> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:11 AM
> To: Monuments Team Mailing List
> Subject: Press on HR 2114
>
> HEADLINE: PANEL APPROVES NATIONAL MONUMENT LAW RESTRICTIONS
>
>
> BODY:
>
> House Resources Committee Republicans won two key votes
>
> Wednesday, using a 16-bill markup to pass a bill curtailing
> the
> president's monument-designating authority and delaying a
>
> personal watercraft (PWC) ban.
>
>
>
> After spirited debate on the Antiquities Act of 1906, the
>
> committee passed H.R. 2114, the National Monument Fairness Act
>
> from Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), onto the House.
>
>
>
> Simpson's bill would add steps to the Antiquities Act,
>
> which former President Clinton used to declare 19 national
>
> monuments encompassing 6 million acres. The bill would require
>
> congressional consent for monuments larger than 50,000 acres
>
> within two years or they would sunset. It also would require
> the
> administration to give governors 30-day notice prior to a
>
> proclamation. And the president would have to consult with
> state
> officials 60 days before a proclamation for any size monument.
>
> "This legislation is not about preventing monuments, but
>
> creating a process by which national monument decisions can be
>
> arrived at openly, with public participation and state and
> local
> government consultation," said Simpson. "Allowing the public
> and
> Congress a seat at the table strengthens, not weakens, the
>
> Antiquities Act and ensures all parties have a voice in the
>
> debate.
>
>
>
> "It's not about the actions of any specific president," he
>
> added. "It's not about the results of past actions. What it is
>
> about is the intent of Congress in 1906."
>
>
>
> At the beginning of the twentieth century, few
>
> environmental laws were in place, said Simpson, and people
> were
> stealing artifacts from Indian ceremonial and burial sites.
>
> Congressional committees wanted to stop the looting, but they
>
> rejected the idea of protecting scenic areas in the bill, he
>
> said.
>
>
>
> "Clearly, the intent of Congress was not to set apart huge
>
> vast tracts of land," like some of the million-acre monuments
>
> Clinton declared, Simpson added. "No administration should be
>
> allowed to do what that administration did," said Rep. Scott
>
> McInnis (R-Colo.) of Clinton's monuments.
>
>
>
> Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) also criticized Clinton's
>
> actions. The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument
>
> contains 81,000 acres of private property, and the owners
>
> weren't consulted until "after the fact," he said.
>
>
>
> Federal and state agencies already have the ability to
>
> protect areas of significant value, agreed Rep. Calvin Dooley
>
> (D-Calif.), who said he was in favor of the bill. Dooley cited
>
> the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act as examples
>
> of legislation already protecting many areas.
>
>
>
> Committee Chairman Jim Hansen (R-Utah) concurred. "There
>
> was not anything to protect these areas" in 1906, he said.
> When
> Roosevelt protected the Grand Canyon, it was only because he
> was
> intimately familiar with the area. Plus, said Hansen, H.R.
> 2114
> allows presidents to create 50,000-acre monuments. "If [a
>
> president] wants more, he can come to Congress and just ask
> for
> it" in the form of a national park, said Hansen.
>
>
>
> But committee Democrats said future national monuments
>
> would have a hard time getting through Congress if the bill
>
> became law. One senator could filibuster an otherwise popular
>
> monument and destroy any progress, said Rep. Tom Udall
> (D-N.M.).
>
>
> "This whole bill guts the Antiquities Act," said Rep. Jay
>
> Inslee (D-Wash.). No court has ever found a president guilty
> of
> violating the act, said Inslee. Inslee said he agreed monument
>
> designation powers need revision, but said passing Simpson's
>
> bill would be "yielding to the worst instincts of the Senate."
>
>
>
> Del. Donna Christian-Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) called
>
> the bill a "step backward." While Christian-Christensen said
> she
> supports the public participation aspects of the bill, she
>
> feared it would "reignite a controversy settled by bipartisan
>
> language" in previous monument reformation bills.
>
>
>
> "National monuments proclaimed by previous presidents are
>
> supported and treasured by the American people," said
> Committee
> ranking member Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.). "Monument opponents in
>
> Congress know it and, as a result, are squeamish about
> attacking
> monuments head on. Instead, they resort to the backdoor
> approach
> of the pending legislation."
>
>
>
> To assuage concerns that the measure would be used to undo
>
> existing monument protections -- a issue raised by Democrats
> at
> previous hearings -- Simpson offered an amendment. The
> amendment
> stated that the legislation would only affect monument
>
> designations following passage of H.R. 2114. Applying the bill
>
> retroactively "was never the intent," said Simpson.
>
>
>
> But the amendment, which passed by voice vote, wasn't
>
> enough to win over committee Democrats.
>
>
>
> In a nearly party-line vote, the committee passed H.R. 2114
>
> by a vote of 23-18. Dooley was the only Democrat to break
> rank.
>
>
>
|