[House Report 105-191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-191
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                 NATIONAL MONUMENT FAIRNESS ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

 July 21, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1127]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1127) to amend the Antiquities Act to require an Act of 
Congress and the concurrence of the Governor and State 
legislature for the establishment by the President of national 
monuments in excess of 5,000 acres, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the 
bill as amended do pass.
  The amendments are as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

  Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906, commonly referred to as the 
``Antiquities Act'' (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431) is amended by adding 
the following at the end thereof: ``A proclamation under this section 
issued by the President to declare any area in excess of 50,000 acres 
in a single State in a single calendar year, to be a national monument 
shall not be final and effective unless and until the Secretary of the 
Interior submits the Presidential proclamation to Congress as a 
proposal and the proposal is passed as a law pursuant to the procedures 
set forth in Article 1 of the United States Constitution. Prior to the 
submission of the proposed proclamation to Congress, the Secretary of 
the Interior shall consult with and obtain the written comments of the 
Governor of the State in which the area is located. The Governor shall 
have 90 days to respond to the consultation concerning the area's 
proposed monument status. The proposed proclamation shall be submitted 
to Congress 90 days after receipt of the Governor's written comments or 
180 days from the date of the consultation if no comments were 
received.''.

  Amend the title so as to read:

      A bill to amend the Antiquities Act to require an Act of 
Congress and the concurrence of the Governor and State 
legislature for the establishment by the President of national 
monuments in excess of 50,000 acres.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1127 is to limit the ability of the 
President to abuse the Antiquities Act of 1906 by requiring an 
Act of Congress and the comments of the Governor for the 
establishment by the President of national monuments in excess 
of 50,000 acres.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    In 1906 President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act 
which was designed to respond to a national movement to stop 
the vandalism and looting that was occurring on landmarks of 
prehistoric, historic or scientific interest and value. Since 
it was felt that legislative action was often too slow to 
respond to such threats to important areas, the Act allowed 
designation of National Monuments through Presidential 
proclamation. Congress, understanding the potential for abuse 
of such a power, included language within the Act specifically 
limiting monument designations to the smallest amount of land 
necessary to protect such areas.
    During the early 1900s there were very few mechanisms for 
setting aside or protecting large portions of land. Presidents 
during these years sometimes used their monument proclamation 
power under the Antiquities Act to protect huge areas of land. 
Some good examples of this include the Grand Canyon, proclaimed 
as a national monument in 1908, and what is now Utah's Zion 
National Park, originally proclaimed as a national monument in 
1909. Realizing that conservation-minded presidents, like 
Theodore Roosevelt, were doing the best they could to serve the 
public good with a system that gave them almost no other land 
conservation options, these designations made sense, given the 
limited ability to protect lands at the time.
    During the next several decades, public concern for 
conservation became more widespread and Congress responded by 
passing very powerful laws to serve the cause of conservation 
more fully. Since 1906 Congress created the National Park 
System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness 
Preservation System, National Historic Preservation Act, Wild 
and Scenic Rivers System, the Archaeological Resources 
Protection Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act, and other conservation 
authorities. The cumulative effect of these laws made it much 
easier to preserve large portions of land. Almost all of the 
large monuments designated during the years immediately 
following the passage of the Antiquities Act became National 
Parks or were otherwise incorporated into the new systems 
established as a result of these new laws. The point is that, 
while it may have been a good idea in 1906 to allow the 
President to use the Antiquities Act to designate large 
monuments, it isn't necessary or desirable today.
    On September 18, 1996, President Clinton, claiming 
authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act, proclaimed the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. The monument 
measures 1.7 million acres, and includes approximately 200,000 
acres of state and private lands. This action was taken 
unilaterally by the President without informing or consulting 
with any of Utah's elected representatives. According to 
testimony and documents received by the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands, this was purely a political 
action designed toappease the environmental community and timed 
according to the November election. Documents reviewed by the Committee 
make it clear that this action had very little to do with protection of 
lands but was instead focused on political advantage.
    H.R. 1127 amends the Antiquities Act of 1906 to prevent the 
President from unilaterally creating large national monuments. 
The bill originally contained language requiring that any 
monuments larger than 5,000 acres would require the President 
to consult with the Governor of the affected state, and would 
require an Act of Congress. In Committee the acreage threshold 
was increased to 50,000 acres.
    In response to concerns that Presidents might still abuse 
the Antiquities Act by stringing several small monuments 
together to cover any amount of acreage, the committee adopted 
an amendment to prevent the President from creating through 
Presidential proclamation more than one monument in any one 
state during any single calendar year.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 1127 was introduced on March 19, 1997, by Congressman 
James V. Hansen (R-UT). The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands. On April 29, 1997, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 1127, where the 
Subcommittee received testimony from State and local officials 
from Utah about President Clinton's failure to consult with 
them before proclaiming the new Grand Staircase-Escalante 
National Monument. These State and local officials gave H.R. 
1127 their full support. Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, 
while testifying about his role in the monument's creation, 
indicated that the Administration did not support the bill. On 
May 8, 1997, the Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 1127. No 
amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably 
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On May 21, 1997, 
the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 1127. An 
amendment to increase the acreage threshold from 5,000 to 
50,000 was offered by Congressman Joel Hefley (R-CO), and 
adopted by voice vote. Congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-AS) 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which 
directed the President to consult with the Governor of the 
State and others 60 days before declaring a monument, unless 
the delay would jeopardize the values for which the monument is 
declared. The amendment failed on a voice vote. Congressman Jim 
Hansen then offered and withdrew an amendment which placed a 
one-year time limit on any proclamation issued by the President 
under the Antiquities Act. Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth then 
offered and withdrew an amendment to strike the size threshold 
for Congressional action under the bill. Congresswoman 
Chenoweth then offered an amendment to exempt the State of 
Idaho from activities under the Antiquities Act. Congressman 
Jim Gibbons then offered an amendment to the Chenoweth 
amendment which exempted Nevada. The Gibbons amendment failed 
on a voice vote. The meeting was adjourned before final action 
on the bill could be taken. On June 25, 1997, the Full 
Resources Committee met again to consider H.R. 1127. Chairman 
Don Young made a unanimous consent motion to vacate the actions 
of the Committee on the bill up to the point immediately after 
the adoption of the Hefley amendment. The motion was agreed to. 
An amendment to prevent the President from creating by 
proclamation more than one national monument in any one state 
in any one calendar year was offered by Congresswoman 
HelenChenoweth. The amendment passed by voice vote. The bill as amended 
was then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 
voice vote.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(l) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8, and article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact H.R. 1127.

                        Cost of the Legislation

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 1127. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in 
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     Compliance with House Rule XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
1127 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 1127.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
1127 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 18, 1997.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1127, the National 
Monument Fairness Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1127--National Monument Fairness Act of 1997

    H.R. 1127 would amend the Antiquities Act to restrict the 
President's authority to declare certain areas as national 
monuments. The President would retain the right to designate 
federal lands as national monuments, but proclamations 
involving more than 50,000 acres in a single state in a single 
calendar year would not become effective until the Congress 
enacted specific legislation to approve the proposed 
designation. Before submitting the proposal to the Congress, 
the President would have to obtain written comments from the 
governor of the affected state.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1127 would not result in 
additional costs to the federal government and might result in 
some savings. We have no basis, however, for predicting the 
amount of such savings. The effect of H.R. 1127 on the 
responsibilities and budgets of federal land management 
agencies is uncertain because it would depend on what monuments 
the executive branch might create in the future under existing 
powers and on how its interpretation of the bill might affect 
such actions. If enactment of the bill would result in the 
creation of fewer or smaller national monuments, the National 
Park Service (NPS) or other agencies might spend less because 
it is usually less expensive to administer federal land as 
national forest or rangeland, for example, than as a monument. 
In most cases, such savings would be small and would be 
realized only if they were reflected in lower annual 
appropriations. It also is possible that enacting the bill 
could reduce losses on income-producing acreage that might 
otherwise be withdrawn through the declaration of a new 
monument, but there is no basis for predicting whether this 
would happen or the amount of offsetting receipts that might be 
affected. The bill contains no private-sector or 
intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 and would impose no costs on state, local, 
or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was 
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1127 contains no unfunded mandates.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed 
in italic and existing law in which no change is proposed is 
shown in roman):

                  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 8, 1906

                (POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE ANTIQUITIES ACT)

  Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby 
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public 
proclamation historic landmarks, 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 may 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: Provided, That when such objects 
are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fide unperfected 
claim or held in private ownership, the tract, or so much 
thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and management 
of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the 
Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the 
relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of the Government of 
the United States. A proclamation under this section issued by 
the President to declare any area in excess of 50,000 acres in 
a single State in a single calendar year, to be a national 
monument shall not be final and effective unless and until the 
Secretary of the Interior submits the Presidential proclamation 
to Congress as a proposal and the proposal is passed as a law 
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article 1 of the United 
States Constitution. Prior to the submission of the proposed 
proclamation to Congress, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
consult with and obtain the written comments of the Governor of 
the State in which the area is located. The Governor shall have 
90 days to respond to the consultation concerning the area's 
proposed monument status. The proposed proclamation shall be 
submitted to Congress 90 days after receipt of the Governor's 
written comments or 180 days from the date of the consultation 
if no comments were received.

                   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MRS. CHENOWETH

    Like so many of our federal programs, the 1906 Antiquities 
Act was created with the best intentions. Its authors 
envisioned a legal mechanism by which cultural, aesthetic and 
historically important sites could be quickly protected. But 
with time, the intended use of the Antiquities Act has been 
lost, as the politics of the moment have skewed and distorted 
the Act.
    In explaining this phenomenon, Richard Nixon wrote:

          I consider myself an environmentalist. No rational 
        person can quarrel with Churchill's observation ``I see 
        little glory in an empire which can rule the waves and 
        be unable to flush its sewers.'' When we established 
        the EPA, our goal was to find a rational balance 
        between the imperative of protecting the environment 
        and the imperative of economic growth. . . . But as so 
        often happens with government programs, the pendulum 
        has swung too far. Measures designed to protect 
        endangered species such as bears, wolves, and the bald 
        eagle are now being used to force Idaho farmers off 
        their land for the sake of the thumbnailsize Bruneau 
        Hot Springs snail. . . . Similarly the public has been 
        bombarded so relentlessly by apocalyptic warnings from 
        EPA bureaucrats and private organizations about global 
        warming and the depletion of the ozone layer that few 
        people realize that many respected authorities believe 
        these concerns lack any scientific foundation. . . . 
        One reason for such excesses is that as new departments 
        and offices ``mature,'' if that is the right word, they 
        look for new domains to conquer. . . . (Richard Nixon, 
        Beyond Peace, 1994)

    So, too, has the Antiquities Act been twisted. The Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah is but one 
example.
    When President Clinton designated 1.7 million acres in Utah 
as a National Monument, he did so without the input of the 
local people who would be impacted, without notification of 
Utah's congressional delegation, and without the consent of 
Utah's governor. Although the designation locked up five 
billion dollars in clean coal, cost Utah's school children one 
billion dollars, and took high paying jobs out of the local 
economy, the current status of the law allowed the President to 
do this with the mere stroke of a pen. It is my view that this 
should never happen again.
    H.R. 1127 is a giant step in the right direction. As a 
representative from Utah, the author of the bill, Chairman Jim 
Hansen, has experienced first hand the very serious impacts the 
misuse of the Antiquities Act can have on a state, and I very 
much appreciate all of his hard work on this issue. Although I 
wholeheartedly support the intended goals of the legislation, I 
question whether it goes far enough.
    Within hours of President Clinton's designation of the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Senator Craig and 
I introduced joint legislation to protect Idaho. Other measures 
for other states were also introduced. I went further and 
introduced legislation to protect all ofthe United States from 
any designation of any size. My bills were simple, Congress must be 
involved in any designation of a land monument no matter the size. 
However, H.R. 1127 requires Congressional authorization only for 
designations of more than 50,000 acres. Given the Act's history, I am 
concerned that this high threshold may still allow future abuses.
    In addition to congressional involvement, it is my view 
that the President must be required to seek the consent of the 
governor of the state in which the proposed designation is 
sited. It is not unreasonable nor unconstitutional for Congress 
to craft a law requiring the executive to obtain the consent of 
the highest ranking elected official in a state before locking 
up the resources of that state. I intend to offer an amendment 
to H.R. 1127 to insert a Governor consent provision.
    Nowhere in the legislative history does it suggest that the 
Act was to be used without local input, congressional 
notification or public comment. H.R. 1127 goes a long way 
toward restoring the Antiquities Act to its original intent. 
Reducing the threshold for Congressional involvement from 
50,000 acres to zero and requiring a Governor's consent will 
take us even further toward the 1906 Antiquities Act's original 
intent.

                                                   Helen Chenoweth.

                     DISSENTING VIEWS ON H.R. 1127

    We join with the Administration and a broad coalition of 
conservation and historic preservation organizations in 
opposing H.R. 1127. The bill would severely diminish the 
ability to use the Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect important 
natural, historic, and scientific resources located on our 
public lands.
    The impetus for H.R. 1127 evolves around concerns expressed 
by bill proponents regarding the President's designation of the 
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. H.R. 1127 
is their response to those concerns. We believe this response 
goes too far. The delays and ambiguities caused by the review 
and consultation requirements of the bill would undermine an 
important law that has been used to protect significant aspects 
of our national heritage. In addition, the language added by 
the Committee to limit designation of a monument to a single 
state in a single calendar year, trivialized an important 
issue.
    The use of the Antiquities Act to designate national 
monuments is not unique. In the last 90 years, 102 national 
monuments have been designated pursuant to the Antiquities Act. 
A significant number of these national monuments were later 
upgraded to national park status. In fact, in Utah alone, 
Arches, Zion, Bryce Canyon, and Capital Reefs National Parks 
were originally established by presidential proclamation as 
national monuments. In addition, Timpanogos Cave, Rainbow 
Bridge, Natural Bridge, and Cedar Breaks National Monuments, 
all in Utah, were established by presidential proclamation. No 
reasonable person would suggest that these designations were 
not in the national interest.
    Instead of undertaking a substantial and controversial 
modification of the Antiquities Act, the Committee would have 
been better off adopting the amendment offered by Mr. 
Faleomavaega to address the concerns raised regarding 
consultation while at the same time providing the needed 
flexibility to address important resource issues. The majority 
rejected that approach and instead has embarked on a policy 
proposal that ties the President's hands in dealing with 
threats to significant natural, historic and scientific 
resources found on our public lands.
    Contrary to the assertions that have been made, the 
Antiquities Act is not an unfettered grant of authority to the 
President. In addition, we would note that there is nothing in 
either current law or the Constitution that limits the 
Congress' authority, once the President has acted, to pass 
legislation to amend, modify, or repeal the designation of a 
national monument. If there are problems with an individual 
designation that is the process that can and should be used.
    We believe that H.R. 1127 would hinder the protection of 
important public resource values and we urge our colleagues to 
oppose the bill.

                                   George Miller.
                                   Maurice Hinchey.
                                   Eni Faleomavaega.
                                   Bruce Vento.