Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3023.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEE. Madam President, if there is one thing we know about American politics--if there is one thing we have learned from the 2016 Presidential race thus far--it is that there is a deep and growing mistrust between the American people and the Federal Government. This institution, Congress, is held in shamefully low regard by the people we were elected to represent, but so, too, are the scores of bureaucratic agencies that are based in Washington, DC, but extend their reach into the most remote corners of American life.
In my home State of Utah, the public's distrust of Washington is rooted not in ideology, but experience. In particular, the experience of living in a State where a whopping two-thirds of the land is owned by the Federal Government and managed by distant, unaccountable agencies that are either indifferent or downright hostile to the interests of the local communities that they are supposed to serve. I have lost track of the number of stories I have heard from the people of Utah about their run-ins with Federal land management agencies, but there is one story that every Utahan knows: President Bill Clinton's infamous use of the Antiquities Act in 1996 to designate as a national monument more than 1.5 million acres of land in southern Utah--what would become known as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
What Utahans remember about this episode is not just what President Clinton did, but how he did it. Signed into law in 1906, the Antiquities Act gives the President power to unilaterally designate tracts of Federal land as ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.'' The purpose of the law is to enable the Executive to act quickly to protect archaeological sites on Federal lands from looting, destruction, or vandalism.
But the Antiquities Act is not supposed to be carte blanche for the President. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The language of the law is clear. It instructs the President to restrict the designation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act to the ``smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' So you can imagine the surprise, and, in fact, the indignation across the State of Utah following President Clinton's decision to annex a stretch of land roughly 1\1/2\ times the size of the State of Delaware and then to give control over that land to a Federal bureaucracy that routinely maintains a maintenance backlog that is several billion dollars higher than its multibillion-dollar annual budget.
Even worse than the enormous size of the designation was the Clinton administration's hostility toward the people of Utah and the communities that would be most directly and severely affected by his decision. Not only did President Clinton announce the monument designation in Arizona--over 100 miles from the Utah State border--but he refused to consult or even notify Utah's congressional delegation until the day before his announcement. Consulting with the people who live and work in the communities around a potential national monument area isn't just a matter of following political etiquette, it is a matter of ensuring that Federal land policy does not rob citizens of their livelihood, which is exactly what happened as a result of the Grand Staircase designation.
Utah's economy is built on the farm and agriculture industry, and livestock is the State's single largest sector of farm income. But of the 45 million acres of rangeland in Utah, nearly three-quarters is owned and managed by the Federal Government.
Since the 1940s, Federal agencies have slashed livestock grazing across the Utah landscape by more than 50 percent--a policy of economic deprivation that accelerated after 1996 on rangeland within the Grand Staircase case. Even today the Bureau of Land Management shows no sign of relenting.
For most people, the Grand Staircase episode is a case study of government-sponsored injustice and a form of bureaucratic tyranny. For me, it brings to mind the line from America's Declaration of Independence in which the colonists charge that the King of Great Britain ``has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.''
But for President Obama and the radical environmental groups that have co-opted Federal land agencies, it is the textbook model for the application of the Antiquities Act. In fact, it appears that President Obama is considering using his final year in the White House to target another vast tract of land in southern Utah for designation as a national monument. Covering 1.9 million acres of Federal land in San Juan County, this area, known as Bears Ears, is roughly the same size as the Grand Staircase. Both are situated near the southern edge of the State, and both possess an abundance of national beauty unrivaled by any place in the world.
The similarities don't end there. Each area is home to a group of Utahans deeply connected to the Federal land targeted by environmental activists for a national monument designation. In the case of the Grand Staircase, it is the ranchers, and in the case of Bears Ears, it is the Kaayelii Navajo. The Kaayelii believe that a national monument designation in Bears Ears, their ancestral home, would threaten their livelihood and destroy their very way of life.
Their concerns are well founded. In the 1920s and 1930s, hundreds of Navajo families settled on homesteads located in national monuments only to find themselves steadily pushed out by imperious Federal agencies all too eager to eradicate the private use of public lands. So it should come as no surprise to us today that the Kaayelii are protesting the unilateral Federal takeover of Bears Ears and calling on the Obama administration to forgo the high-handed approach to land conservation that was employed by President Clinton in 1996.
The Kaayelii, of course, are not opposed to the protection or the conservation of public lands. They care about the preservation of Bears Ears just as much as anyone else. To them, the land is not just beautiful, it is also sacred. They depend on it for their economic and spiritual survival, which is why all they are asking for is a seat at the table so that their ancestral land isn't given over, sight unseen, to the arbitrary and arrogant control of Federal land management agencies.
I agree with the Kaayelii. The President of the United States has no business seizing vast stretches of public land to be micromanaged and mismanaged by Federal agencies, especially if the people who live, work, and depend on the land stand in opposition to such a takeover. There is no denying that the people of San Juan County reject the presumption that they should have no say in the management of the land in their community. The truth is that most of those who have mobilized to support a monument designation at Bears Ears, including several Native American groups, live outside of Utah in States such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona.
By contrast, the people of San Juan County, UT--the people whose lives and livelihoods are intricately tied to Bears Ears--stand united in their opposition to a monument designation. That is why I have offered amendment No. 3023, which would update the Antiquities Act in order to protect the right of the Kaayelii and their fellow citizens of San Juan County to participate in the government's efforts to protect and preserve public land.
Here is how my amendment works: It preserves the President's authority to designate tracts of Federal land as national monuments, but it also reserves a seat at the table for people who would be directly affected by Executive action. It does so by opening the policymaking process to the people's elected representatives at the State and Federal levels so they can weigh in on monument designations.
Under my amendment, Congress and the legislature of the State in which a monument has been designated would have 3 years to pass resolutions ratifying the designation. If they fail to do so, the national monument designation will expire. Some critics might claim that this amendment would take unprecedented steps to curtail the President's monument designation authority under the Antiquities Act. This is not true. This, in fact, is nonsense. The truth is that Congress has twice passed legislation amending the Antiquities Act. In 1950, Congress wholly prohibited Presidential designation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act in the State of Wyoming. Some 30 years later, Congress passed another law requiring congressional approval of national monuments in Alaska larger than 5,000 acres.
If you have ever visited Wyoming or Alaska, you know that these provisions have not led to the parade of horribles conjured up by radical environmental activists who seem intent on achieving nothing short of ironfisted Federal control of all Federal lands.
In reality, the States of Wyoming and Alaska have proven that national monument designations are not necessary to protect and conserve America's most beautiful, treasured public lands. So why should the people of Wyoming and Alaska enjoy these reasonable, commonsense protections under the law while the people of Utah--and indeed, the people of every other State in the Union--do not enjoy the same protections? There is no good answer to this question except, of course, the adoption of my amendment.
To anyone who might suggest that the people of these communities in and around national monuments are not prepared to participate in the monument process and policy process that leads to the creation of a monument, I invite you to visit San Juan County in southeastern Utah. You will see a community that is not only well informed about the issues and actively engaged in the political process, but also genuinely dedicated to finding a solution that works for everyone.
The people of San Juan County--from the Kaayelii to the county commissioners--have the determination that is necessary to forge a legislative solution to the challenges facing public lands in their community, and that is exactly what you would expect. San Juan is a hardscrabble community. It is one of the most disadvantaged in the entire State of Utah, but you wouldn't know it from the people there. The citizens of San Juan County are hardworking, honest, decent, and happy people. Yet for far too long, Federal land management agencies have given the people of San Juan County and the people all across America little reason to trust the Federal Government.
My amendment gives us an opportunity to change that. If Congress wants to regain the trust of the American people, we are going to have to earn it, and one of the ways we can earn it is by returning power to the people, and that is what this amendment would do. Passing this amendment giving all Americans a voice in the land management decisions of their community would be a meaningful and important step toward earning back that trust. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this amendment and the vital public trust that it will help us to rebuild.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source