House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147

H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R.
817,
H.R. 845, H.R. 846, AND H.R. 2147
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS

AND PUBLIC LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Serial No. 112-59

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON
68-322 PDF
2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN
Louie Gohmert, TX
Rob Bishop, UT
Doug Lamborn, CO
Robert J. Wittman, VA
Paul C. Broun, GA
John Fleming, LA
Mike Coffman, CO
Tom McClintock, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA
Jeff Denham, CA
Dan Benishek, MI
David Rivera, FL
Jeff Duncan, SC
Scott R. Tipton, CO
Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Raul R. Labrador, ID
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Steve Southerland II, FL
Bill Flores, TX
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. Chuck Fleischmann, TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Dale E. Kildee, MI
Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Rush D. Holt, NJ
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jim Costa, CA
Dan Boren, OK
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
Martin Heinrich, NM
Ben Ray Lujan, NM
John P. Sarbanes, MD
Betty Sutton, OH
Niki Tsongas, MA
Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
John Garamendi, CA
Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
RAU
Don Young, AK
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN
Doug Lamborn, CO
Paul C. Broun, GA
Mike Coffman, CO
Tom McClintock, CA
David Rivera, FL
Scott R. Tipton, CO
Raul R. Labrador, ID
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
Dale E. Kildee, MI
Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Rush D. Holt, NJ
Martin Heinrich, NM
John P. Sarbanes, MD
Betty Sutton, OH
Niki Tsongas, MA
John Garamendi, CA
Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
(II)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 .....................................................

Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ...
Prepared statement of ...............................................................................
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Arizona, Statement submitted for the record .............................................
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona ......................................................................................................
Prepared statement of ...............................................................................
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts ................................................................
Prepared statement on ..............................................................................
Statement of Witnesses:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina ..............................................................................................
Prepared statement on H.R. 302 .............................................................
Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ..........................
Prepared statement on H.R. 2147 ...........................................................
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California .......................................................................................................
Labrador, Hon. Raul, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Idaho ..............................................................................................................
Rasker, Ray, Ph.D., Executive Director, Headwaters Economics .................
Prepared statement on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845,
H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147 ......................................................................
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Montana .........................................................................................................
Taylor, Hon. Jerry, Mayor, Escalante City, Utah ..........................................
Prepared statement on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845,
H.R. 846, H.R. 2147 .............................................................................
Additional materials supplied:
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 758 ...................
Society for American Archaeology, Statement submitted for the record
on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147 .
U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the record
on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147 .
1
2
5
45
6
7
8
9
18
19
10
12
16
17
20
21
25
26
13
15
33
34
46
47
48
(III)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 302, TO PROVIDE FOR

STATE APPROVAL OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES. PRESERVE LAND FREEDOM FOR AMERICANS ACT OF 2011; H.R. 758, TO
AMEND THE ACT POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 TO REQUIRE CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATING NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. NATIONAL
MONUMENT DESIGNATION TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; H.R. 817, TO AMEND THE ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 TO PLACE ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIONAL MONUMENTS UNDER THAT ACT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 845, TO PROHIBIT THE
FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN MONTANA, EXCEPT BY
EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. MONTANA LAND SOVEREIGNTY
ACT; H.R. 846, TO PROHIBIT THE FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN IDAHO, EXCEPT BY EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
IDAHO LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT; AND H.R. 2147,
TO PROHIBIT THE FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN UTAH EXCEPT BY EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS.
UTAH LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Duncan, McClintock, Labrador,
Gosar, Grijalva, Kildee, Holt, and Markey [ex officio].
Mr. BISHOP. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
is meeting today to hear testimony on a number of pieces of legislation. They will include H.R. 302, Preserve Land Freedom for
Americans Act of 2011; H.R. 758, National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act; H.R. 817, a bill to
amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements
on the establishment of national monuments under the Act, and for
other purposes; H.R. 845, the Montana Land Sovereignty Act;
(1)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
2
H.R. 846, Idaho Land Sovereignty Act; and H.R. 2147, Utah
Land Sovereignty Act.
Under Committee Rules, the opening statements are limited to
the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee and
the Full Committee. However, I ask unanimous consent to include
any other Members opening statements in the hearing record if
submitted to the clerk by the close of business today. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
Yesterday we learned that Jerry Taylor, who is the Mayor of
Escalante City, Utah, was on the East Coast with his wife, and
lucky for us he was able to delay a flight back home and make a
detour down here so he could offer the perspective of a local community on the impact of monuments. Mayor Taylor is intimately
familiar with this subject since his city is surrounded by part of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument that was designated in 2000.
Now, unfortunately, this is my fault as well, Mr. Taylor was not
here in time to allow his testimony to be written and given to the
Minority. He will be on the second panel, but to do so it would only
be at the acquiescence of the Minority, realizing that such would
be a violation of our Committee Rules as well as procedure. So, I
am going to let the Minority think about how they wish to deal
with Mayor Taylor.
If Mayor Taylor is here, if we dont decide to allow the testimony
which, once again, as I said, violates our concept of our Committee
Rules, I would ask that his testimony be put in written form and
submitted later into the record, which would be fine with me. So,
I will let you think about that one and how you wish to preserve
it. It is totally within your prerogative to do that, and I also apologize for putting you in this position because I should have been farther ahead than I was. It is my fault.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, on that very important note that it is your
fault, I have no objection and would be glad to hear the Mayors
testimony.
Mr. BISHOP. That is very kind of you, Mr. Grijalva.
At this point I also ask unanimous consent that any Member of
the Subcommittee or Full Committee wishing to participate in
todays hearing be allowed to join us at the dais, including those
Members testifying on their own bills. Without objection, so
ordered.
Once again, I realize that all of you are very busy individuals
who will be here on our first panel. Again, once your testimony is
over, if you need to go to other commitments, I understand that.
However, if you would like to stay and join with us, we would welcome you here. If indeed you think there is something more important than I am, go ahead and try to do it. See if I care.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. BISHOP. Today, we will hear testimony on a number of bills

to reform the Antiquities Act, a process that was used to create
national monuments. Established in 1906, the Antiquities Act
authorizes the President to proclaim at will national monuments
on Federal lands. This is indeed a legislative function that has
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
3
been transferred to the Executive Branch which ought to provide
us with philosophical problems in the first place.
It was created to protect historical landmarks or prehistoric
structures or objects of scientific interest. However, the Act has
been used to designate enormous tracts of land well beyond what
the Act says as the smallest area compatible with the proper care
and management of the objects to be protected. Indeed, Antiquities
have three goals. It was to protect something that was specific, of
specific interest; a specific interest that, number two, was endangered status; and number three, in the smallest area possible.
Since its inception in 1906, Presidents have proclaimed a total of
128 monuments and while some have received absolutely little or
absolutely no opposition, some have been very contentious, like the
creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument in the State
of Utah, as well as monuments that have been designated in other
western states.
Like other designations before and after, local leaders and congressional delegations were misled and the entire secretive, nontransparent process led to litigation and a litany of other problems.
The Antiquities Act has been abused by Presidents, unfortunately,
of both parties. But it is those of us in the West who suffer the
brunt of these practices where the timing and the large scope of
many designations, like Grand Staircase-Escalante, have resulted
in unnecessary hardships for local communities who depend upon
access and use of the lands and their resources.
In Escalante we will hear, thanks to Representative Grijalvas
acquiesce, from the Mayor today who will talk about the particular
hardships that have been put on his community, and one of those
areas where there is a large reserve of off-limit coal. It is unique.
Secretary Udall at one time pointed to this area and claimed it to
be Americas economic future. And even though that future still exists out there, because of the lack of the ability to get those resources and, because of the monument, thousands of Utah school
kids have been harmed.
If you look at the 15 states in this nation who have the hardest
time to fund their education system, the slowest growth in their
education system, you will find out 13 of those 15 are public land
states found in the West, found in the West where potential is denied them. That kind of potential is never actually included in any
of the estimates or discussions of what could have been, and especially the harm it does to the education community in western
states.
The Antiquities Act has been successfully curbed twice. Congress
included requirements for congressional consent for any future creation or enlargement of national monuments in Wyoming in 1943.
Similarly, controversial designations in Alaska in 1978 spurred legislation requiring congressional approval for withdrawals in Alaska
that would be greater than 5,000 miles. It is appropriate that this
legislative responsibility be actually returned to the Legislature,
and would solve once and for all the issue of Presidents adding or
taking from any area that is a monument at will.
Last year, contrary to the claims of increased transparency, a
document from the Interior Department revealed the Obama Administration had been planning to designate 14 new national
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
4
monuments using the Antiquities Act. The proposal would have
locked up millions of acres of public land in the West. If you were
to add the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and New
Jersey together, you have 11 million acres of land. This designation
was to have 13 to 14 million acres of land locked up as new monuments and even more if you included private sector land that would
be in this process.
Following the models of Wyoming and Alaska, the bills that we
will examine today have the goal of avoiding this problem and
making sure that Congress is indeed involved in the concept. What
was most frustrating for all of us is, even though these discussions
within the Interior Department were simply brainstorming, the
concept of the brainstorming was how to avoid Congress, how to
work around Congress in making these types of designations.
We need to ensure that the interests and livelihoods of all
residents and stakeholders are considered and protected. Land use
designations such as monuments and wilderness should be an
initiative at the local level, not out of pressure from Washington or
from special interest groups, and definitely not done ever again
unilaterally.
While I appreciate the Administrations willingness to abandon
the terrible wildlands proposal, and their commitments to allow the
consideration and coordination with local levels for those in the future who may be impacted, I have to say that my predecessors
have received similar commitments from other administrations in
the past, and yet national monuments were thrust upon them anyway without any input from either Congress or from the local
areas, and that is the nicest way of putting it.
We should never allow the Administration to try and avoid Congress, and actually never allow them to use a legislative function
to avoid Congress in the first place. We are in the midst of a recession. It is nice for those who push for a wilderness agenda if they
would also look that whatever we do does not compete with creation of jobs or domestic interference. That would be counterproductive. Managing our national assets in the future will have to
be done by doing more with less, and we must begin by managing
our Federal lands and natural resources for the benefit of the entire public.
Wilderness is attainable, but it is also to be considered with
other factors in the use of the land in mind. We cannot afford to
do one at the expense of the other, and absent the reforms outlined
today, monument designation may be constrained in size, solely
limited to contiguous lands that are already owned by the Federal
Government. They should be limited to the sites that clearly contain historic landmarks or historic and prehistoric structures or
other objects of historic or scientific interest. Monument designation should not be used as a backdoor maneuver to lock up lands
for general purposes that deny public access for recreation or job
creation. Private property and inholdings should be excluded from
designation. Designation should be limited to the areas that face
the clearly articulated and imminent threats, and the simplistic
and generalized notion that any particular commercial use is a
threat is neither correct nor adequate justification for preemptive
action.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
5
Now once more, importantly, it is significant that legislative
functions should reside with the Legislature, not the Executive
Branch.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Today we will hear testimony on a number or bills to reform the Antiquities Act,
or the process used to create national monuments. Established in 1906, the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to proclaim national monuments on federal lands
and regulate the care and study of our nations antiquities. While it was created to
quickly reserve and protect historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures,
or other objects of historic or scientific interest, the Act has been used to designate
tracks of land well beyond, as the Act states, the smallest area compatible with
the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.
Since its inception in 1906, Presidents have proclaimed a total of 128 monuments.
While some have received little to no opposition, some have been much more contentious, like the creation of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the
State of Utah. Like other designations before it, this led to litigation and a litany
of other problems.
The Antiquities Act has been abused by Presidents of both parties but it is in the
West where the timing and large scope of many designations like the Grand Staircase-Escalante have resulted in unnecessary hardship to local communities dependent upon access and use of the land and resources. In Escalante, as we will hear
from the mayor today, this created particular hardship and put one of the nations
largest coal reserves off limits.
While no court challenges have succeeded in undoing a presidential designation,
Presidential authority under the Antiquities Act has successfully been curbed twice.
Following the unpopular 1943 proclamation of Jackson Hole National Monument,
legislation incorporating Jackson Hole into Grand Teton National Park included a
requirement for Congressional consent for any future creation or enlargement of National Monuments in Wyoming. Similarly, controversial designations in Alaska in
1978 spurred legislation requiring congressional approval for withdrawals in Alaska
greater than 5,000 acres.
Last year, contrary to the claims of increased transparency, an internal document
from the Interior Department revealed that the Obama Administration may be
planning to designate as many as 14 new National Monuments under the Antiquities Act. The proposed designations would lock-up millions of acres of public lands
in the West, without Congressional approval, and restrict access for energy production, recreation, and other job-creating economic activities for numerous rural communities throughout the West. Following the models of Wyoming and Alaska, the
bills that we will examine at todays hearing would prevent any unilateral Administrative action and require either state approval or authorization by Congress prior
to a national monument designation.
We need to ensure that the interests and livelihoods of all residents and stakeholders are considered and protected. Land use designations such as national monuments and wilderness should be initiated at the local level, not out of pressure from
Washington and definitely not unilaterally.
While I appreciate the administrations willingness to abandon their terrible Wild
Lands proposal and additional commitments to allow for the consideration and coordination at the local level by those who are impacted most, my predecessor received similar commitments from the Clinton administration and yet the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument was thrust upon us anyway.
America is in the midst of a recession with elevated unemployment, yet the
Obama Administration continues to push a wilderness agenda that competes with
our national priorities of job creation and domestic energy independence. This is
counter-productive.
The Republican Majority in Congress understands that we are at a critical juncture when it comes to managing our nations assets and the current state of our
economy mandates that we do more with less. It is imperative that we begin to
manage our federal lands and natural resources for a maximum return on conservation, economic and public benefit. Improved management of our federal lands and
resources will create much-needed jobs, amplify conservation efforts and make
America more self-reliant and insulated from global market fluctuations of energy
and critical minerals.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
6
Wilderness is attainable but it also has to be considered with other factors and
uses of the land in mind. We cannot afford to do one at the expense of the other.
Absent the reforms outlined today, monument designations must be constrained in
size and solely limited to contiguous lands that are already owned by the federal
government. They should be limited to the sites that clearly contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest. Monument designations should not be used as a backdoor maneuver to
lockup lands for general purposes that deny public access for recreation and job-creation. Private property and inholdings should be excluded from designations. Designations should also be limited to areas that face clearly-articulated, imminent
threats. The simplistic, generalized notion that any potential commercial use is a
threat is neither correct nor adequate justification for peremptory action.
Mr. BISHOP. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

I would now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
for his opening statement, and then we will recognize the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee for his opening statement. Mr.
Grijalva.
L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
STATEMENT OF HON. RAU
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In many of the debates we have in this Committee I believe that
my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue. For
example, I believe that when it comes to wilderness, and I believe
when it comes to the issue of protecting lands near our national
borders, then my colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue. And
when it comes to the designations of national monuments under
the Antiquities Act, I believe my Republican colleagues are on the
wrong side of the issue. However, I also believe they are on the
wrong side of history.
The proponents of the legislation to undermine the Antiquities
Act, to prohibit the President from acting quickly when necessary
are on the wrong side of history in two ways.
First, they fail to appreciate the enormously valuable and terribly fragile historic resources the Act was designed to protect. The
Pueblo ruins at Chaco Canyon, the ruins at the Mission at
Tumacacori, the petroglyphs at Agua Fria, the African Burial
Grounds in New York City, and hundreds of other sites protected
as national monuments by the Presidents under the Antiquities Act
are significant chapters in the history of this nation, and these
chapters might well have been diminished or even lost had the legislation before us been law in the years past.
Those who support destructive amendments to the Antiquities
Act either fail to realize the value of the resources the Act has preserved or the seriousness of the threats posed to the resources or
both. Even worse, critics of the Act may believe that there are no
new historic sites to discover or no fragile chapters in the American
story in danger of disappearing forever.
I can assure my colleagues that the work already done pursuant
to the Antiquities Act has been invaluable and the work left to be
done is just as significant. Those proposing to amend the Antiquities Act are on the wrong side of history in a broader sense as
well. History has already affirmed the wisdom of previous national
monument designations and history will judge new attempts to
weaken the Act very harshly. More than 30 national monuments
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
7
designated by former Presidents under the Act, some of which were
controversial at the time, have been reaffirmed and elevated by
later congressional action. Olympic, Zion, Acadia, Bryce, Carlsbad
Caverns and Grand Canyon are among the areas protected as national monuments before they were national parks. The verdict of
history supporting this decision is emphatic and those who oppose
them have been found guilty of a lack of vision.
As the American people marvel at the stunning culture and historic artifacts protected in some future national monument, those
proposing to weaken the Antiquities Act to date could suffer a similar judgment.
We will hear claims that national monuments mean expansion of
Federal land ownership or that they harm private property rights
or that they harm local communities. None of those allegations are
true. This is not a debate about a Federal land grab. This is a debate about whether we want to lose critical cultural and natural resources to unlimited drilling, unending road building, and unrestricted off-road vehicle use. This is a debate about whether we
value our past enough to pass it on to the children of the future.
This is a debate about what kind of country we want and what we
want it to look like 100 years from now. This is a debate in which
those seeking to undermine the Antiquities Act are on the wrong
side of the issue, the wrong side of the American people, and the
wrong side of history. History makes us who we are and what we
will continue to be.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
l Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Statement of The Honorable Rau
In many of the debates we have in this committee, I believe my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issue. For example, I believe they are on the
wrong side of the issue when it comes to wilderness and I believe they are on the
wrong side of the issue when it comes to protecting lands near the border.
And when it comes to designation of national monuments under the Antiquities
Act, I believe my Republican colleagues are on the wrong side of the issuehowever, I also believe they are on the wrong side of history.
The proponents of legislation to undermine the Antiquities Actto prohibit the
President from acting quickly when necessaryare on the wrong side of history in
two ways. First, they fail to appreciate the enormously valuable and terribly fragile
historic resources the Act was designed to protect.
The pueblo ruins at Chaco Canyon, the ruins of the mission at Tumacacori, the
petroglyphs at Agua Fria, the African Burial Grounds in New York City and hundreds of other sites protected as national monuments by Presidents under the Antiquities Act are significant chapters in the story of this nation. These chapters might
well have been diminished or even lost had the legislation before us today been in
law in years past.
Those who support destructive amendments to the Antiquities Act either fail to
realize the value of the resources the Act has preserved or the seriousness of the
threats posed to those resources, or both.
Even worse, critics of the Act may believe that there are no new historic sites to
discover or no fragile chapters in the American story in danger of disappearing forever. I can assure my colleagues that the work already done pursuant to the Antiquities Act has been invaluable and the work left to be done is just as significant.
Those proposing to amend the Antiquities Act are on the wrong side of history
in a broader sense, as well. History has already affirmed the wisdom of previous
national monument designations and history will judge new attempts to weaken the
Act harshly.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
8
More than 30 national monuments designated by former Presidents under the
Actsome of which were controversial at the timehave been reaffirmed and elevated by later Congressional action.
Olympic, Zion, Acadia, Bryce, Carlsbad Caverns, and the Grand Canyon are
among the areas protected as national monuments before they were national parks.
The verdict of history supporting these decisions is emphatic and those who opposed
them have been found guilty of a lack of vision.
As the American people marvel at the stunning cultural and historic artifacts protected in some future national monument, those proposing to weaken the Antiquities Act today could suffer similar judgment.
We will hear claims that national monuments mean expansion of federal land
ownership, or that they harm private property rights or that they harm local communities. None of those allegations are true.
This is not a debate about a federal land grab. This is a debate about whether
we want to lose critical natural and cultural resources to unlimited drilling,
unending road building, and unrestricted off-road vehicle use. This is a debate about
whether we value our past enough to pass it on to the children of the future. This
is a debate about what kind of country we want and what we want it to look like
100 years from now.
This is a debate in which those seeking to undermine the Antiquities Act are on
the wrong side of the issue, the wrong side of the American people, and the wrong
side of the history that makes us who we are. I yield back.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Markey.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I would
just like to begin by saying what a great honor it is to have Senator Hatch here today. You may not be a national monument, but
you are a national treasure, and we very much appreciate your
being over here.
Mr. Chairman, our great nation has been shaped by our many
significant political movements. The civil rights movement sought
justice and equality. The environmental movement sought breathable air and drinkable water for our children. These are proud
chapters in our nations history. It is my hope that todays hearing
marks the death of a political movement, however. It is time finally
for the stop the monuments movement to end.
The stop the monuments movement was organized around the
belief that a plan conceived by Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 poses a serious threat to the United States of America and must be stopped.
To supporters of this movement, the Antiquities Act poses such a
dire threat that six different bills in this Congress alone are needed
to defend America against the danger posed by national monuments. It is time for this to stop.
In fact, the stop the monuments movement should have been declared dead last February. That is when an amendment to H.R. 1
to prohibit new national monument designations failed on the
House Floor. Two hundred and thirteen Members of this House, including 34 Republicans, voted against that amendment. A majority
of this House is now on record rejecting the stop the monuments
movement, and it is time for this Committee to reject this movement as well.
It would not be a great loss. The stop the monuments movement
was never particularly popular. Fifteen Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, rejected the movement and used the Antiquities Act to designate more than 100 national monuments. George
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
9
W. Bush used the Act six times, including designation of the largest national monument ever.
Prior Congresses rejected the call to stop national monuments as
well. For many years the Interior appropriations bill has protected
national monuments by prohibiting oil and gas development within
their boundaries. Congress has also acted more than 30 times to
reaffirm monuments designated under the Antiquities Act by upgrading them to national parks or other units of the National Park
System, and, in addition, to American Presidents in previous Congresses, the American people flatly rejected the stop the monuments movement.
Many of the monuments designated under the Antiquities Act
are among the most beloved and most visited destinations in the
country. In addition to its lack of support, it is time for the stop
the monuments movement to end because the two claims on which
the movement is based are plainly false.
The first claim is that national monument designations are land
grabs that lock up private property. In reality the Antiquities Act
authorizes the President to designate national monuments on Federal land only. The Act allows the President to act quickly to protect resources already owned by the Federal Government. These
designations do not and cannot take private property.
The second basic tenet on stop the monuments movement is that
monument designations harm local economies. This claim is false
as well. As Dr. Rasker will testify today, each of the large national
monument designations examined by Headwaters Economics was
followed by increases in population, employment, and household income the surrounding community.
In the end, the stop the monuments movement failed to attract
significant interest. It was based on false allegations and anecdotal
information squarely at odds with economic reality. The stop the
monument movement has clearly run its course.
If public opinion, economic data, Presidential support and a majority vote of the full House of Representatives are relevant, this
would be the last meeting of the stop the monuments movement in
history, and if this is indeed the very place the monument movement meets its end, perhaps some future President will see fit to
designate this hearing room as a national monument. That is how
important that effort will be.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, our great nation has been shaped by many significant political
movements. The civil rights movement sought justice and equality; the environmental movement sought breathable air and drinkable water for our children. These
are proud chapters in our nations history.
It is my hope that todays hearing marks the death of a political movement, however.
It is time, finally, for the Stop the Monuments Movement to end.
The Stop the Monuments Movement was organized around the belief that a plan
conceived by Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 poses a serious threat to the United States
of America and must be stopped.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
10
To supporters of this movement, the Antiquities Act poses such a dire threat, that
six different bills in this Congress alone are needed to defend America against the
danger posed by national monuments.
It is time for this to stop. In fact, the Stop the Monuments Movement should have
been declared dead last February. That is when an amendment to H.R. 1 to prohibit new national monument designations failed on the House floor.
213 Members of this House, including 34 Republicans, voted against that amendment. A majority of this House is now on record rejecting the Stop the Monuments
Movementit is time for this Committee to reject this movement as well.
It would not be a great lossthe Stop the Monuments Movement was never particularly popular. Fifteen Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats, rejected the
movement and used the Antiquities Act to designate more than 100 national monuments. George W. Bush used the Act 6 times, including designation of the largest
national monument ever.
Prior Congresses rejected the call to stop national monuments, as well. For many
years, the Interior Appropriations bill has protected national monuments by prohibiting oil and gas development within their boundaries.
Congress has also acted more than 30 times to reaffirm monuments designated
under the Antiquities Act by upgrading them to national parks or other units of the
National Park System.
And in addition to American Presidents, and previous Congresses, the American
people have also flatly rejected the Stop the Monuments Movement. Many of the
monuments designated under the Antiquities Act are among the most-beloved and
most-visited destinations in the country.
In addition to its lack of support, it is time for the Stop the Monuments Movement
to end because the two claims on which the movement is based are plainly false.
The first claim is that national monument designations are land grabs that lock
up private property.
In reality, the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to designate national
monuments on federal land only. The Act allows the President to act quickly to protect resources already owned by the federal government. These designations do not,
and cannot take private property.
The second basic tenet of the Stop the Monuments Movement is that monument
designations harm local economies. This claim is false as well.
As Dr. Rasker will testify today, each of the large national monument designations examined by Headwaters Economics was followed by increases in population,
employment and household income in the surrounding community.
In the end, the Stop the Monuments Movement failed to attract significant interest. It was based on false allegations and anecdotal information squarely at odds
with economic reality. The Stop the Monument Movement has clearly run its course.
If public opinion, economic data, Presidential support and a majority vote of the
full House of Representatives are relevant, this will be the last meeting of the Stop
the Monuments Movement in history.
And if this is indeed the very place the Movement meets its end, perhaps some
future President will see fit to designate this hearing room as a national monument.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank the Ranking Member for joining us. I appreciate very much his being here.
We will now turn to our first panel in what will be a series of
meetings on this particular topic. I appreciate them all being here.
Thank you for, first of all, your attendance with us. Your written
testimony will appear in the full hearing record, and so you can
keep your opening statements hopefully to five minutes. The microphones are not automatic so please make sure you press the button
before you are beginning to speak.
I first want to recognize the senior senator from my home State
of Utah, Mr. Hatch, to speak on H.R. 2147, the Utah Land Sovereignty Act. Once again, we appreciate you coming over to the
true side of Capitol Hill, Senator Hatch.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
11
Mr. BISHOP. And I dont think you are turned on.
Senator HATCH. Yes, it is on. I am just not close enough, I guess.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and of
course, Chairman Markey, I appreciate you as well, and thank you
for your kind remarks.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for the Utah
Land Sovereignty Act. It is an honor to be here. I especially appreciate Chairman Bishops continued efforts to stand up for me.
Mr. BISHOP. If I can interrupt. We have a hard time hearing you.
Can you put that right in your mouth.
Senator HATCH. I will put that right up. How is that? Is that
better?
Mr. BISHOP. That is a whole lot better. Thank you.
Senator HATCH. OK. I had better put my glasses on here.
It is an honor to recognize you, Mr. Chairman, and your continued efforts to stand up for the needs of Utah here in the House of
Representatives. It is a pleasure to serve with you.
Like most western states, Utah is owned mostly by the Federal
Government. This creates a unique set of challenges for Utahns. A
lot of decisions that affect our daily lives are made by faceless bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away. Many of them believe
that it is their duty to protect the land from any future development.
When the Antiquities Act passed Congress in 1906, it was intended to give the President the authority to designate small areas
of historic or scientific interest on lands owned by the United
States. In theory, this is a good idea. We live in a beautiful country
and there are areas that merit protections. Unfortunately, this authority is too easily abused.
In September of 1996, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act
to surprise Utah by establishing the 1.8 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The state had no warning that
this was coming, and once it was done we had no recourse. With
a stroke of the pen 500 high paying jobs in a rural Utah county
disappeared, and actually thousands of others when you look at the
natural resources that were there, that are there.
We thought we had seen the worst that could be done with this
Act to score political points at the expense of public land states.
Last year when the so-called treasured landscape memo was leaked
to this committee we realized that it could be much worse. We
found out that this President is not only willing to abuse the Antiquities Act, but that his Interior Department was getting ready to
advise him on where to do it. Two of the areas they had identified
for possible monument designation happened to be in Utah. That
is why it is essential that the bills we are discussing today pass
and the Congress be given the ultimate say on which areas will become national monuments.
Now dont get me wrong, Utah is a beautiful place, and there are
areas that should be protected, but there are also vast areas that
do not merit protection. Many of these areas also have vast stores
of recoverable energy in the form of oil, natural gas and oil shell.
The Utah delegation is working hard with local leaders as well as
interested parties from both sides of the debate to identify those
lands that should be preserved and those that should be open for
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
12
development. What we dont need is the Administration making
those decisions for us.
My bill, S. 1182, with the House companion H.R. 2147, will
guarantee that Utah does not have any more surprise monument
designations like we have had back in 1996.
Ultimately the goal of this bill is to protect jobs. Some people will
say that we, Republicans, want to throw away our nations most
beautiful places for a few jobs and a few dollars. That is certainly
not the case. We just want to be able to use the process that is in
place without worrying that our work will be overruled by a President desperate to score political points.
Now, this is a very important issue to rural Utahns. We need to
protect our state from anymore surprises like the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you for
giving us this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hatch follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Orrin Hatch, a U.S. Senator
from the State of Utah
Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for the opportunity
to discuss the need for the Utah Lands Sovereignty Act. Its an honor to be here.
I especially appreciate Chairman Bishops continued efforts to stand up for the
needs of Utah here in the House of Representatives. Rob, it is a pleasure to serve
with you.
Like most Western states, Utah is owned mostly by the federal government. This
creates a unique set of challenges for Utahns. A lot of decisions that affect our daily
lives are made by faceless bureaucrats who are thousands of miles away.
Many of them believe that it is their duty to protect the land from any future
development.
When the Antiquities Act passed Congress in 1906 it was intended to give the
President the authority to designate small areas of historic or scientific interest on
lands owned by the United States. In theory, this is a good idea. We live in a beautiful country and there are areas that merit protections. Unfortunately, this authority is too easily abused.
In September of 1996, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act to surprise Utah
by establishing the 1.8 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The State had no warning that this was coming, and once it was done we had no
recourse.
With the stroke of the pen, 500 high-paying jobs in a rural Utah county disappeared.
We thought we had seen the worst that could be done with this Act to score political points at the expense of public-lands states. Last year when the so-called,
Treasured Landscapes memo was leaked to this committee we realized that it could
be much worse.
We found out that this President is not only willing to abuse the Antiquities Act,
but that his Interior Department was getting ready to advise him on where to do
it. Two of the areas they had identified for possible monument designation are in
Utah.
That is why it is essential that the bills we are discussing today pass and the
Congress be given the ultimate say on which areas will become national monuments.
Now dont get me wrong. Utah is a beautiful place and there are areas that
should be protected. But there are also vast areas that do not merit protection.
Many of these areas also have vast stores of recoverable energy in the form of oil,
natural gas and oil shale. The Utah delegation is working hard with local leaders
as well as interested parties from both sides of the debate to identify those lands
that should be preserved and those that should be opened for development. What
we dont need is the administration making those decisions for us.
My bill, S. 1182, with the house companion H.R. 2147 will guarantee that Utah
does not have any more surprise monument designations like we had back in 1996.
Ultimately the goal of this bill is to protect jobs. Some people will say we republicans want to throw away our nations most beautiful places for a few jobs and a
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
13
few dollars. That is not the case. We just want to be able to use the process that
is in place without worrying that our work will be overruled by a President desperate to score political points.
This is a very important issue to rural Utahns. We need to protect our state from
any more surprises like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Mr. BISHOP. Senator, thank you, and I know in your busy schedule, whenever you need to leave you are excused. If you would like
to stay, we would be more than happy to have you here.
Senator HATCH. Well, if you will forgive me, I think maybe I
would get back over to the other side, but thank you for your kindness, and I appreciate this committee very much.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We wish you well, and you will still note
it is still brighter on this side than it is over on that side.
Senator HATCH. We always knew that over there.
Mr. BISHOP. All right. We next turn to our other colleagues who
have bills both in front of us and on the panel as well. The first
one I would like to ask is a former member of this Committee, the
Representative At Large from the great State of Montana, Mr.
Denny Rehberg, to talk about H.R. 845, the Montana Land Sovereignty Act. Congressman Rehberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before he leaves I

would like to thank Senator Hatch. This is the second time I have
appeared next to him. The most recent was on the issue of wolves,
and we were successful in getting that through the Congress and
signed by the President. I hope we are as successful on this piece
of legislation as well. I might point out I did have to show him how
to turn on the microphone so I have done my duty as a House
Member teaching the Senate today.
Chairman Bishop, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify here on behalf of my legislation, the Montana
Land Sovereignty Act. I am reminded of a Greek myth about a guy
named Damocles who was forced to sit in the Kings chair beneath
a huge sword. The sword hangs from its handle above his head by
a single hair of a horses tail. Damocles is constantly aware of the
swords presence. He is miserable.
For Montana, the Antiquities Act is something like the Sword of
Damocles. Like the myth, we must cope with the constant knowledge that one day we could wake up to find that with the stroke
of a pen the President declared the backyard a national monument.
For us, it is no myth. In the eleventh hour of the outgoing Clinton
Administration the Antiquities Act was used, some say abused, to
create the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument despite
strong opposition across my home State of Montana.
The Montana Land Sovereignty Act isnt about stopping new
monuments, it is simply about making sure that the American public has a voice in the process. We were left out in 2001. Ten years
later history is repeating itself. By now you have heard of the notfor-release Department of the Interior memo that recommends millions of acres of new national monuments, including 2.5 million
acres in Montana. The emails show detailed discussions that went
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
14
into brainstorming for the plan. The Great Falls Tribune read the
documents and concluded that the rumors started at the top levels
of the Interior Department agencies, and all of this happened in secret.
The only reason we found out was because the documents were
leaked. We got lucky this time. We had time to weigh in and the
opposition to the plan is clear at the town hall meetings I hosted,
on the bill boys bumper stickers, and road signs across the state.
But for all of that opposition the President could still act on those
secret plans at any time, and that is just wrong.
When we go back and look at the original House and Senate reports from 1906, the debate was about archeology and protecting
Native American ruins from looters. When it passed, this bills
strongest support came from Archeological Institute of America, the
American Anthropological Association, and the Smithsonian Institution. The Antiquities Act was never meant to circumvent Congress and designate huge parcels of land as national monuments.
In fact, this question was directly considered during the debate.
On June 5, 1906, Mr. Stevens of Texas asked on the House Floor
if the Antiquities Act could be used to tie up large parcels of land.
The bill sponsor assures him Certainly not. The object is entirely
different. It is to preserve these old objects of special interest and
the Indian remains in the Pueblos in the Southwest. I have the
testimony, I would like to have it entered into the record if I might,
without objection.
Mr. BISHOP. Without objection.
[NOTE: The 17-page Stevens statement submitted for the
record has been retained in the Committees official files.]
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I
didnt introduce the Montana Land Sovereignty Act to undermine
the intent of the Antiquities Act. On the contrary, my legislation
restores this valuable law to its original intention; that is, history,
on the preservation of American antiquities, but the Montana Land
Sovereignty Act is also about protecting the American people from
the unchecked, unaccountable expansion of the Antiquities Act
power.
Consider this. In one of the leaked memos the BLM recommends
using the Antiquities Act to designate monuments, and I quote,
should the legislative process not prove fruitful. In other words,
if the people say no, unelected bureaucrats will do it anyway.
But in the State of Wyoming and Alaska, Presidential designations of large national monuments must be ratified by Congress.
For those states BLM lays out a different policy recommendation.
I quote, The BLM also recommends that the Administration begin
a dialogue with Congress to encourage the conservation of these
areas. That is the approach the Montanans deserve, dialogue instead of a top-down Federal mandate. Under current law Congress
must approve any national monument designation in Wyoming and
in parts of Alaska.
My commonsense bill simply establishes the same requirement of
congressional approval for new national monuments in Montana.
With your support in this committee we can restore the Antiquities
Act to its intended purpose. More importantly, we can restore the
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
15
power to govern in this country to the people. That is where it belongs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Denny Rehberg, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Montana (At Large)
Chairman Bishop, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify here on behalf of my legislationthe Montana Land Sovereignty Act.
You know, Im reminded of a Greek myth about a guy named Damocles whos
forced to sit on the kings chair beneath a huge sword. The sword hangs from its
handle above his head by a single hair of a horses tail. Damocles is constantly
aware of the swords presence. Hes miserable.
For Montanans, the Antiquities Act is something like the sword of Damocles. Like
the myth, we must cope with a constant knowledge that, one day, we could wake
up to find that with the stroke of a pen, the President declared their back yard a
National Monument.
For us, its no myth. In the eleventh hour of the outgoing Clinton Administration,
the Antiquities Act was usedsome say abusedto create the Upper Missouri River
Breaks National Monument, despite strong opposition across the state.
The Montana Land Sovereignty Act isnt about stopping new National Monuments. Its simply about making sure that the American public has a voice in the
process.
We were left out in 2001. Ten years later, history is repeating itself.
By now, youve heard about the NOT FOR RELEASE Department of the Interior memo that recommends millions of acres for new National Monuments, including 2.5 million acres in Montana.
While the Department of Interior has downplayed the memo, the Associated Press
wrote that The e-mails show detailed discussions that went into brainstorming for
the plan. The Great Falls Tribune read the documents and concluded that, the rumors started at the top levels of Interior Department agencies.
And all of this happened in secret. The only reason we found out was because the
documents were leaked. We got lucky this time. We had time to weigh in, and the
opposition to the plan is clear at the town hall meetings I hosted and on billboards,
bumper stickers and road signs across the state. But for all that opposition, the
President could still act on those secret plans at any time. Thats just wrong.
When we go back and look at the original House and Senate Reports from 1906,
the debate was about archeology and protecting Native American ruins from looters.
When it passed, this bills strongest support came from the Archaeological Institute
of America, the American Anthropological Association and the Smithsonian Institution.
The Antiquities Act was never meant to circumvent Congress and designate huge
parcels of land as National Monuments. In fact, this question was directly considered during the debate. On June 5, 1906, Mr. Stephens of Texas asked on the House
floor if the Antiquities Act could be used to tie up large parcels of land, the bills
sponsor assures him: Certainly not. The object is entirely different. It is to preserve
these old objects of special interest and the Indian remains in the pueblos in the
Southwest. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I didnt introduce the
Montana Land Sovereignty Act to undermine the intent of the Antiquities Act. On
the contrary, my legislation restores this valuable law to its original intention: the
preservation of American antiquities.
But the Montana Land Sovereignty Act is also about protecting the American people from the unchecked, unaccountable expansion of Antiquities Act power.
Consider this: In one of the leaked memos, the BLM recommends using the Antiquities Act to designate Monuments, should the legislative process not prove fruitful. In other words, if the people say no, unelected bureaucrats will do it anyway.
But in the States of Wyoming and Alaska, Presidential designations of large National Monuments must be ratified by Congress. For those states, BLM lays out a
different policy recommendation: The BLM also recommends that the Administration begin a dialogue with Congress to encourage the conservation of these areas.
Thats the approach Montanans deserve: dialogue instead of top-down federal
mandates. Under current law, Congress must approve any National Monument designation in Wyoming and in parts of Alaska. My common-sense bill simply establishes the same requirement of congressional approval for new National Monuments
in Montana.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
16
With your support in this committee, we can restore the Antiquities Act to its intended purpose. More importantly, we can restore the power to govern in this country to the people. Thats where it belongs.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Congressman Rehberg. And the same

offer applies to you. If you need to go do something else, you are
excused. If you would like to stay here with us, we would be more
than happy.
Mr. REHBERG. Thank you.
Mr. BISHOP. And I am not insulted you are leaving.
Next turn to Representative Herger from California who is here,
represents the 2nd District in California. He is here to talk about
his bill, H.R. 817 that amends the Antiquities Act of 1906. Congressman Herger.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this hearing and inviting me to participate.
In the rural northern California congressional district I represent, the Federal Government owns a significant amount of the
land, with it reaching as high as 75 percent in one of my counties.
Local communities collect no taxes from these lands, money that
could go to schools and roads. The Federal Government is also unable to manage it properly. Now the Obama Administration is talking about increasing the number of Presidentially designated national monuments. This would be extremely detrimental to local
communities across our nation and is why I have introduced
H.R. 817, which would require Congresss approval for any national monument designation by the President.
In 2000, President Clinton designated over 52,000 acres of Federal lands as the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument which is
adjacent to my northern California congressional district, and is located in the State of Oregon. Some groups have advocated the
areas of my congressional district to be included, but such plans
have, fortunately, thus far been thwarted by local communities
loudly voicing their concerns. Such a designation in northern California could be devastating to the local economy, further limiting
forest management and livestock grazing.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration currently has the authority to reconsider at anytime and expand the designation. The
livelihoods of people in northern California and across the Nation
should not be at the whim of the President. Instead, national
monument designations should be subject to the approval of Congress where the interests and viewpoints of affected Americans are
understood and championed by their elected representatives.
As I referenced, a Bureau of Land Management document has revealed that the Obama Administration intends to unilaterally lock
up more than 13 million acres of Federal land from multiple use
access. This is very troubling and would be devastating. In a time
of high unemployment, it would lock even more American jobs
away. The BLM memorandum provides further evidence that Congress must be part of the national monument designation process.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
17
Since the 1980s, management of our forests and Federal lands
has stopped almost entirely. The jobs that depend on grazing, timber harvesting, and mineral extraction, and recreation have slowly
been eliminated by government regulations. This mismanagement
of our resources does not affect the economy alone. It has led to
unhealthy forests that become catastrophic wild fire that burn hotter longer and cover more land. National monument designations
significantly harm rural forest communities.
In the face of severe economic challenges, we need to reform crippling government policies and regulations so that local communities can utilize their natural resources and prosper. These lands
belong to the people, and local needs should drive their management, not a one-size-fits-all decree from Washington. If we utilize
more of our natural resources, we can foster job growth, generate
revenue for the treasury, and help prevent catastrophic forest fires.
I look forward to working with the Committee to pass commonsense reforms to the Antiquities Act of 1906 which would be a significant step toward limiting government overreach. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Wally Herger,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Thank you Chairman Bishop for holding this hearing and inviting me to participate. In the Northern California Congressional District I represent, the federal government owns a significant amount of the land, with it reaching as high as 75%
in one county. Local communities collect no taxes from these lands, money that
could go to schools and roads. The federal government is also unable to manage it
properly. Now the Obama Administration is talking about increasing the number of
presidentially-designated national monuments. This would be detrimental to local
communities across our nation, and is why I have introduced H.R. 817, which would
require Congress approval for any National Monument designations by the President.
In 2000, President Clinton designated over 52,000 acres of federal lands as the
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, which is adjacent to my Northern California
Congressional district and is located in the state of Oregon. Some groups have advocated for areas of my congressional district to be included, but such plans have fortunately thus far been thwarted by local communities loudly voicing their concerns.
Such a designation in Northern California could be devastating to the local economy, further limiting forest management and livestock grazing. Unfortunately, the
Obama administration currently has the authority to reconsider at any time and expand the designation. The livelihoods of people in Northern California and across
the Nation should not be at the whim of the President. Instead, national monument
designations should be subject to the approval of Congress where the interests and
viewpoints of affected Americans are understood and championed by their elected
representatives.
As I referenced, a Bureau of Land Management document has revealed that the
Obama Administration intends to unilaterally lock up more than thirteen million
acres of federal land from multiple-use access. This is very troubling and would be
devastating. In a time of high unemployment, it would lock even more American
jobs away. The BLM memorandum provides further evidence that Congress must
be a part of the National Monument designation process.
Since the 1980s, management of our forests and federal lands has stopped almost
entirely. The jobs that depend on grazing, timber harvesting, mineral extraction,
and recreation have slowly been eliminated by government regulations. This mismanagement of our resources does not affect the economy alone. It has led to
unhealthy forests that become catastrophic wildfires that burn hotter, longer, and
cover more land. National monument designations significantly harm rural forest
communities.
In the face of severe economic challenges, we need to reform crippling government
policies and regulations so that local communities can utilize their natural resources
and prosper. These lands belong to the people, and local needs should drive their
management, not a one-size-fits-all decree from Washington. If we utilize more of
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
18
our natural resources, we can foster job growth, generate revenue for the treasury,
and help prevent catastrophic forest fires. I look forward to working with the committee to pass common-sense reforms to the Antiquities Act of 1906, which would
be a significant step towards limiting government overreach.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Herger. I appreciate your testimony,

appreciate you being here. Once again, I realize what your schedule
is, but if you would like to stay with us we would be more than
happy. I am trying to find someone who wants to stay with me, but
if you need to go, we recognize that.
Mr. HERGER. I think Dr. Foxx is going to stay for awhile.
Mr. BISHOP. That is kind of you for volunteering her to do that.
Thank you, Congressman Herger. I appreciate it.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you.
Mr. BISHOP. Next we would like to hear from Representative
Foxx who represents the 5th District in North Carolina, and is the
chief sponsor of H.R. 302, the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act of 2011. Ms. Foxx.
STATEMENT OF HON. VIRGINIA FOXX, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Grijalva, and all the Members of the Committee, friends
of mine. I thank you for the opportunity to come and talk about
an issue deserving of attention from all of our colleagues, and I
want to say that I appreciate having the opportunity and heard the
comments of those who have spoken before me. I want to lend my
support to their comments, and I am intrigued by how we are all
talking about this issue from slightly different angles.
The Antiquities Act enacted during the presidency of Theodore
Roosevelt allows the President to proclaim areas of Federal lands
that he determines contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structure and other objects of historic or scientific interest
as a national monument, and to reserve parcels of land within
the monument. Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create
national monuments more than 120 times over the past century.
When President Carter attempted to establish 15 new national
monuments in Alaska and expand two more containing 56 million
acres of Federal land, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, overturning most of the designations,
altering the status of some, and confirming a few and included a
congressional veto on future land withdrawals in the state.
President Clinton unilaterally deemed 19 new national monuments and expanded three more, reserving 5.9 million acres of
land. It is important to note that all but one of these proclamations
came in the last year of his presidency, and 11 occurred in the twilight period between the 2000 election and the end of the term.
It has become public that the Obama Administration is attempting yet another land grab that would add another 13 million acres
to Federal real estate land holdings.
Considering the size of the Federal Governments existing real
estate portfolio, there is no need to continue unilaterally acquiring
new lands without any regard to the rights of states or the economy. The Federal Government owns a third of the land in western
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
19
states, including 84.5 percent of Nevada, 69.1 percent of Alaska,
and 57.5 percent of Utah. Four Federal agenciesthe Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Servicemanage most of
the Federal real estate portfolio. These agencies collectively own
630 million acres, which is the size of ten European countries, including France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Belgium combined. Given the size of the portfolio, the cost of managing Federal
lands is in the billions. Simply adding more lands will increase cost
to already strained budgets.
The Antiquities Act impinges on the rights of the states with regard to their own land. With the stroke of a pen in secrecy the
President can ignore pleas from state officials and their citizens in
order to claim more land on behalf of the Federal Government.
With the current challenging fiscal conditions we can all agree now
that more than ever the states are in need of resources to sustain
their own budgets and fiscal needs. When the Federal Government
takes lands from the states it also take away a potential source of
revenue and economic growth.
H.R. 302, the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act will
give the states a voice and a say in this process by requiring state
approval for national monument designations by the Federal Government. State governments are prepared and best qualified to
make these decisions. They do not need Washington taking lands
and revenues away from them. If states agree there is a need for
the Federal Government to preserve and protect lands, they will
not hesitate to seek assistance.
As the Chairman said in his opening remarks, this issue is about
the principle of separation of powers and the rules of the President
and the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to visit the Committee and talk about H.R. 302. I will be glad to answer any question that you or Members of the Committee may have, but I will
appreciate the invitation also to leave.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Foxx follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Virginia Foxx, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for the opportunity to come
here and talk about an issue deserving of attention from all of our colleagues.
The Antiquities Act, enacted during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, allows
the President to proclaim areas of federal lands he determines contain historic
landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest as a national monument, and to reserve parcels of land within the
monument. Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments
more than 120 times over the past century.
When President Carter attempted to establish fifteen new national monuments in
Alaska and expanded two more, containing fifty-six million acres of federal land,
Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, overturning
most of the designations, altering the status of some and confirming a few, and included a congressional veto on future land withdrawals in the state.
President Clinton unilaterally deemed nineteen new national monuments and expanded three more, reserving 5.9 million acres of land. All but one of these proclamations came in the last year of his presidency, and eleven occurred in the twilight
period between the 2000 election and the end of the term.
It has become public that the Obama administration is attempting yet another
land grab that would add over 13 million acres to federal real estate land holdings.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
20
Considering the size of the federal governments existing real estate portfolio,
there is no need to continue unilaterally acquiring new lands without any regard
to states rights or economies. The federal government owns over a third of the land
in western states including 84.5 percent of Nevada, 69.1 percent of Alaska and 57.5
percent of Utah.
Four federal agenciesthe Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Servicemanage most of
the federal real estate portfolio. These agencies collectively own 630 million acres
which isthe size of 10 European countriesincludingFrance, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgiumcombined.
Given the size of the portfolio, the cost of managing federal lands is in the billions. Simply adding more lands will increase costs to already strained budgets. The
Antiquities Act fails to protect states rights with regard their own land. With the
stroke of a pen and in secrecy, the President can ignore pleas from state officials
and their citizens in order to claim more land on behalf of the federal government.
With the current challenging fiscal conditions, we all can agree that now, more
than ever the states are in need of resources to sustain their own budgets and fiscal
needs. When the federal government takes lands from the states, it also takes away
a potential source of revenue and economic growth.
H.R. 302, the Preserve Land Freedom for Americans Act, seeks to give the states
a voice and power by requiring state approval for national monument designations
by the federal government. State governments are prepared and best qualified to
make these decisions. They do not need Washington taking lands and revenue away
from them. If states agree that there is a need for the federal government to preserve and protect lands, they will not hesitate to seek assistance.
States rights are key to the strength of our nation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to visit the committee and talk
about H.R. 302. Ill be glad to answer any question that you or members of the committee may have.
Mr. BISHOP. Even though Wally volunteered you? No, Ms. Foxx,
we appreciate your testimony, appreciate you being here, as well
as the bill. Once again, if you have other commitments, you have
time for committee action, we will recommend it, but you are welcome to stay for as long as that may be, which I take is less than
a minute, right?
OK, Representative Labrador from Idaho also has a bill,
H.R. 846. He represents the 1st District of Idaho. It is the Idaho
Land Sovereignty Act. Representative, you are recognized for five
minutes.
L LABRADOR, A REPRESENTATIVE
STATEMENT OF HON. RAU
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva. I commend you for convening this important hearing today
regarding my bill, H.R. 846, the Idaho Land Sovereignty Act.
There are two things that Presidents do in the last days in office.
One is to declare new monuments, and number two is pardon convicted criminals, both leave the public with a bad taste in their
mouth. Just as designation of wilderness areas is a congressional
prerogative, I believe the designation of national monuments
should also be subject to congressional oversight.
My legislation would prohibit any Presidential Administration
from imposing new monument designations in the State of Idaho.
Clearly the Obama Administration has given us numerous reasons
to believe they need to be reined in with their job killing regulations. However, these concerns are not only limited to the current
Administration.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
21
In January of 2001, the outgoing Clinton Administration shocked
western states with its outrageous land grabs that were done via
executive order. We in the West remember this very well and we
are not going to allow anything like it to happen again. More recently, Interior Secretary Salazar and his agency on December 23,
2010, reminded us that Federal agencies still believe they can circumvent Congress to lock up public lands without specific congressional action.
In my State of Idaho, approximately 67 percent of all lands are
owned by the Federal Government. Of that, 4,522,717 acres are
wilderness, making Idaho the state with the most acres of designated wilderness area. For that reason it is critically important
that Idahoans continue to access our Federal lands for the multiple
uses they were designed. It is unacceptable to make lands off limit
through any process that is not an act of Congress.
The Bureau of Land Management asserts that livestock grazing
is a major activity on public lands in Idaho. Actually, 800,000
AUMs of livestock forage are authorized annually in Idaho under
BLM management. Livestock grazing is outlined in the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act and the Taylor Grazing Act as
being authorized multiple uses. The economic losses to ranchers
who have traditionally been good stewards of BLM grazing leases
would be immeasurable.
Tourism and motorized recreation are important industries in
Idaho. If new monument designations are established, the potential
for road closures and limited OHV access has the potential to be
detrimental to the local economies.
I urge my colleagues to protect our authority and the power of
congressional oversight. If any administration were to impose additional restrictions to the public lands in Idaho through a designation of new monument areas the detriment to my state could be
vast. Administrative land grabs prohibit stakeholder input at the
detriment to our rural economies.
Mr. Chairman, I dont oppose public lands. I simply oppose efforts by an out-of-touch Administration to forcefully lock up public
lands with no congressional oversight. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Labrador follows:]
l Labrador, a Representative in Congress
Statement of The Honorable Rau
from the State of Idaho, on H.R. 846
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, I commend you for convening this important hearing today regarding my bill H.R. 846, the Idaho Land Sovereignty Act.
There are two things that Presidents do their last days in office: declare new
monuments and pardon convicted criminals. Both leave the public with a bad taste
in their mouth. Just as designation of wilderness areas is a Congressional prerogative, I believe the designation of national monuments should also be subject to Congressional oversight.
My legislation would prohibit any presidential administration from imposing new
monument designations in the state of Idaho. Clearly the Obama Administration
has given us numerous reasons to believe they need to be reined in with their job
killing regulations. However, these concerns are not only limited to the current administration.
In January of 2001 the outgoing Clinton Administration shocked western states
with its outrageous land grabs that were done via executive order. We in the west
remember this very well and we are not going to allow anything like it to happen
again. More recently Interior Secretary Salazar and his agency, on December 23,
2010, reminded us that federal agencies still believe they can circumvent Congress
to lock up public lands without specific Congressional action.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
22
In my state of Idaho, approximately 67% of all lands are owned by the federal
government. Of that, 4,522,717 acres are wilderness, making Idaho the state with
the most acres of designated wilderness areas. For that reason, it is critically important that Idahoans continue to access our federal lands for the multiple uses they
were designed. It is unacceptable to make lands off-limits through any process that
is not an act of Congress.
The Bureau of Land Management asserts that livestock grazing is a major activity on public lands in Idaho. Actually, 800,000 AUMs (Animal Unit Months) of livestock forage are authorized annually in Idaho under BLM management. Livestock
grazing is outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Taylor
Grazing Act as being among authorized multiple-uses. The economic losses to
Ranchers who have traditionally been good stewards of BLM grazing leases would
be immeasurable.
Tourism and motorized recreation are important industries in Idaho. If new
monument designations are established, the potential for road closures and limited
OHV access has the potential to be detrimental to the local economies.
I urge my colleagues to protect our authority and the power of Congressional oversight. If any administration were to impose additional restrictions to the public
lands in Idaho through the designation of new monument areas, the detriment to
my state could be vast. Administrative land grabs prohibit stakeholder input at the
detriment to our rural economies.
Mr. Chairman, I dont oppose public lands. I simply oppose efforts by an out-oftouch administration to forcibly lock up public lands with no Congressional oversight.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. As we begin, I hope

you will stay.
Mr. LABRADOR. I will stay just for you.
Mr. BISHOP. I am proud of you. I am proud of you.
As we begin this round of questioning, I would like to yield my
time to Mr. Gosar of Arizona. Mr. Gosar has introduced a similar
bill dealing with Arizona but it is not on our agenda today. I think
it is 2877, the Arizona Land Sovereignty Act, but I would like to
yield my five minutes to Mr. Gosar to talk about his bill or any of
the others.
Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, and Ranking Member
Grijalva, for allowing me to take part in todays hearing.
A fundamental aspect of good government is the rule of law. The
rule of law includes due process. Currently, under the existing law,
a President can unilaterallywithout any public input, without
one congressional hearing, and without any hallmarks of transparencyremove millions of acres of public land from public access
and public use. This law needs to be changed, but until it is
changed, the western states are at highest risks for Federal abuse
exemptions.
The national monument designation process, as any public land
designation, is of particular interest to my constituents in Arizonas
1st congressional district, which is comprised of over 26 million
acres of Federally administered and Native American lands, which
is nearly 70 percent of the total land. Due to the prevalence of this
public land and the way these lands are administered by the Federal Government has a direct impact on almost every person residing in my district. These communities depend on a multitude of use
of public lands for their livelihoods.
As I traveled throughout my district during this August recess,
my constituents expressed concerns about access to our public
lands at nearly every corner of my 58,000 square mile district.
These concerns range from the ability to develop domestic sources
of energy, timber salvage and harvesting, grazing, hunting, fishing,
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
23
and family recreation. Too often we find that some Federal land
designations are causing endless bureaucratic delays, litigation and
restrictions that could completely lock up much of the large and
needed store of wealth and recreation opportunities our vast system of public lands can provide.
In a district like mine dominated by Federally administrated
lands, these burdens disproportionately stifle economic productivity, leading to some of the highest unemployment rates in the
country, and in some cases threatening the ability of affected communities to provide public education and other basic services to the
residents.
There is a reason the ability to set aside Federal land generally
rested with Congress. These Federal lands designations has significant direct impacts on our constituents. Sometimes these access restrictive designations are absolutely necessary for the preservation
of our natural and historic treasures. Unfortunately, in other instances these designations are counterproductive and cause more
harm than good.
Congressional authority to establish these land designations is
an integral part of the transparent and public process that will ensure a designation is not only appropriate but accepted by our constituents. This is why I believe it is critical this Congress reforms
the national monument designation process. While it is extremely
important to protect our countrys natural and historical treasures,
no President, regardless of what party he belongs to, should have
the power to unilaterally declare a land designation that has some
of the most stringent restrictions on public access.
When Congress abdicated its duty to designation national monuments and gave this power to the President via the Antiquities Act
of 1906, Congress never intended the President to use the authority the way it has been utilized. At the time the law was enacted
over concerns about protecting mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and
artifacts, collectively termed antiquities, on Federal lands in the
West. By definition, the sites were to be very small, the smallest
area compatible with preserving the antiquity.
Unfortunately, since given this power many Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have abused it. Today there are 71 national
monuments located in 26 states covering some 136 million acres.
Some of these sites span over 1 million acres, and 140,000 square
miles of what was formerly known as the Northwestern Hawaiian
Island Marine National Monument is the largest protected area per
claim.
Without a doubt many of the 71 existing national monuments are
extremely valuable natural and historic treasures. Nine national
monuments with major contributions to our tourism and the economy are located in Arizonas 1st congressional district. Many of
them draw visitors to high camp or recreate around the monuments. My districts economy has a significant services component
tied to tourist sites, like the Grand Canyon National Park and
some of the national monuments. I appreciate the need for protection of sites. However, the public deserves the opportunity to have
their voices heard on any land designation that may restrict our
right to access.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
24
Mine and Congressman Flakes legislation, H.R. 2877, and many
of the other bills being discussed today will ensure that the designation of national monuments has an open and transparent process. By ensuring no further extension or establishment of national
monuments in Arizona can be done without the authorization of
Congress, we would ensure the public gets to be a part of the land
designations that affect them.
The opposition to my bill will likely paint my initiatives as an
attack on the Administration or playing politics with our public
lands. Regardless of what political party controls the government,
these initiatives need to make sense. In some cases proximity to a
national monument or like site increases the value of land or
makes it more appealing to the consumer. In many other cases the
exact opposite is the case. Shouldnt our constituents have the ability to express concerns or support depending on the specific proposal?
In last years Interior Department internal document that revealed the Obama Administrations plans to designate a new national monument under the Antiquities Act, the Obama Administration even states that, The acceptance of preservation status is
best achieved when the public has an opportunity to participate in
a land use planning or legislative process. I introduced that legislation for that very reason. The people should be part of the land
designation decisions. When they are, there is public buy-in. Isnt
that why we call these lands public lands?
I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity and look
forward to working for you. Thank you.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Representative.
We still actually have two Members here who have bills before
us. Before we go to the second panel, are there any questions that
anyone would like to ask for either Representative Labrador or myself? If not
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry.
Mr. GRIJALVA. My question is for the four that left so I dont
have any questions for these two gentlemen. Is that OK?
Mr. BISHOP. That is OK. Anybody else have a question? Then if
not, we will turn to the second panel, and ask them if they would
kindly take their seats. I believe I havehelp me out hereMr.
Ray Rasker who is the Executive Director of the Headwaters Economics, and Mayor Taylor who is Jerry Taylor, who is the Mayor
of Escalante City, Utah. If you would take your places at the table,
I would be very appreciative.
As we did with the other panel as well, your oral remarks we
would ask that you limit them to five minutes. You see in front of
you the timer that goes down there. Obviously green means you
are on. Once again, you have to activate your own microphone to
make sure it is on. When the yellow light comes on you have less
than a minute. I lied, you have a minute to go, and the red light
we would like you to cease if possible.
We will start with Mr. Rasker and then Mayor Taylor. Mr.
Rasker.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
25
STATEMENT OF MR. RAY RASKER, Ph.D.,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEADWATERS ECONOMICS
Dr. RASKER. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee, and guests. It is an honor to be here
today to discuss the research that my organization, Headwaters Economics, recently conducted concerning the economic importance of
national monuments in the West local communities.
Resource economics across the West has been the focus of my research for over 25 years. I am an economist. I have a Ph.D. from
College Forestry at Oregon State University, a Masters of Agriculture from the Colorado State University, and a Bachelor of
Science in wildlife biology from the University of Washington. I am
currently an adjunct faculty at Montana State University. I am
also the Executive Director of Headwaters Economics. We are an
independent research group that works to improve community development to land management decisions across the West.
Headwaters Economics has recently conducted extensive research
for the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service
as well as some state governments like Montana. One of the research products we developed was for the BLM and for the Forest
Service called the Economic Profile System. This software allows
agencies in the public to produce detailed socio-economic profiles
using accurate, credible Federal data. The tool was instrumental in
the National Monuments Report I am here to discuss today that is
available for free on our website.
Our research, we looked at the economic performance of communities next to 17 national monuments in the West. We found that
in every instance the local economies near the national monuments
we studied grew following the creation of a new national monument. In every instance there was growth in employment, real personal income, and real per capita income after the designation of
a national monument. In no case did we find that the creation of
a national monument studied led to an economic downturn.
To conduct this research we analyzed economies surrounding 17
national monuments in the 11 western states. We looked at monuments of 10,000 acres or larger that were created after 1982.
For the research, we used data from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, and we looked at key economic indicators, changes in
population, employment, personal income and per capita income.
These are standard measures of economic growth and well being.
The Federal statistics are free and available to anybody. They are
reliable and they allow for comparisons across counties and state
boundaries. All of our report findings are on our website,
HeadwaterEconomics.org.
As I mentioned, the analysis found that without exception all of
the economies of the counties surrounding the 17 national monuments that we studied grew following the creation of a national
monument. While this doesnt demonstrate a cause and effect relationship, the finding shows that national monuments are consistently correlated with economic growth in adjacent local communities, and in no case did the creation of a national monument lead
to or coincide with a downturn in the economies of adjacent communities.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
26
Several examples might be helpful. First, employment. From the
time of creation of the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado in 2000 through 2008 employment on Montezuma
County adjacent to the national monument grew by 10 percent, creating jobs and double the rate of population growth during that
time.
Another example, the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah and the two counties, Garfield and Kane neighboring
the national monument, employment grew by 38 percent since the
monuments creation in 1986 through 2008. Again jobs grew faster
than population with employment increasing more than four times
the population growth during that time according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Another important measure is real per capita income because it
is a widely accepted yardstick of economic prosperity. Looking at
the national monuments the real per capita income increased for
the communities adjacent to the monument in every single case in
the years following the monuments establishment. For example,
after the designation the real per capita income grew by 15 percent
in Montezuma County next to Canyon of the Ancients National
Monument, and by 30 percent for the Grand Staircase area.
A little bit more on the Grand Staircase since designation real
personal income has grown by 40 percent, jobs by 38 percent, per
capita income by 30 percent.
In Pima County, Arizona, next to the Ironwood National Monument, real per capita income grew by 10 percent following the
monuments creation in 2000 through 2008, and for the area surrounding the Carrizo Plain National Monument per capita income
grew by 9 percent from the monuments proclamation in 2001
through 2008. And for communities near the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument real per capita income grew by 8 percent from
the monuments 2000 creation through 2008.
Protecting lands like national monuments is entirely consistent
with what the growing body of literature is telling us about. People,
business decisions, locations, entrepreneurs choose areas largely for
a high quality of life. As communities across the West emerge from
the recent recession, we think national monuments can play an important role. Again to reiterate, we found no evidence that designating these monuments prevented continued economic growth, instead trends in key economic indicators such as employment, personal income, per capita income either continued to grow or improved in each of the regions surrounding the national monuments.
I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rasker follows:]
Statement of Ray Rasker, Ph.D., Executive Director, Headwaters
Economics, on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846 and
H.R. 2147
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee, and
guests, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss recent research that my
organization, Headwaters Economics, has conducted concerning the economic importance of national monuments in the West to local communities.
Resource economics across the American West has been a focus of my research
for more than twenty-five years. I am an economist and my Ph.D. is from the College of Forestry, Oregon State University; my Masters of Agriculture is from Colo-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
27
rado State University; and my B.S. in Wildlife Biology is from the University of
Washington. I currently am adjunct faculty at Montana State University.
I am the Executive Director of Headwaters Economics, an independent, nonprofit
research group that works to improve community development and land management decisions in the West.
It is important to note that Headwaters Economics has conducted past and ongoing research and work for the federal government, including the Bureau of Land
Management and the United States Forest Service, as well as state governments
such as Montana. One of the research products we developed for the BLM and Forest Servicethe Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkitallows agencies and the public to produce detailed socioeconomic profiles using accurate, credible federal data. That tool was instrumental in the national monuments report that
I am here to discuss today. It is available for free on our web site.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
Our research investigated the economic performance of communities adjacent to
17 national monuments in the West. We found that in every instance the local
economies near the national monuments we studied grew following the creation of
the new national monuments. In all cases, there was growth of employment, real
personal income, and real per capita income after designation of the national monument. In no case did we find that the creation of a national monument studied led
to an economic downturn.
METHODOLOGY
To conduct this research Headwaters Economics analyzed the economies surrounding the 17 national monuments in the eleven western continental states that
are larger than 10,000 acres and were created in 1982 or later. (See the study area
map on page five of this testimony.) This sample allowed us to study the performance of the major national monuments created during the last generation, analyzing
key economic indicators before and after designation using reliable measures of economic performance. The sample also allowed us to avoid smaller monuments with
little potential to have an impact on local economies. All of the report findings, along
with fact sheets, more detailed analysis, and summary, are available on our website:
http://headwaterseconomics.org/or directly at http://headwaterseconomics.org/land/reports/national-monuments/.
For each national monument studied, we utilized information from the U.S. Department of Commerces Bureau of Economic Analysis and its Regional Economic
Information System. We used key economic indicators such as changes in population, employment, personal income, and per capita income. These are standard
measures of economic growth and well-being and federal statistics are the most reliable available and allow for comparisons across county, region, or state boundaries.
FINDINGS IN DEPTH AND EXAMPLES
The analysis found that, without exception, all of the economies of the counties
surrounding the 17 national monuments grew following the creation of new national
monuments. While this does not demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship, this
finding shows that national monuments are consistently correlated with economic
growth in adjacent local communities. In no case did the creation of a national
monument lead to or coincide with a downturn in the economies of adjacent communities.
Trends in important economic indicatorssuch as population, employment, personal income, and per-capita income growtheither continued or improved in each
of the regions surrounding the national monuments studied. The analysis found no
evidence that designating these national monuments prevented continued economic
growth. In one caseEl Malpais National Monument in New Mexicoleading indicators (population, employment, personal income, and per capita income) reversed
declines that had been experienced in the years before designation.
When reviewing the findings around key economic indicators, several examples
may be helpful. First, lets turn to employment. The Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado, created by presidential proclamation in 2000, offers
a good example. Reviewing the period from 20002008, employment in Montezuma
County grew by ten percent, creating jobs at double the five percent rate of population growth during the same time period. (See the tables on pages six, seven, and
eight for the examples concerning employment, population, and real per capita income listed here and below.)
Another example is the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah.
In the two counties, Garfield and Kane, neighboring the national monument, employment grew by 38 percent since the monuments creation in 1996 through 2008.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
28
Again, jobs grew faster than population, with employment increasing more than
four times faster than the eight percent population growth during that time period.
Another important economic measure that Headwaters Economics analyzed is per
capita income, a widely accepted measure of prosperity. Looking at all the national
monuments we studied, the data show that per capita income increased for the
studied counties adjacent to every national monument in the years following establishment.
For example, looking at the two national monuments I already mentioned, after
designation real per capita income grew by 15 percent for Montezuma County adjacent to the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument; and by 30 percent for the
Grand Staircase-Escalante area.
In addition, in Pima County, Arizona adjacent to the Ironwood Forest National
Monument, real per capita income grew by ten percent from the Monuments creation in 2000 through 2008. Looking at two other national monuments, for the area
surrounding the Carrizo Plain National Monument, real per capita income grew by
nine percent from the Monuments proclamation in 2001 through 2008; and for communities near the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, real per capita income
grew by eight percent from the Monuments 2000 creation through 2008.
NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND PROSPERITY IN THE WEST
The results of this study correspond to related research that shows how protecting
public lands can assist western communities working to promote a more robust economic future.
The western economy has changed significantly in recent decades. Services industries that employ a wide range of peoplefrom doctors and engineers to teachers
and accountantshave driven economic growth and now make up the large majority
of jobs, even in rural areas.
Protected lands such as national monuments are important because many people
and their businesses base their location decisions on quality of life, such as access
to the outdoors for hunting, fishing, sightseeing or other recreation opportunities.
This quality of lifeboth recreation and natural amenitiesalso attracts retirement
dollars. Non-labor income, such as dividends, interest, rent, and transfer payments,
is the fastest source of personal income in the West and now accounts for one-third
of all personal income in the region and is likely to grow in the coming decades.
A sampling of research includes:
Outdoor recreation is important to western economies. In New Mexico, for example, the Outdoor Industry Foundation reports that active outdoor recreation contributes $3.8 billion annually to the states economy, supporting
43,000 jobs. (Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the U.S. Economy.)
Services jobs are increasingly mobile, and many entrepreneurs locate their
businesses in areas with a high quality of life. Conserving lands, while also
creating a new visibility for them through protective designations, helps safeguard and highlight the amenities that attract people and business. (Lorah,
P. R. Southwick, et al. 2003. Environmental Protection, Population Change,
and Economic Development in the Rural Western United States. Population
and Environment 24(3): 255272; McGranahan, D. A. 1999. Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change. E. R. S. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.)
For many seniors and soon-to-be retirees, protected public lands and recreation provide important aspects of a high quality of life. Non-labor sources of
income already represent more than a third of all personal income in the
Westand will grow as the Baby Boomer generation retires. (Frey, W.H.
2006. Americas Regional Demographics in the 00 Decade: The Role of Seniors, Boomers and New Minorities. The Brookings Institution, Washington,
D.C.)
The counties in the West with protected public lands, like national monuments, have been more successful at attracting fast-growing economic sectors
and as a result grow more quickly, on average, than counties without protected public lands. (Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the economic impact
of industrial development versus conservation on western public lands. Society & Natural Resources, 19(3), 191207.)
Protected natural amenitiessuch as pristine scenery and wildlifehelp sustain property values and attract new investment. (Deller, S. C., T.-H. Tsai,
et al. 2001. The Role of Amenities and Quality of Life in Rural Economic
Growth. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2): 352365.)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
29
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
68322.001.eps
CONCLUSION
The review of the 17 national monuments by Headwaters Economics found that
all of the regional economies studied experienced growth following a monuments
designation.
As communities across the West emerge from the recent recession, nearby national monuments can play several important economic roles: helping a region to diversify economically while increasing quality of life and recreational opportunities
that assist communities to become more attractive for new residents, businesses,
and investment.
The study found no evidence that designating these national monuments prevented continued economic growth. Instead, trends in key economic indicators such
as employment, personal income, and per-capita income either continued to grow or
improved in each of the regions surrounding the national monuments.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
68322.002.eps
30
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
68322.003.eps
31
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
68322.004.eps
32
33
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Mayor Taylor, once again I make the apologies for me messing
up your appearance here today but we are happy that you are able
to join us. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. JERRY TAYLOR, MAYOR,
ESCALANTE CITY, UTAH
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Mayor Taylor, Jerry Taylor, from Escalante, which
is at the heart of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I got a call yesterday afternoon just before a flight back to
Utah, and was asked if I would be willing to appear here today,
and I appreciate this opportunity. I would love to talk to you about
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
We set at the base of the Escalante-Boulder Mountain and at the
top of the Escalante Desert, and also adjacent to the Kaiparowits
Plateau which is rich in coal, some of the richest coal in the world,
the highest btu, lowest sulfur. We also are surrounded by national
forest with natural gas and oil, all of which at this point we are
unable to use at this time because of the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, and the restrictions that have been
placed upon that.
I dont know where they are getting their data from but I can
tell you this. Escalante in 1996 had a population of 850. We now
have a population of 750. Our schools, and believe me, we need the
funding for rural schools. Our schools are about to close because of
lack of students. Little Escalante was over 100 in 1996, we are
down as of the end of last year to 71 students. I dont see where
the increases are coming from. I know that people in Escalante
struggle. I myself work four hours away from Escalante. I travel
there once or twice a week, depending on the schedule. Many people, many fathers in my community travel to North Dakota, South
Dakota, Wyoming to work in the oil fields, to Southern California.
They are gone for 10 days at a time. That effects my community,
having the fathers gone.
I dont see where the monument has brought in any jobs for our
community. People come in. They dont buy backpacks. They dont
buy groceries. They come in and use our water from free taps
around our community, and then they go about hiking. With that
brings the responsibility, sometimes they get into canyons and
places they shouldnt be. Volunteers from my community and
throughout the county go out and rescue these people at our own
expense. We have volunteers for EMTs that also risk their lives to
go out and to help these people.
I wish I could say that it was a great economic boom for our community but I cant, but I do know we have lost the ability to mine
our coal, and to drill for our oil. They dont let us mine the coal
but they allow people to come in and take our dinosaurs and our
artifacts from the Escalante-Garfield-Kane region. They take those
out and I ask why. Why not, if you are going to do something why
not build us a museum, a science center there which would allow
people to come there to look at the dinosaurs that they are taking
from the ground near Escalante and the artifacts. They are locked
up right now in the University of Utah, BYU, Utah State and other
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
34
areas. These dinosaurs, these artifacts are important to us. If you
wont let us mine our coal, why do you allow them to mine our dinosaurs and our artifacts?
Someone said to me one time, well, we need a controlled environment in which to study these. We have the ability to build a controlled environment in Escalante. If they can do it in Salt Lake
City or in New York City, we can do that in Escalante, which
would be a benefit to our community.
I am very passionate about my little community and the 700 people that I represent. I dont have a big college degree, but I have
a heart, and I love my community.
When they created the monument, did they ask anybody, anybody from Escalante how they felt about it or what they could do
to help? No. Instead they had to go to Arizona, they had to go to
Arizona to announce that they were going to put a monument in
Utah. What a shame. What a shame. We have a voice, we have
ideas, we have concerns. I would like to know how many in this
room have actually been to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument. If you have not, I invite you to come to see it, to see
what we actually have there, to talk to the people, to communicate
with the people and to ask them their thoughts, their feelings. We
are part of America. We love America. We are not there to trash.
We are not there to trash our mountains, our deserts. We are there
to live, to love, and to survive in our community, and I thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jerry Taylor, Mayor, Escalante City, Utah
Thank you for allowing me to testify before your committee today. Yesterday, I
was in New York and when I learned about your hearing today on bills that would
reform the Atiquities Act. Luckily, I was able take a slight detour to Washington,
DC so I can share with you the impact that national monument designations have
on local communities, specifically, my community. I am intimately familiar with this
subject since Escalante City is surrounded by part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument that was designated in 2000.
The establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has had
a devastating economic impact had on the economy and people of my city and Garfield County, Utah.
It has come to our attention that Headwaters Economics has issued a report titled
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: A Summary of Economic Performance in the Surrounding Communities which indicates that there has been a strong,
positive economic impact to Garfield and Kane Counties from the establishment of
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. This is completely contrary to
our own observation and analysis.
The report indicates significant increases in real personal income and real per
capita income. This is completely false with regards to Garfield County.
In summary, the establishment of the GSENM has hurt the local economy, driven
our residence to find work elsewhere, and burdened local government to provide uncompensated services.
Real personal income DECREASED from $44,678 in 1996 (in chained 2009
dollars) to $38,759 in 2009, a decrease of 13.25%
Real income per capita (in chained 2009 dollars) DECREASED from
$28,542.79 in 1997 to $25,651.58 in 2009, a decrease of 10.13%
School enrollment in Garfield County DECREASED from 1,219 in 2000 to 925
in 2010, a decrease of 24.11%
The Escalante region of Garfield County is the most heavily affected by the
Monument. The town population decreased from approximately 850 in 1996
to 750 in 2010. School enrollment in that region of Garfield County decreased
from 277 in 2001 to 172 in 2010, a 37.9% decrease.
Further, the report stated that total employment had increased from approximately 6,000 in 1996 to over 8,000 in 2009. Given that the combined populations
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
35
of of Garfield and Kane Counties 12,297, including pre-school aged children, school
children, and retired persons, and the current unemployment rate in Garfield County is greater than 10%, the assertion strains the bounds of credibility.
Based on our knowledge of Garfield County, the Headwaters Economics report is
false and misleading.
In addition to the declining socioeconomic condition resulting from the establishment of the GSENM, resident of Garfield and Kane Counties have experienced lost
opportunities in developing natural resource based industries. For example:
The vast Kaiparowitz coal reserves (some of the highest quality coal in the
world) is off limits.
Natural gas and oil reserves are prohibited from exploration and development.
Interpretative opportunities and visitor services are largely non-existent.
Little has been done to improve rangeland health.
A larger burden is also placed on local governments to provide necessary services without appropriate compensation.
Garfield County volunteers provide all the emergency medical services for the
Monument.
Garfield County volunteers provides search and rescue services for the Monument.
Garfield County provides solid waste disposal services for visitors.
Garfield County has law enforcement jurisdiction over the Monument.
Garfield County provides the vast majority of road maintenance which occurs
in the Monument.
Furthermore, Id like to emphasize:
1. A shift to a tourism-based economy, especially a primitive tourism-based
economy, from one of natural resources extraction and agriculture decreases
not only wages, but also the circulation of money in the county as H2B visa
workers have less to spend and generally save as much as possible.
2. A shift to a tourism-based economy removes families, the foundations of communities, as living wages are not paid to the low skill work required in the
tourism sector.
3. Local property taxation is hurt by a shift to a tourism-based economy as
fewer workers are able to purchase homes and instead must live in low-income housing. Further, local sales tax revenue from workers is hurt because
disposable incomes are small.
4. Tourism places a strain on government services, with costs of additional
services exceeding tourist provided sales taxes and transient room taxes.
5. Uncertainty in public lands decisions prevent private sector investment. The
uranium mill near Ticaboo is a prime example. In recent years, the mill was
assessed a value in excess of $50,000,000. Due to the fact that the mill was
not able to open, the assessed value has decreased to less than $2,000,000.
This change in valuation of directly impacted all resident property taxpayers
as the burden of tax was shifted from from Uranium One onto residents.
If there are any questions regarding the devastating social and economic impacts
resultant from the creation of the GSENM, we request that you contact Garfield
County staff at 4356761157 or Escalante City elected officials at 4358264644.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mayor Taylor.

I will go last in the round of questioning here. Mr. Grijalva, do
you wish to go now?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rasker, just to kind of recap your findings, population, employment and income increased in local communities near large national monuments in the West after the monuments were designated, is that a good recap?
Dr. RASKER. That is correct, yes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. And how were the monuments in the communities
you reviewed, I know the year cutoff, but how were they selected?
Dr. RASKER. We looked at monuments that were created in long
enough ago that we could look at economic data before monument
creation and data after creation, so we could do a before and after
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
36
picture, and a good date for that was 1982. We look at monuments
of 10,000 acres in size or larger.
Mr. GRIJALVA. You are saying the designation caused the increases?
Dr. RASKER. No. Well, this data does not necessarily prove a
cause and effect. What we are looking at is the relationship and
strong correlation between growth and population, real personal income, real household income, and employment following the designation of the monument, but it doesnt necessarily prove cause
and effect.
Mr. GRIJALVA. At a minimum though the predictions or the claim
that designations of national monuments are harmful to the local
economies, that isnt borne out in your research?
Dr. RASKER. Well, we are not finding any data for any of the 17
monuments we looked at that point to economic decline. There
wasnt a single indicator.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Last question, Doctor. Mayor Taylor raised some
concerns regarding potentially your work. Could you respond more
fully in terms of the comments he made relative to some of the
findings?
Dr. RASKER. Sure. We are very transparent where we got the
data. It is from the U.S. Department of Commerce and we are
using software that we developed for both the BLM and the Forest
Service. It is available for free. We accessed this data off of Federal
websites.
More specifically in Garfield County where Escalante is, in 1996,
there were 2,788 jobs. By 2009, 3394. Per capita income in 1996
was a little over 22,000. By 2009, just a little over 29,000, a number of indicators like that. Kane Count and the adjoining county
added up almost 1,200 jobs since designation. So those statistics
are available on our website at HeadwatersEconomics.org. Just
click on national monuments, and there is an interactive tool that
you can look at as well, and you can scroll across different monuments and see key statistics.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, and thank you for joining
us, Mayor Taylor. You neighboring county, I think Kane County,
their website, I think, and the county also includes Grand Staircase, describes the monument as a dramatic multi-huge landscape
that is rich in natural and human history. The website goes on to
say the monument offers an impressive array of educational, recreational and other multi-use opportunities for visitors young and
old to enjoy.
Do you share Kane Countys view of the Grand Staircase Monument as they describe it?
Mr. TAYLOR. It is a beautiful place. There is no doubt about that.
But there are many things that could be done there, not just a
place to visit. There is, like I said, tons of coal that would last the
Nation for many, many years with the needs of power.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, I looked at the website, coal mining and Kane
Countys website never appears as part of the promotion.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is right because you have stopped it. There is
one mine in Alta right now that they are mining on private ground.
Mr. GRIJALVA. That doesnt attract a lot of visitors, I figure. But
anyway, thank you, Mayor, and I yield back.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
37
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I think, Mr. McClintock, you have sat
here longer than anyone else on my side. You are recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rasker, your figures needs some means of comparison. They
invite the question, compared to what? For example, you have testified that in Pima County adjacent to the Ironwood Forest National Monument per capita income grew by 10 percent from the
monuments creation in 2000 through 2008, suggests that, hey,
these are great for the economy. That comes to about 1.25 percent
annual growth per year. That sound anemic to me.
Did you compare this to the state economic growth in the same
period or the national economic growth? 2000 to 2008 was a period
of very significant economic growth, and I suspect far higher increases in per capita income than 1.25 percent a year.
Dr. RASKER. What we did in every case for every county we
looked at next to all 17 of the national monuments, we compared
them to their peers. So for example if
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no, no, that is not what I asked you. Did
you compare it to the state economies in the same period or the national economies which I suspect were performing far, far better
than the numbers you are reporting from the counties adjacent to
these national monuments.
Dr. RASKER. We did, yes. We look at
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And what was your conclusion? What was annual per capita income grown between 2000 to 2008 nationally?
Dr. RASKER. I dont have that figure memorized.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, dont you think that would be relevant?
Dr. RASKER. It did grow faster than the state.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Did it grow faster than the national economy?
Dr. RASKER. I dont have the memorized. I could look it up for
you.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The point is the national economy was chugging along pretty well then. These areas were depressed compared
to the national numbers. That suggests they were harmed, not
helped.
Let me tell you I represent Modoc County in the northeast corner
of California. The Federal Government owns most of Modoc County. It has been utterly impoverished by environmental restrictions
on timber and mineral development, but they still have a struggling grazing operation which is basically supporting them. One of
the areas contemplated to be closed by invoking the Antiquities Act
is about a half a million acres of BLM land in Modoc County that
will be declared a monument under the Antiquities Act and destroy
what remains of Modoc Countys employment. Will they perform
better or worse that the national numbers? I am not sure, but I
will tell you this; they will perform far less than they could have
with those grazing operations in place, which I suspect is Mayor
Taylors experience as well, is it not?
Mr. TAYLOR. That is true.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Antiquities Act was meant, in 1906, solely
to protect open archeological digs from looting. It gave the President the ability when an archeological site was discovered on public
lands to designate it as a monument to protect it from looting. How
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
38
does that in any way comport with the President simply with a
sweep of the pen setting a half a million acres in Modoc County
off limits to the grazing operations that are pretty much supporting
what is left of that countys economy? Mr. Taylor, any thoughts on
that?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, it doesnt make sense to me why you would
tie up all that land to protect the looting. Right now if you ask me,
the colleges and whatnot are looting because they come there. They
take it away and nobody gets to see it then.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Taylor, you had mentioned job losses as
a direct result of the designation in your area, is that correct?
Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How many job losses and what kind of jobs?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we had a forest industry which sets right to
the side of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. We
lost 65 jobs at the end of 2009 and 2010, and I believe
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Rasker, if I could, Mr. Rasker, would you
please explain to us how that is good for the economy?
Dr. RASKER. I dont think the loss of any jobs is good for the
economy.
Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, that is the first thing you have said
today that makes any sense.
I yield back.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions?
Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rasker, are you able to offer some theories as to why local
economies seem to improve after a monument designation? Is it the
attraction for retirement, or quality of life, or a variety of reasons?
Mr. BISHOP. Dale, can I get you to pull that microphone into your
face here so you can be heard?
Mr. KILDEE. My question was what do you feel attracts people
to come to a place and the economy improve after the designation?
Is it because it is a place for retirement or improvement of quality
of life or other reasons?
Dr. RASKER. It is a good question. This has been studied quite
extensively by a lot of academics, and there is a variety of reasons.
One of them is places that are attractive places to live are also attractive places to do business. It is a good place to recruit employees. There are also attractive places to retire.
And the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the two
counties next to it, non-labor income, retirement and investment
income is about 36 percent, so it is over a third and it has grown
significantly. So you have an aging population, retiring baby
boomers. You have several professions that are more foot loose
than they ever have before being able to locate in rural areas, and
then you have on top of that tourism, so those are some of the reasons.
Mr. KILDEE. Mayor Taylor, what role does PILT, the payment in
lieu of taxes, what does that do in your area? Now I know the PILT
dollars go to the county rather than to the city itself. What role do
the PILT payments play in your area?
Mr. TAYLOR. I apologize for not knowing the answer to that. I
really dont know.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
39
Mr. KILDEE. But it did indicate that Congress was not insensitive
to economy of an area when it set up the PILT program. We are
concerned. We all come from localities, right?
Mr. TAYLOR. Correct.
Mr. KILDEE. And you are the Mayor of an incorporated city. It
might be interesting, you know, to have your treasurer or someone
on your staff to justeven though I think this money flows directly
to the county, you are part of that county, and see how the PILT
program does assist your economy.
Mr. TAYLOR. I believe that it assists in our schools, but can I answer this way? I look at all the ground, the 1.8 million acres that
have been tied up back east. A lot of that ground is private ground.
They pay taxes on that ground. What would that do to my community if there was a tax base?
Let us say you sell that 1.8 million acres to somebody for fair
market value, and then let us collect taxes on that each year, and
it doesnt matter whether you sell it to an environmental group or
whatever that wants to take care of it. It would bring an income
into my community. Look at the coal and the oil and the natural
gasses. Those items would bring a heck of a lot more money than
what you are talking about. That is my opinion.
Mr. KILDEE. Well, I just wanted to point out that we have not
been maybe sensitive enough. Maybe we should do more on PILT.
Maybe we should appropriate more money for the PILT program.
Would you support selling any of the national monuments to get
more money for other purposes?
Mr. TAYLOR. Of the national monument? I would love to see some
of the coal being able to be used and the oil and the timber industry, you bet. Timber is a renewable resource. I think we could do
something with it rather than just burn it, just a controlled burn.
I do believe that some of that could be sold off.
Now, there is a beauty in Escalante, and I would love, I would
love to have people come there and spend millions. If you would
have them come and do that, that would be great for my community, but right now, history has said in the last 10 years or so that
that is not happening. We are not getting that revenue that was
promised. We are down in numbers. Our schools are about to die.
We have a uranium facility in Ticaboo, which is in Garfield County,
that could use the uranium that could mill the uranium that comes
off the Arizona strip. That is an impact to our communities. We
need that help.
Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. Mr. Labrador, you are next.
Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rasker, I represent Idaho and even though Craters of the
Moon is not in my district, there are only two districts in Idaho.
I am just looking at your data here, and I have some questions.
First, just a quick question. When you say services employment
what do you really mean by services?
Dr. RASKER. It is a category used by the U.S. Department of
Commerce. It is fairly broad and it includes engineers, doctors, lawyers, but it also includes relatively lower paying industries such as
those you often find in tourism.
Mr. LABRADOR. So when you talk about service jobs here in your
report are you talking about high wages or low wage jobs?
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
40
Dr. RASKER. It is a combination of both.
Mr. LABRADOR. And do you know what the average wage is that
is being represented here in your report is?
Dr. RASKER. In the service industries?
Mr. LABRADOR. Yes.
Dr. RASKER. It depends on the area that we are looking at. In
Blaine County, of course, the average service industry is quite a
much higher than it would be in surrounding counties.
Mr. LABRADOR. Correct. Correct. I am just looking at your report
and you said that there was an increase in activity, but we know
in Idaho that some of our higher paying jobs are in the mining industry and sometimes in the agricultural industry, and service jobs
typically dont pay as much because you are talking a lot about,
you know, hotel and other services, and according to your report we
saw from 1998 to 2008 an increase of 15.7 percent in service jobs,
is that correct?
Dr. RASKER. Pardon me. Let me look up the statistics fornow
which monument are you talking about?
Mr. LABRADOR. Craters of the Moon region.
Dr. RASKER. Craters of the Moon. From 2000 to 2008, the monument was designated in 2000.
Mr. LABRADOR. Correct.
Dr. RASKER. So population growth, 4 percent; job growth of 19
percent.
Mr. LABRADOR. But most of those jobs came in the service industry, correct?
Dr. RASKER. That is correct, yes, and some of it is also retirement-related, so in the health care industry.
Mr. LABRADOR. But if we look at agriculture, for example, there
was a decrease in the number of jobs during that time, is that correct?
Dr. RASKER. Let me look for a second. Agriculture lost, mining
grew, and travel and tourism grew.
Mr. LABRADOR. OK. Actually, but if you look at mining, for example, from 1998 to 2008, there was a 7 percent increase in mining
job.
Dr. RASKER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. LABRADOR. In non-mining jobs, there was a 13 percent increase, is that correct?
Dr. RASKER. That is correct. You got faster growth in the service
industries than you do have in mining, yes.
Mr. LABRADOR. Exactly, and what I am saying in Idaho typically
service industry is a lower paying industry than the mining jobs
that typically have much higher paying jobs. So in those communities of the higher paying jobs actually lost ground versus the
lower paying jobs in the service industries. Would you agree with
that?
Dr. RASKER. It depends which community you are talking about.
There are some communities where you have access to major markets where some of the service industry workers are, doctors, engineers, architects, and then you have other communities that are
more isolated where those types of professions are more difficult to
have those in those remote areas.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
41
Mr. LABRADOR. So your data is really not telling us anything because you are not really comparing the wages and the things
thatthe types of jobs that were actuallyyou know, the amount
of money that people are making in those jobs that were created.
Dr. RASKER. Wages differ from industry to industry. What we
asked is whether there was an increase in economic growth following the designation of the monument.
Mr. LABRADOR. And as the question was asked by Mr. McClintock earlier, between 2000 and 2008, Idaho was one of the fastest
growing states in the United States and one of the fastest growing
segments of the United States, so that growth, and I want to make
this clear, your data doesnt show any correlation between the creation of the monument and the growth of that area, correct?
Dr. RASKER. It shows a very strong correlation. It just doesnt
prove cause and effect.
Mr. LABRADOR. So you dont give any credit to the fact that Idaho
was having actually the strongest growth and the mostyou think
most people are moving to Idaho because of the monument creation, is that what you are trying to tell us?
Dr. RASKER. No, I am not.
Mr. LABRADOR. OK. So people are moving to Idaho because it is
a great place to live that had low taxes, low regulation and a lot
of other things, and a great place to live just like Utah and other
places, that is why people are moving to those stages, not because
a new monument was created.
Dr. RASKER. Well, I think protected public lands like monuments
are part of that quality of life that attracts people.
Mr. LABRADOR. All right, thank you.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with apologies to all
for my late arrival. I would like to ask a couple of questions that
might be revisiting territory that has already been covered, but I
think it is important and I certainly would like to understand better.
Mr. Rasker, when you look at the jobs that are created you said
jobs grew faster than the population with employment, increasing
more than four times faster than the 8 percent population growth
during that period. This is in Garfield and Kane Counties near
Grand Staircase-Escalante.
How did this compare with the rest of the state?
Dr. RASKER. Slower than the state as a whole.
Mr. HOLT. And how did it compare with similar rural counties?
Dr. RASKER. Kane County was a little bit faster than its rural
peers in the state, and Garfield County was a little slower.
Mr. HOLT. And this is a net growth after discounting for any loss
of jobs from resource exploitation or minerals mining, is that right?
Dr. RASKER. That is correct. It is just a net increase in jobs.
Mr. HOLT. OK. Now, Mr. Labrador, I guess, was asking you
about the kinds of jobs and you said it was a full range. Now, I
see from your prepared testimony and maybe you have already covered this, but it is worth clarifying, you say that in the area adjacent to Canyons of the Ancients the per capita income grew by 15
percent and near Grand Staircase-Escalante by 30 percent. Do I
read this correctly? So, the per capita income actually rose.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
42
Dr. RASKER. In the counties adjacent to the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, the real per capita income grew by
30 percent after the designation.
Mr. HOLT. So, there were some low paying jobs created but overall salaries went up. Now, did you also look at what that meant
for taxes? The Mayor was talking about the loss of taxes from the
loss of mineral extraction and so forth. Do you know, was there a
net gain in taxes, taxes paid?
Dr. RASKER. We did not investigate changes in taxes over time.
Mr. HOLT. OK. I think I wont take the Committees time for
other questions now. I thank you very much.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I dont have any
questions, but I will make a few comments.
All of these bills seem to me to be very modest, very moderate,
very minimal attempts to give the people a little more say about
what happens to the land around them, and remove a little secrecy
which has been in the process to some extent in the past.
I can well remember the great lengths the Clinton Administration went to to keep secret the designation of the Grand StaircaseEscalante Monument and midnight phone calls, and all sorts of efforts were made to keep the people there from knowing what was
happening or understanding what was happening to them.
To restrict all this land all over the country really helps foreign
energy producers, but it really hurts lower income and working
people by destroying jobs and driving up the prices. These bills, it
seems to me, want to keep a minority of wealthy environmental
radicals from running roughshod over the rights of the majority of
the people who live in those areas, and I think it is very significant
that while we have a researcher who doesnt live in the area telling
us how good this is, but the man who actuallythe witness who
actually lives there among the people has told us from his heart
how much this has really hurt the poor people and the families
who live in this area.
I have noticed in the past that all these environmental radicals
seems to come from very big business or universities or government, and from cities and they are not ranchers or farmers and
small business people who are out there having to meet payrolls
and who are having to scrape by to make a very difficult living. We
already have 30 percent of the land in this country is owned or controlled by the Federal Government, and we have another 20 percent that are owned or controlled by state and local governments
and quasi-governmental agencies, so that means half of the land is
just pretty much tied up and then we keep putting more and more
limitations and restrictions on the remaining land that is in the
private hands, and if we dont wake up in this country and realize
how important private property is to both our freedom and our
prosperity, we are going towe are never going to be able to recover economically and we are going to drastically change what
this country has been throughout its history.
So, I thank you very much for giving me this time.
Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I have a few questions I would like to
ask. Mr. Rasker, let me start with you.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
43
When you did your study did you include data from every surrounding county on these 17 national monuments?
Dr. RASKER. Yes, we did.
Mr. BISHOP. Every one. Because when I look at the map that you
supplied to me there is a vast discrepancy. Several of these maps
you have shown me where the entity is, as was for the counties,
there are some surrounding counties that were not included. Almost all of those surrounding counties have a high degree of unemployment. Why were they not included? Either your map is wrong
or your data is wrong. Which one is it?
Dr. RASKER. What we did we looked at counties that had access
to the national monuments so they were really
Mr. BISHOP. So you didnt do every surrounding county.
Dr. RASKER. No, if there was a
Mr. BISHOP. And some of these countieslet me finish this because I have only got five minutes. Some of these counties that
were left off are very suspect. Let me go to Grand StaircaseEscalante specifically.
Did you include Kane, Garfield, or Kane, Garfield and Washington County?
Dr. RASKER. We looked at Kane and Garfield.
Mr. BISHOP. But not Washington County even though it is covered on your map as covering Washington County? So if you are
just doing Kane and Garfield, that is great. You say in your report
that there are 8,200 jobs in Kane and Garfield County. That is
unique when you have a population of less than 12,000 in that
county, not counting kids and 10 percent of the one countys population is unemployed. How in the hell can you come up with those
numbers?
Dr. RASKER. In-commuting has gone up?
Mr. BISHOP. What?
Dr. RASKER. In-commuting has gone up, and most of the job
growth has gone to locals. We dont have much population growth.
Mr. BISHOP. They are commuting to Escalante?
Dr. RASKER. Yes.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Taylor, how long does it take you to get from
St. George, the nearest lodge, to the Escalante Monument?
Mr. TAYLOR. Two and a half hours.
Mr. BISHOP. OK. What type period did you use when you were
making your study? Were they done during high tourism peaks?
Dr. RASKER. We looked at annual data.
Mr. BISHOP. Say what?
Dr. RASKER. We looked at annual data.
Mr. BISHOP. And it was not adjusted for seasonal work?
Dr. RASKER. No.
Mr. BISHOP. I wish to ask unanimous consent to put in a letter
from Garfield County in here which once again in this letter they
are using their statistics. They tell you quite frankly that real personal income has decreased, real income per capita has decreased,
school enrollment has decreased within the county. This is in direct
contradiction to the report that you came up with. I ask that this
be put in the record. OK.
[NOTE: The statistics referenced above can be found in
the testimony of Mayor Jerry Taylor.]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
44
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Taylor, let me go to some of yours. How long
after the monument designation was Escalante City inundated
with tourism and economic development resembling the benefits
that Mr. Rasker has claimed?
Mr. TAYLOR. We are still waiting.
Mr. BISHOP. National monuments are only supposed to include
land owned or controlled by the Federal Government. How were
private and state lands impacted by the Clinton designation?
Mr. TAYLOR. I believe that some of the state lands had to be
traded for Federal land somewhere else which impacted our community.
Mr. BISHOP. Yes, there was supposedly a trade because when the
Grand Staircase-Escalante was made, the Administration had no
clue what happened to state trust lands that affected education.
Mr. TAYLOR. That is right.
Mr. BISHOP. So they made a deal with the trade. Secretary Babbitt was here several weeks ago and said they had consummated
that trade. It is interesting to note the details of that trade have
never been consummated. The land that we were promised in other
areas has yet to be given to the State of Utah over a decade later.
Mayor, can you tell me what impact the Grand Staircase has had
on local schools and your city and county resources?
Mr. TAYLOR. Well, our schools are in trouble right now. We have
declined since 1996, and they are in real trouble. We need that
rural funding to keep us alive.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Taylor, going back to one question that Representative Kildee asked you about PILT again. In your view, is
PILT supposed to replace taxes that are lost for property taxes or
is it supposed to compensate for lost jobs? Is it anywhere equal to
the value, PILT funding equal to the value that you would get from
actual taxation?
Mr. TAYLOR. No.
Mr. BISHOP. Does it compensate for lost jobs?
Mr. TAYLOR. No.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Rasker, one of the fundamentals of economics
is opportunity costs. Do any of your analysis look at foregone economic opportunities like lost jobs, revenue, lease extraction, energy
potential?
Dr. RASKER. No, we only looked at growth since designation.
Mr. BISHOP. I do appreciate the first thing you said saying that
the cause/effect relationship is no way proven by any of the data
you have, but actually looking at the Grand Staircase-Escalante
the data is suspect. Looking at the maps you provided and not
doing counties that are adjacent to these elements but indeed have
high unemployment makes your data suspect, and I agree with
you, there is no cause/effect relationship between the data you have
given us and the existence of these monuments that are here.
Let me just say in the last four seconds, contrary to what has
been said, there has been harm created by Grand StaircaseEscalante; just school trust lands, there was harm that was done
to corridors, for the electricity to the co-ops, there was harm done
to private property holders, and to come to some kind of resolution
of the 2477 harm that was done, and one of the things we have
failed to realize is that in the autocratic world of 1906, when a
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
45
Czar, a Kaiser, and King Edward were still fighting Lord Salisbury
for control of the foreign policy having a President make these kind
of arbitrary decisions was greatly accommodated in the world of an
autocratic leadership, but it was never intended to be that way,
and having legislative function in an Executive Branch it is wrong,
it is wrong, it was wrong then, it is wrong today, and it needs to
be abdicated, it needs to be corrected, and any of these bills will
do that, and I appreciate that.
Are there any other additional questions for any of our guests?
If not, I appreciate you both being here. Thank you for coming
here. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for waiting. Mayor,
I appreciate the opportunity of having you here with us. Once
again I am sorry for my slip up in the process.
Mr. TAYLOR. No, we are fine.
Mr. BISHOP. This meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arizona
Good morning, first I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Rob
Bishop and my fellow Arizonan Ranking Member Raul Grijalva for allowing me to
take part in todays hearing.
A fundamental aspect of good government is the rule of law. The rule of law includes due process. Currently, under the existing law, a president can unilaterally,
without any public input, without one congressional hearing, and without any of the
hallmarks of transparency, remove millions of acres of public land from public access and public use. This law needs to be changed, but until it is, the western states
at highest risk for federal abuse need exemptions.
The National Monument designation process, as any public land designation, is
of particular interest to my constituents. Arizonas First Congressional District is
comprised of over twenty-six million acres of federally-administered and Native
American lands, which is nearly 70% of the total land. Due to the prevalence of this
public land, the way these lands are administered by the federal government has
a direct impact on almost every person residing in my district.
Rural Arizona communities depend on the multiple-use of public lands for their
livelihoods. As I traveled throughout my district during this August recess, my constituents expressed concerns about access to our public lands at nearly every corner
of my 58,000 square mile district. These concerns ranged from the ability to develop
domestic sources of energy, timber harvesting, grazing, hunting, fishing, and family
recreation
Too often we find that some federal land designations are causing endless bureaucratic delays, litigation and restrictions that could completely lock-up much of the
large and needed store of wealth and recreational opportunities our vast system of
public lands can provide. In a district like mine, dominated by federally administered lands, these burdens disproportionately stifle economic productivity, leading to
some of the highest unemployment rates in the country and in some cases threatening the ability of the affected communities to provide public education and other
basic services to their residents.
There is a reason the ability to set aside federal land generally rested with Congress. These federal land designations have significant direct impacts on our constituents. Sometimes these access restrictive designations are absolutely necessary
for the preservation of our natural and historic treasures. Unfortunately, in other
instances, these designations are counterproductive and cause more harm than
good. Congressional authority to establish these land designations is an integral
part of the transparent and public process that will ensure a designation is not only
appropriate, but accepted by our constituents.
This is why I believe it is critical this Congress reforms the National Monument
designation process. While it is extremely important to protect our countrys natural
and historical treasures, no President, regardless of what party he belongs to,
should have the power to unilaterally declare a land designation that has some of
the most stringent restrictions on public access.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
46
When Congress abdicated its duty to designate National Monuments and gave
this power to the President via the Antiquities Act of 1906, Congress never intended
the President to use that authority the way it has been utilized. At the time, the
law was enacted over concerns about protecting mostly prehistoric Indian ruins and
artifactscollectively termed antiquitieson federal lands in the West. By definition, the sites were to be very smallthe smallest area compatible with preserving
the antiquity.
Unfortunately, since given this power, many Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have abused it. Today, there are over 100 National Monuments located in 26
states, covering some 136 million acres. Some of these sites span over one million
acres. At 140,000 square miles, Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
is the largest protected area proclaimed.
Without a doubt many of the existing National monuments are extremely valuable natural and historic treasures. Nine National Monuments, with major contributions to our tourism economy, are located in Arizonas First Congressional District,
Many of them draw in visitors to hike, hunt, camp or recreate around the monuments. My districts economy has a significant services component tied to tourist
sites like the Grand Canyon National Park and some of these National Monuments.
I appreciate the need for protections of sites; however, the public deserves the opportunity to have their voices heard on any land designation that may restrict our right
to access.
Legislation I introduced alongside Congressman Jeff Flake (AZ06), H.R. 2877,
and many of the other bills being discussed today will ensure that the designation
of National Monuments has an open and transparent process. By ensuring no further extension or establishment of national monuments in Arizona can be done
without the authorization of Congress, we would ensure the public gets to be a part
of land designations that affect them.
The opposition to my bill will likely paint my initiative as an attack on the Administration or playing politics with our public lands. Regardless of what political
party controls the government, these initiatives make sense. In some case proximity
to a national monument or like site increases the value of land or makes it more
appealing to the consumer. In many other cases, the exact opposite is the case.
Shouldnt our constituents have the ability to express concerns or support, depending on the specific proposal?
In last years Interior Department internal document that revealed the Obama
Administrations plans to designate new National Monuments under the Antiquities
Act, the Obama Administration even states that:
the acceptance of preservation status is best achieved when the public has
an opportunity to participate in a land-use-planning or legislative process.
I introduced this legislation for that very reason. The people should be a part of
land designation decisions. When they are, there is public buy-in. Isnt that what
we call these lands, public lands?
Thank you again for allowing me to participate in todays hearing. I look forward
to continuing to work to reform the National Monument designation process.
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Devin Nunes, a

Representative in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 302,
H.R. 758, H.R. 877, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today.
Last year, an internal document from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) revealed that the Administration was considering making additional national monument designations pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906. The proposed designations would restrict, without Congressional approval, access to millions of acres of
public lands, thereby preventing energy production, recreation, and other job-creating economic activities.
With the national unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent and 14 million Americans unemployed, we cannot afford to allow additional economic activity to be forever foreclosed by the stroke of the Presidents pen. Additionally, given the impact
monument designations have on our country, we certainly cannot allow the President to create them unilaterally. Accordingly, I have introduced the National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 758), which will ensure any future national monument designation is done on an informed basis and
is accomplished through a transparent process involving Congress. It is supported
by a coalition of nearly 50 organizations.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
47
Pursuant to the Property Clause, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, of the United
States Constitution, Congress has the expressed power to make needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory and other Property belonging to the United
States. Through the Antiquities Act of 1906 and other acts, Congress has delegated
considerable land management authority to the President. For example, the Antiquities Act, which was enacted in response to thefts from and the destruction of archeological sites, allows the President to proclaim national monuments on federal
lands that contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and
other objects of historic and scientific interest.
President Theodore Roosevelt first used the authority to create Devils Tower in
Wyoming. Today, there are 71 monuments covering approximately 136 million
acres. While the Act has been used appropriately in some instances, it also has been
abused.
President Clinton, asserting that Congress had not acted quickly enough, used his
authority 22 times to proclaim 19 new monuments and to expand three others; with
one exception, the monuments were designated in his last year of office. They also
totaled 5.9 million acres. In the instance of the Giant Sequoia National Monument,
they devastated the timber industry in Tulare County, California, and left an enduring legacy of double-digit unemployment and diminished communities in Californias
21st Congressional District, which I am privileged to represent.
As a life-long resident of Tulare County, I saw, and still see, the devastation
caused by President Clintons pen. I understand well the anger and frustration that
many of my constituents felt when, with no meaningful opportunity to provide input
on this momentous decision, their lives and communities were changed forever.
Congress must not allow such abuses of the Antiquities Act to be repeated. Rather, if the Antiquities Act is going to remain law, it must be improved, particularly
with the revelation that the current Administration might use the Act to designate
monuments totaling as many as 13 million acres.
The National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act would
provide the necessary improvements. It would also provide much-needed transparency to what is an opaque process.
While the bill preserves the right of the President to act quickly to protect national treasures that are under threat, it also ensures his or her actions are confirmed by Congress. Specifically, Congress would have two years to affirm the Presidents decision to protect the national treasure in perpetuity. This will restore the
balance between executive decisions and public input.
The bill would also require the President to provide notice and the actual language of the proposed designation to Congress, Governors, local governments, and
tribes within the boundaries of the proposed monument. Additionally, it would require the Administration to provide notice of public hearings and allow opportunity
for public comments. The President would then have to report to Congress on how
the designation would impact local tax revenues, national energy security, land interests, rights, and uses.
These reforms would ensure the Antiquities Act is used appropriately and in accordance with its original intent. Any monument decisions would be made with all
the pertinent information available, with full public participation, and Congressional approval rather than in the dark of the night at the behest of radical environmentalists.
Accordingly, I look forward to working with you and our colleagues in the House
to enact the National Monument Designation Transparency and Accountability Act.
Statement submitted for the record by the Society for American
Archaeology on H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846 and
H.R. 2147
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) appreciates this opportunity to
present the following testimony on the above-listed pieces of legislation being considered by the subcommittee this morning. These bills would amend the Antiquities
Act of 1906 (the Act) to varying degrees, but the intent of each is to prevent current
and future administrations from unilaterally designating new National Monuments.
We recognize the tensions that federal land management decisions can create, particularly in the Western U.S. Nevertheless, SAA opposes these bills on the grounds
that they will do great harm to the first, and one of the most effective, conservation
statutes the nation has.
SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in 1934, has been
dedicated to the research about and interpretation and protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With nearly 7,000 members, SAA represents pro-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
48
fessional archaeologists in colleges and universities, museums, government agencies,
and the private sector. SAA has members in all 50 states as well as many other
nations around the world.
The Act is one of the most valuable tools that we possess for protecting critical
historic and natural resources located on our nations public lands. Conserving the
archaeological record of those who lived before us was a primary reason that Theodore Roosevelt, one of our most far-seeing Presidents, championed the passage of
the law in 1906. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that some of the nations most
important and valuable archaeological sites, including Chaco Culture and Casa
Grande Ruins, are still in existence today thanks to the protection afforded them
as National Monuments.
More than one century and 124 monuments after enactment of the Act, the statutory framework concerning National Monuments remains well-balanced. The Act allows the President to proceed quickly to protect important cultural and natural objects and values on federal lands. Congress has its own authority to alter the boundaries and direct the management policies of existing monuments, and designate new
ones legislatively. Historically, the creation of some of the monuments was controversial. The majority were not. Given the fact that many communities in the
West derive their economies from multiple uses of federal lands, some opposition
was inevitable. Nevertheless, we believe that these disputes should be seen not only
as exceptions to the rule, but also as part of a larger disagreement over the effect
of federal land management policies on Western state and local economies.
These differences of opinion should not be ignored. The answer, however, is not
to weaken the Act. Instead, we respectfully suggest that whatever difficulties there
are between the White House, Congress, and states affected by the creation of
Monuments be addressed through greater openness and consultation during the deliberation process, prior to either administrative or legislative designation. Greater
discussion could alleviate a substantial amount of the mistrust that currently exists.
SAA thanks the subcommittee for its time and consideration of this important
issue.
Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the Interior
Concerning Six Bills to Amend the Act Popularly Known as the
Antiquities Act of 1906
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide the views of the Administration on six billsH.R. 302, H.R. 758,
H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147to amend the Act popularly known
as the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Antiquities Act).
The Administration strongly opposes these six bills. The Antiquities Act has been
used by Presidents of both parties for more than 100 years as an instrument to preserve and protect critical natural, historical, and scientific resources on Federal
lands for future generations. The authority has contributed significantly to the
strength of the National Park System and the protection of special qualities of other
Federal landsresources that constitute some of the most important elements of
our nations heritage. The six bills, which would limit the Presidents authority in
various ways, would undermine this vital authority.
Of the six bills under consideration, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147 would
bar the use of the Antiquities Act to extend or establish new national monuments
in Montana, Idaho, and Utah, respectively, unless authorized by Congress. H.R. 817
would require Congressional approval for national monuments designated by the
President and would be applicable to designations in any state. H.R. 302 would require the approval of a state legislature and governor before the President could
designate a national monument and would prohibit restrictions on public use of national monuments until there is a public review period and state approval of the
monument. H.R. 758 would require national monument designations to be approved
by Congress within two years of a presidential proclamation in order to maintain
their national monument status and would also impose certain requirements affecting the processes for proposing and managing national monuments.
The use of the Antiquities Act was addressed in some of the listening sessions associated with the Americas Great Outdoors initiative last year, and the public
voiced strong support for the designation of unique places as national monuments.
As a result of this public input, one of the recommendations of the Americas Great
Outdoors report, issued in February 2011, was to implement a transparent and open
approach in the development and execution of new monument designations. The Administration supports conducting an open, public process that considers input from
local, state, and national stakeholders before any sites are considered for designa-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY
49
tion as national monuments through the Antiquities Act. All proposed designations
would respect valid existing rights on federal lands and any other relevant provisions of law.
The Antiquities Act was the first U.S. law to provide general protection for any
cultural or natural resource on Federal lands. In the last decades of the 19th Century, educators and scientists joined together in a movement to safeguard archeological sites on Federal lands, primarily in the West, that were endangered by haphazard digging and purposeful, commercial artifact looting. After a generation-long
effort to pass such a law, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act
on June 8, 1906, thus establishing the first general legal protection of cultural and
natural resources on Federal lands.
The Antiquities Act set an important precedent by asserting a broad public interest in the preservation of natural and cultural resources on public lands. The law
provided much of the legal foundation for cultural preservation and natural resource
conservation in the nation. It created the basis for the Federal governments current
efforts to protect archeological sites from looting and vandalism.
After signing the Antiquities Act into law, President Roosevelt used the Antiquities Act eighteen times to establish national monuments. A number of those first
monuments include what is now known as Grand Canyon National Park, Petrified
Forest National Park, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Tumacacori National Historical Park, and Olympic National Park.
Since President Roosevelt, thirteen U.S. Presidents have used the Antiquities Act
one hundred and thirty-six times to establish or expand national monuments. Congress has redesignated thirty-four of these national monuments as other types of national park units. The National Park Service continues to administer another seventy-five as national monuments. Some of our most iconic national monuments established by presidential proclamation include Devils Tower, Muir Woods, Statue of
Liberty, and Acadia National Park. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management
administers fourteen national monuments designated by presidential proclamation,
including Aqua Fria in Arizona and Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado, which preserve significant archeological sites, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers three national monuments.
Most recently, President George W. Bush used the Act to issue proclamations that
established six national monuments. The 2006 designation of the African Burial
Ground National Monument in New York City preserves a section of what was the
largest historic African and African-American cemetery in the country, honoring the
early contributions of Africans and African-Americans to the development of our nation. President Bush also designated the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine
National Monument, renamed the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which is the largest national monument ever proclaimed. In 2008, President
Bush established by proclamation the World War II Valor in the Pacific National
Monument to recognize the sacrifices made by military and civilians during the conflict. It protects the USS Arizona Memorial, one of the most heavily visited sites
managed by the National Park Service, as well as the Tule Lake Segregation Center
in California, where Japanese Americans were confined against their will, and other
important sites. Another three monuments were established in 2009 to protect marine resources. These sites are the Mariana Trench Marine, Pacific Remote Islands
Marine, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monuments.
Without the Presidents authority under the Antiquities Act, it is unlikely that
many of these special places would have been protected and preserved as quickly
and as fully as they were. As Congress intended when it enacted the Antiquities
Act, the statute provides the necessary flexibility to respond quickly to impending
threats to resource protection, while striking an appropriate balance between legislative and executive decision making.
The Antiquities Act has a proven track record of protectingat critical momentsespecially sensitive Federal lands and the unique cultural and natural resources they possess. These monuments have become universally revered symbols
of Americas beauty and legacy. Though some national monuments have been established amidst controversy, who among us today would dam the Grand Canyon or
turn Muir Woods over to development? These sites are much cherished landscapes
which help to define the American spirit. They speak eloquently to the wisdom of
retaining the Antiquities Act is its current form.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Administration.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
09:30 Aug 29, 2012
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6011
L:\DOCS\68322.TXT
Hresour1
PsN: KATHY

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R. 817, H.R. 845, H.R. 846, and H.R. 2147

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H.R. 302, H.R. 758, H.R.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Serial No. 112-59

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Todd Young, Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Hearing held on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 .....................................................

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 302, TO PROVIDE FOR

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Mr. BISHOP. Today, we will hear testimony on a number of bills

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Mr. BISHOP. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Markey.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before he leaves I

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

VerDate Nov 24 2008

09:30 Aug 29, 2012

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Congressman Rehberg. And the same