welndmn
03-02-2001, 03:53 PM
Subject : The monuments http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0227monument27.html
Monument law faces power shift
Judd Slivka
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 27, 2001
It's happened virtually every year since 1906 - Congress tries to weaken
the
Antiquities Act, that arcane piece of legislation that allows the president
to create national monuments without congressional approval.
And every year, the legislation gets shot down.
This year, things may turn out differently.
After Congress returns from a recess next week, Idaho Republican Mike
Simpson and Utah Republican Jim Hansen will introduce a bill that would
require presidents to consult with local leaders on monuments of more than
50,000 acres and strip areas of monument status if not approved by Congress
within two years.
In a normal year, this would be a slam-dunk for eviction.
But with Western members of Congress smarting over President Clinton's
sweeping monument designations in his last year in office, the bill may
be a
hot topic of discussion in the marbled halls of the Capitol. Hansen has
already written to the new president asking him to rescind monuments and
weaken or eliminate new regulations on wilderness usage.
The combination of Westerners feeling pushed too far by the federal
government - it's not uncommon to hear politicians refer to the recent
monument designations as "land grabs" - and a conservative White House may
be enough this year.
"The central aspect is the limitation on presidential authority to designate
monuments," said Dave Alberswerth, an official with the Wilderness Society.
"The idea that national monuments must be approved by Congress is a problem.
It basically makes temporary monuments."
Luci Willits, Simpson's spokeswoman, said, "The congressman thinks this
will
keep with the original intent of the Antiquities Act, which is for small,
historic areas. This will restore checks and balances to the system."
Simpson introduced similar legislation last year, but it was torpedoed by
a
bipartisan vote.
In drafting the most recent bill, he has incorporated language about
consulting with local leaders that Democrats first developed in committee
last year.
Many in the West felt that local input was sorely lacking in the
monument-designation process. In 1996, Clinton established the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah without consulting
local leaders. Among others, the Utah congressional delegation was
apoplectic.
And while the Clinton administration made efforts to at least talk to local
groups in establishing other monuments, the Grand Staircase-Escalante
decision left a bad taste in many mouths.
Thus, Simpson and Hansen's involvement.
"This is not about a Democratic or Republican president," Willits said.
"This comes down to a philosophy. If you believe that Congress should have
a
say, then this makes sense. It's not about punishing a president. It's about
restoring a system of checks and balances."
In 2000, Arizona had five national monuments dedicated - more than any other
state. Some of those monuments have been included in a lawsuit brought by
the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a Denver-based property rights group.
The lawsuit remains in litigation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------
WELNDMN!WELNDMN!WELNDMNWELNDMN!
ahh screw it call me Mark :D
No matter what you do or say someone will take it too seriously
Monument law faces power shift
Judd Slivka
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 27, 2001
It's happened virtually every year since 1906 - Congress tries to weaken
the
Antiquities Act, that arcane piece of legislation that allows the president
to create national monuments without congressional approval.
And every year, the legislation gets shot down.
This year, things may turn out differently.
After Congress returns from a recess next week, Idaho Republican Mike
Simpson and Utah Republican Jim Hansen will introduce a bill that would
require presidents to consult with local leaders on monuments of more than
50,000 acres and strip areas of monument status if not approved by Congress
within two years.
In a normal year, this would be a slam-dunk for eviction.
But with Western members of Congress smarting over President Clinton's
sweeping monument designations in his last year in office, the bill may
be a
hot topic of discussion in the marbled halls of the Capitol. Hansen has
already written to the new president asking him to rescind monuments and
weaken or eliminate new regulations on wilderness usage.
The combination of Westerners feeling pushed too far by the federal
government - it's not uncommon to hear politicians refer to the recent
monument designations as "land grabs" - and a conservative White House may
be enough this year.
"The central aspect is the limitation on presidential authority to designate
monuments," said Dave Alberswerth, an official with the Wilderness Society.
"The idea that national monuments must be approved by Congress is a problem.
It basically makes temporary monuments."
Luci Willits, Simpson's spokeswoman, said, "The congressman thinks this
will
keep with the original intent of the Antiquities Act, which is for small,
historic areas. This will restore checks and balances to the system."
Simpson introduced similar legislation last year, but it was torpedoed by
a
bipartisan vote.
In drafting the most recent bill, he has incorporated language about
consulting with local leaders that Democrats first developed in committee
last year.
Many in the West felt that local input was sorely lacking in the
monument-designation process. In 1996, Clinton established the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah without consulting
local leaders. Among others, the Utah congressional delegation was
apoplectic.
And while the Clinton administration made efforts to at least talk to local
groups in establishing other monuments, the Grand Staircase-Escalante
decision left a bad taste in many mouths.
Thus, Simpson and Hansen's involvement.
"This is not about a Democratic or Republican president," Willits said.
"This comes down to a philosophy. If you believe that Congress should have
a
say, then this makes sense. It's not about punishing a president. It's about
restoring a system of checks and balances."
In 2000, Arizona had five national monuments dedicated - more than any other
state. Some of those monuments have been included in a lawsuit brought by
the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a Denver-based property rights group.
The lawsuit remains in litigation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------
WELNDMN!WELNDMN!WELNDMNWELNDMN!
ahh screw it call me Mark :D
No matter what you do or say someone will take it too seriously