Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, last night, I offered amendment No. 388,
to ensure the States and local governments are the driving force behind
the national monument designations. I ask unanimous consent to add
Senator Hatch as a cosponsor to my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. This is a fair and commonsense proposal that I believe
Members on both sides of the aisle can support. Before major land
decisions are made by the Federal Government, the people affected most
by these decisions should have a seat at the table and have their
voices heard. I was confused when I heard the senior Senator from
Nevada claim this morning that my amendment would in some way gut or
repeal law, providing the ability for national monument designations to
take place. That is simply false. In sharp contrast, it is designated
to strengthen the law by ensuring that the voice of the people is heard
as designations are considered. After all, it is the people who are
affected by these decisions, not politicians in Washington.

As a fifth-generation Montanan and a lifelong sportsman, I treasure
and am committed to protecting our public lands. I deeply appreciate
that landmarks like Pompeys Pillar in Montana or Lehman's Cave in
Nevada have been protected for future generations. But there is a
difference between targeted designations to protect historic landmarks
and designating hundreds or even thousands or millions of acres against
the will of the States and local residents.

The Senator from Nevada is saying that Washington, DC, should have
more influence over local land use decisions than the folks in Western
States who live and work on this land every day. I disagree. I believe
the farmers, the ranchers, the sportsmen, the community members, and
the State and local governments should have a say in local land
decisions. I remind him the 1906 act was designed to prevent damage to
specific sites of historical, scientific or cultural significance.

As the law States, ``. . . the smallest area compatible with the
proper care in management of objects to be protected.'' The law was not
intended to block out access or damage operation of nearby landowners.
The law was not intended to be used as a way for a President, as they
are leaving office, to unilaterally make decisions without consulting
the States in the local communities.

Strengthening the role of locally impacted residents and States is
vitally important because, unfortunately, Presidents of both parties
have also abused the Antiquities Act, designating unjustifiably
excessive, large-scale pieces of ground through unilateral action
despite local opposition from land users.

Let me remind the Senator from Nevada of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument designation. Local residents oppose that
designation. Since the monument was designated in 1996, there has been
a reduction in grazing. Development of a large coal mine has stopped.
Local rural communities are struggling.

Wouldn't it have been better to protect the Grand Staircase in a way
that also protected local communities? Look to New Mexico, where the
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument was designated in 2014
May against the will of local communities.

Representative Steve Pearce had a bill to protect 50,000 acres of
land, which he worked with local residents and affected communities to
implement. That bill was ignored, and the administration instead
introduced a monument of 500,000 acres that touches all the way to the
Mexican border.

During President Obama's first term, an internal document surfaced
from the Interior Department revealing the Obama administration's plans
to use the Antiquities Act to designate 14 new national monuments,
comprising millions of acres across our country. One of the areas on
the list is 2.5 million acres of land across northern Montana,
connecting Canada's Grasslands National Park to the Bitter Creek
Wilderness Study Area. Right in the middle of this designation are
significant swaths of public lands. This potential designation is very
contentious in Montana, which I believe Montanans must have a voice in
determining whether it goes forward.

During a recent House Natural Resources Committee hearing, Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell confirmed that she wants public input and local
input in Antiquities Act designations. So why would anyone oppose
elevating State and local input in these designations?

Despite the claims made by the Senator from Nevada, my amendment will
not repeal the Antiquities Act. It is not going to gut the law. It will
not repeal existing protections on our national parks and national
monuments. It will not prevent future designations from being made. My
amendment simply ensures that local residents and the States have a
meaningful voice in determining monument designations.

In 2010, former Interior Secretary Salazar stated during a Senate
hearing that the administration would have a conversation and dialogue
with people locally and across the country before any monument
designations occur.

My amendment simply holds this and future administrations accountable
to what they said they would do, and it protects the voice of the
people in decisions such as this. Protecting the voice of the people
should not offend Members of this body. It should be our abiding
commitment. It should be our priority.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 465.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, my amendment will establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for legislation to make sure the ATF does not
infringe on our Second Amendment freedoms. This amendment ensures that
American sportsmen aren't left with empty relics good for nothing more
than mounting on the mantel, symbols of a bygone era of American
freedom, until even the relics are taken.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and call up amendment No. 387.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, article I, section 8, clause 7, of the
U.S. Constitution specifically provides for the establishment of the
U.S. Postal Service. However, the Postal Service currently teeters on
the brink of insolvency. In fact, a January 2015 Congressional Research
Service report states that the Postal Service has reached its statutory
borrowing limit of $15 billion and has run up more than $40 billion in
deficits since fiscal year 2007. However in the midst of the Postal
Service's financially tenuous circumstance, State and national
political committees are granted postal discounts which can amount to
as high as a 26-percent reduction in the standard rate paid by
nonprivileged users.

Congress would do well to put State and national local committees on
the same playing field as ordinary Americans. The Postal Service would
certainly benefit from these groups paying the ordinary postage rate.
Particularly in rural States like Montana, the Postal Service plays an
important role in the vitality of our communities, and it connects
people. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting
budget amendment No. 387, which would signal the Senate's willingness
to address the postage discount it provides to State and national
political committees.

I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source