Hearing of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee - Legislation to Prohibit New, Unilateral National Monument Designations

Statement

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 today's 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. Arizona's 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 country's 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 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 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 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, Papahānaumokuākea 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 Arizona's First Congressional District, Many of them draw in visitors to hike, hunt, camp or recreate around the monuments. My district's 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 the protection of these 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 (AZ-06), 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. Shouldn't our constituents have the ability to express concerns or support, depending on the specific proposal?

In last year's Interior Department internal document that revealed the Obama Administration's 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. Isn't that what we call these lands, "public lands?"

Thank you again for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. I look forward to continuing to work to reform the National Monument designation process.

Source