these acts. This truly is an antiquated 
law.
  But we are not trying to change it, contrary to what some people are 
trying to allude to. We are merely making a minor, minor change in the 
law that says people should do things in the light of day. We are not 
going to do it in closets. We are going to do it on sunshine laws. 
Yesterday, as I sat in the Chair that is all I heard from the other 
side, there should be sunshine laws, when we were talking about 
juvenile justice and things such as that.
  What is this bill about, Mr. Chairman? It is about the word abuse. 
That is what the word is, it is abuse. The 1906 Antiquities Act says 
this, it says that the President will designate why he is doing 
something; is it historic or an archeological reason.

                              {time}  1030

  Now we look at things like where the two trains met, the Golden 
Spike, obviously a historic area of less than a hundred acres. Now look 
at the beautiful things such as the Rainbow Bridge, obviously 
archaeological.
  Now read the proclamation of the 1906 Antiquity Law. Does anyone see 
anything in there where the President says, I am doing this for a 
historic area; I am doing it for an archaeological area? No, it does 
not say that anywhere. So why is he doing it? Again, it goes back to 
the word ``abuse.''
  As my colleagues know, we were completely ignored in this issue, all 
members of the delegation, no member of our State legislature, no 
member of the governor's office, including the governor himself. And 
so, we subpoenaed all of these papers, we got them in our own hands, 
why did you do this? And we wrote a pamphlet and we happen to have 
copies of it here. It is called ``Behind Closed Doors: The Abuse of 
Trust in the Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 
Monument.''
  What did they say in this? Did anyone overhear or did anyone read it? 
Well, maybe we ought to take a look at some of the things that were 
said, which I find very interesting.
  In a memo of August 14, 1996, a memo to the President from Kathleen 
McGinty, chair of the CEQ, candidly discusses this thing:
  ``The political purpose of the Utah event is to show distinct, Mr. 
President, your willingness to use the Office of President. It is our 
considered assessment that an action of this type of scale would help 
to overcome the negative effects toward the administration created by 
the timber rider. Designation of the new monument would create a 
compelling reason for persons who are now disaffected to come around 
and enthusiastically support you.''
  On March 25, 1996: ``I am increasingly of the idea that we should 
drop these Utah ideas. We do not really know how the environs, how are 
the environs going to respond? I do think there is a danger of abuse.''
  March 22: ``The real remaining question is not so much what this 
letter says but the political consequences.''
  And then they go on to say: ``This ground is not worthy of 
protection.'' Is that not interesting? ``This ground is not worthy of 
protection.''
  Well, did anybody know, yes, some people did know, the environmental 
community was told, I guess they are more important than the elected 
officials of the State of Utah, and a lot of

[[Page 22524]]

movie actors were told; and they were standing there and cheering, and 
these people do not have a clue of what is going on in the West or any 
of our laws, not a clue; and yet they are told and they are standing 
there working on these particular issues.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we may ask ourselves, I guess we get a little 
paranoid in this job and we start wondering what is happening. The 
paranoia, now we are hearing these rumors again, much like my AA 
calling up and saying is this going to happen and Ms. McGinty saying, 
no, we do not know anything about it; and yet this pamphlet here shows 
she knew about it for nine months and planned it herself, and the 
administration knew about, and the Department of the Interior knew 
about it and all these movie actors knew about it. But, of course, we 
are not told about it.
  So here we find ourselves in a position, is anybody else going to get 
this? Who of the 435 districts is next? Who is the lucky guy that is 
next, has this thing come zooming down on him and all of a sudden he 
has it?
  I am amazed at my Eastern brethren, who I have great respect for, who 
love to come out to Utah and the West and tell us how to run our 
ranches. I guess we are too stupid to know ourselves. But still, on the 
other hand, I would think the people that are there should have some 
input on what goes on.
  People who have never been to the West drop bills in that particular 
area. Maybe it is a good throw-away vote. It does not mean anything to 
us if they take 1.7 million acres of Utah, bigger than their entire 
State in many cases. Why do we care, or Nevada, or Wyoming, or any of 
those areas? Why do we care? It is nothing to us, who are a bunch of 
redneck Westerners. What do we care? They do not know anything.
  So I really think a lot of us from other areas ought to think 
seriously. Maybe we ought to follow the administration of the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) when he says, why do they not just take care of 
their own district.
  That is the theory of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). I do not 
know if that entirely works. But still, on the other hand, still I 
think everybody in their own district knows what is going on there and 
does a good job of it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about abuse, that is the whole thing, and how 
to stop it. We are not changing the law that much. I urge people to 
support this bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, when the Resources Committee 
held a hearing on this bill earlier this year, I found it a very 
troubling measure--one that I could not then support. However, because 
the Committee made significant revisions in the bill, I joined in 
voting to send it forward for consideration and further refinement by 
the House.
  Shortly, we will consider an amendment to further clarify the bill's 
very limited scope. I will support that amendment, and, if it is 
adopted, I then will support the bill for two reasons--because of what 
the bill as so amended will do, and because of what it will not do.
  What it will do is highlight the value of public input about managing 
public lands--lands that belong to all the American people.
  It will do that by urging the President, so far as practicable, to 
seek public participation and comment and to consult with relevant 
Governors and Members of Congress about possible actions under the 
Antiquities Act. It also will call on those involved with such possible 
actions to consider relevant information, including previous public 
comments about the management of the lands involved.
  These are very modest provisions, but I think they are worthwhile.
  Even more important is what the bill will not do. It will not weaken 
the Antiquities Act, and it will not diminish the ability of the 
President to act quickly when that's required to protect vulnerable 
resources and values of the public lands.
  Mr. Chairman, the Antiquities Act is a very important law that has 
proved its value over the years. Since its enactment, almost every 
President--starting with Theodore Roosevelt--has used it to set aside 
some of the most special parts of our public lands as an enduring 
legacy for future generations. In some instances, those Presidential 
actions have been controversial when they were done. But they have 
stood the test of time.
  In my own State of Colorado, we are very proud of the special places 
that have been set aside. We do not want to abolish the Colorado 
National Monument, as established by President Taft and enlarged and 
revised by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower. We do not 
want to weaken the protection of Dinosaur National Monument, as 
established by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. We highly 
prize the archeological and other values of Yucca House, protected by 
President Wilson, just as we do those of Hovenweep, a National Monument 
set aside by President Harding and enlarged by Presidents Truman and 
Eisenhower.
  And we are very protective of two more of our brightest gems--the 
Great Sand Dunes National Monument, first proclaimed by Herbert Hoover, 
then enlarged by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and the Black Canyon 
of the Gunnison National Monument, which also was established by 
President Hoover.
  Coloradans do not want to lose those National Monuments--we know 
their value. That's why the Colorado delegation has taken the lead to 
further expand the Black Canyon monument and to redesignate it as a 
National Park--something I strongly support.
  In Colorado, we know the value of the Antiquities Act, and we know 
why it should remain available to future Presidents. If the amendment I 
mentioned is adopted--as I hope and expect--this bill would not deprive 
future Presidents of this important tool.
  Also, if amended as I expect, the bill would still let a future 
President act quickly--another reason I can then support it. So long as 
the mining laws allow anyone to stake a claim on public lands that 
aren't withdrawn, a President needs to be able to swiftly withdraw 
special areas before a speculative land rush could make it harder--
maybe impossible--to give needed protection to threatened resources.
  And, frankly, sometimes a future President may need to use the 
Antiquities Act on short notice to make sure that Congressional 
deadlocks don't endanger priceless parts of the public lands. That was 
why President Carter invoked the act when a filibuster threat by one 
member of the other body stalled passage of an Alaska lands bill 
shortly before the expiration of the statutory withdrawal of vulnerable 
areas in that state.
  Thanks in large part to that timely use of the Antiquities Act, those 
areas now include important National Parks and National Wildlife 
Refuges as well as outstanding units of our National Wilderness 
Preservation System, all established by the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act--that is, by Congressional action that built on 
and revised what the President had done.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, that's really the bottom line here--the 
Antiquities Act lets the President act, but what a President does 
Congress can undo. For example, by actions of Congress the Mount of the 
Holy Cross, that famous landmark near Minturn, Colorado, is no longer a 
national monument--instead now it is protected as part of the Holy 
Cross Wilderness within the White River National Forest.
  As that and other examples show, if we in the Congress disagree with 
a President's decision to use the Antiquities Act, we can reverse or 
modify anything that the President has done through that authority--
provided that our own preferences have enough support for them to be 
enacted into law. That's balanced and fair--and that would not be 
changed by this bill if it's amended as I expect. So, Mr. Chairman, I 
urge adoption of the amendment I mentioned--and, if that amendment is 
adopted, and if the bill is not further amended in a way that would 
throw it out of balance, I think the bill should be passed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, though I believe it doesn't go nearly far enough to rein 
in the political chicanery surrounding Antiquities Act withdrawals and 
declarations.
  I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear opponents of this 
bill deplore the simple requirement that the President follow the 
National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--the same stringent 
environmental review law that other federal agencies have to follow.
  Why does the President of the United States have the prerogative to 
make a small inholder in my state, owning just 20 acres inside a 6-
million-acre park, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct 
extensive NEPA studies (on behalf of the Park Service) just to have 
access to his property. How can he justify this at the same time the 
public--American citizens--cannot demand these studies when millions of 
acres of land are about to be declared a monument?
  This is about accountability and credibility. It's hard to believe, 
but the public knew less about the President's motives behind the Grand 
Staircase Escalante withdrawal, than about his mysterious motives 
behind the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists!
  Only through the untiring work of my Committee on Resources did we 
reveal the politically motivated, back-room, election-year deal-

[[Page 22525]]

making to sacrifice the rights of Utah school children just to please a 
few Hollywood actors.
  I am outraged at the abuse of the Antiquities Act, and it only makes 
me wonder who's next. Alaska? Arizona? Missouri? I guess that depends 
on where Republican districts are located, and which Hollywood 
celebrity bedazzles the President and his aides. But we all know that 
this is just politics as usual.
  This bill simply makes the President do what all other Americans are 
forced to do for major federal actions: do a NEPA Environmental Impact 
Study.
  If they truly believe that NEPA is a worthy law and protects our 
environment, then the Clinton/Gore Administration should be required to 
comply with it, just like everyone else.
  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 is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE DECLARATION AND 
                   SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 
     U.S.C. 431; popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906), 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 2. That the'' and inserting ``Sec. 
     2. (a) The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) To the extent consistent with the protection of 
     the historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, 
     and other objects of historic or scientific interest located 
     on the public lands to be designated, the President shall--
       ``(A) solicit public participation and comment in the 
     development of a monument declaration; and
       ``(B) consult with the Governor and congressional 
     delegation of the State or territory in which such lands are 
     located, to the extent practicable, at least 60 days prior to 
     any national monument declaration.
       ``(2) Before issuing a declaration under this section, the 
     President shall consider any information made available in 
     the development of existing plans and programs for the 
     management of the lands in question, including such public 
     comments as may have been offered.
       ``(c) Any management plan for a national monument developed 
     subsequent to a declaration made under this section shall 
     comply with the procedural requirements of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  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 voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall 
     be construed to enlarge, diminish, or modify the authority of 
     the President to act to protect public lands and resources.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1487.
  When the bill was brought before the Committee on Resources, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I, of course, worked out a 
compromise legislation that all of our colleagues in the committee 
could support. I appreciate that ability to work with the gentleman on 
that.
  The amendment that I offered was accepted in the committee, and it 
directs the President, to the extent consistent with the protection of 
the resource values of the public lands to be designated, to solicit 
public participation and comment on the development of the national 
monument declaration, to consult the governor and the congressional 
delegation 60 days prior to any designation, to consider any and all 
information made available to the President in the development of the 
management plan, and to have the management plan of that area comply 
with the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
Act.
  The intent of the amendment that I will offer today says nothing in 
this Act shall be construed to modify the current authority of the 
President to declare national monuments as provide to him under the 
Antiquities Act.
  I feel obligated to offer such an amendment due to the report of the 
Committee on Resources on this measure which did not actively represent 
the intent and scope of my substitute amendment adopted in the 
committee. Since the committee did not discuss the substance of this 
report with me before it was printed, the intent of my substitute 
amendment was significantly misunderstood and I believe inaccurately 
represented.
  I am concerned that the report directs the President before 
designating national monuments to go far beyond even the specifics of 
current law or the changes in the proposed legislation. The report, 
like the original legislation, discusses a public participation process 
that goes beyond that of NEPA public participation requirements. Such 
procedure and requirements discussed in the report would threaten to 
harm and possibly destroy the natural and cultural artifacts that the 
President is trying to protect under the Antiquities Act.
  In addition, the report further misrepresents and rewrites the 
consultation provisions adopted by the full committee by making these 
consultations distinctly separate from the public participation 
provisions.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, which is obviously a 
repeat of the powers of the President. It does not modify our intent 
that there be public participation and consultation unless it is not 
practicable, but the fact remains that these designations when 
necessary can and will and should override these procedures. I would 
hope and I think that in most instances that these public participation 
and consultation processes will be workable and will alleviate much of 
the misunderstanding and acrimony that has obviously surrounded the 
most recent declaration that the President has made in Utah.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento) for his efforts to work out legislation that could be supported 
on both sides of the aisle.
  I believe the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman in 
committee is very clear and the amendment offered here is somewhat 
superfluous. But it is there. There appears to be concern that that 
legislation will somehow restrict the authority of the President to act 
quickly if necessary. This certainly is not the case.
  The committee language of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) 
reads: ``To the extent consistent with the protection of the historic 
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures'' the President shall 
solicit public participation and comment.
  The language goes on to state that the President shall also consult 
with the governor and the congressional delegation of the affected 
State ``to the extent practicable.''
  This is clear that in a real emergency the President may act under 
the authority he enjoys today. So I think the amendment is unnecessary 
and really has no effect, but it is fine with me.
  The language of the reported bill may be considered somewhat vague 
and does not specifically address what is meant by the phrase such as 
``to the extent consistent'' and ``to the extent practicable.''
  I assume this amendment is offered to clarify that if existing 
withdrawal

[[Page 22526]]

authorities available to the President or his subordinates would not 
adequately protect endangered lands, the President can act under the 
Antiquities Act without following the public participation procedures.
  The present administration also clarifies the point that while this 
bill will establish some prerequisites to the President's authority to 
act, it does not diminish his ultimate authority, after he has jumped 
through the appropriate hoops to act to protect public lands and 
resources. Thus, while it does not affect the timing and procedure of 
the President's authority to use the Antiquities Act, it does not 
restrict his authority to act to protect public lands and resources.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Vento language was accepted at full committee, 
it was agreed between the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) and 
myself that bill report language would be written that would make it 
clear that the President could only avoid the public participation and 
consultation requirements of this bill in an emergency, specifically, 
when there is land in some sort of legitimate peril and the President 
or his appropriate secretaries could not protect the land in question 
under other withdrawal or protection authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, we made that agreement in committee. We drew up 
appropriate report language. And the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Vento) filed supplemental views. The supplemental view of the gentleman 
did not contradict the report language in any way. I assume that this 
was because the report language accurately reflected our agreement and 
sharpened the points that we agreed should be clarified.
  We agreed that the acceptance of the Vento language was contingent on 
a bill report that would add some teeth to the Vento language. The 
agreement and the resulting bill report are part of the legislative 
history of this bill. Nothing in the Vento amendment now under 
consideration appears to change that fact, and that is the reason I 
support the amendment. With this understanding, I support this and I 
ask my colleagues to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify a couple of points here that 
were brought up earlier when some people reported that this was all 
public land in the Grand Staircase-Escalante. That is completely false. 
200,000 acres of this was not public land that is surrounded in the 
Staircase.
  Also, the idea the great economic benefits brought about. The 
children of the State of Utah, those kids we are trying to educate, 
lost over $1 billion out of this. I would like to see somebody make up 
that appropriations that we lost.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Vento amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McHugh) having resumed the chair, Mr. Miller of Florida, 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. 
1487) to provide for public participation in the declaration of 
national monuments under the Act popularly known as the Antiquities Act 
of 1906, pursuant to House Resolution 296, he reported the bill back to 
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read the third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of clause XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________