[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, AND H.R. 2966
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
89-584 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 30, 2003...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 3
Cummings, Hon. Elijah, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 45
Prepared statement on H.R. 2424.......................... 47
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, and H.R. 2966 2
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Montana....................................... 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 1629.......................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Calvert, Chad, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 1629.......................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 2424.......................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 2966.......................... 13
Knox, Matt, Chairman, Missouri River Stewards, Winifred,
Montana.................................................... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 1629.......................... 38
Martin, Joanne M., Ph.D., President and CEO, The Great Blacks
in Wax Museum, Baltimore, Maryland......................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 2424.......................... 34
Roeser, Jennifer A., Director, High Sierra Packers'
Association, Eastern Sierra Unit, and Owner, McGee Creek
Pack Station, Mammoth Lakes, California.................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 2966.......................... 27
Tureck, Hugo, Vice-Chairman, Friends of the Missouri Breaks
Monument, Coffee Creek, Montana............................ 40
Prepared statement on H.R. 1629.......................... 42
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1629, TO CLARIFY THAT THE UPPER MISSOURI
RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES
ANY PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 2424, TO
AUTHORIZE ASSISTANCE FOR THE NATIONAL GREAT BLACKS IN WAX MUSEUM AND
JUSTICE LEARNING CENTER; AND H.R. 2966, TO PRESERVE THE USE AND ACCESS
OF PACK AND SADDLE STOCK ANIMALS ON PUBLIC LANDS, INCLUDING WILDERNESS
AREAS, NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AREAS,
ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, OR THE FOREST
SERVICE WHERE THERE IS A HISTORICAL TRADITION OF SUCH USE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Radanovich, Christensen, Tom
Udall, Bordallo, Rehberg, and Cummings.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands hearing on H.R. 1629, H.R.
2424, and H.R. 2966 will come to order. Good afternoon,
everybody.
Our first bill, H.R. 1629, is introduced by Congressman
Denny Rehberg of Montana, which would clarify that the Upper
Missouri River Breaks National Monument does not include within
its boundaries any privately owned property.
Our second bill is H.R. 2424, introduced by Congressman
Elijah Cummings of Maryland, which would authorize assistance
for the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice
Learning Center, located in Baltimore.
And our last bill is H.R. 2966, which I introduced, which
would preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock
animals on public lands where there is a historical tradition
of such use, including wilderness areas, National Monuments,
and other specifically designated areas administered by the
National Park Service, BLM, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. While I introduced
H.R. 2966 for a number of reasons, the driving force was to
affirm my commitment to continued access of our public lands by
ensuring trails, routes, and areas used by pack and saddle
stock would remain open and accessible.
Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would
ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Cummings be
permitted to sit on the dais following their statements.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for any
opening statement she may have. Donna?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R.
1629, H.R. 2424, and H.R. 2966
Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands will receive testimony on three bills--H.R. 1629, H.R.
2424 and H.R. 2966.
Our first bill, H.R. 1629, introduced by Congressman Dennis Rehberg
of Montana, would clarify that the Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument does not include within its boundaries any privately owned
property.
Our second bill, H.R. 2424, introduced by Congressman Elijah
Cummings of Maryland, would authorize assistance for the National Great
Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center, located in Baltimore,
Maryland.
And our last bill, H.R. 2966, which I introduced, would preserve
the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on public lands,
where there is a historical tradition of such use, including wilderness
areas, National Monuments, and other specifically designated areas
administered by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest
Service.
While I introduced H.R. 2966 for a number of reasons, the driving
force was to affirm my commitment to continued access of our public
lands by ensuring trails, routes, and areas used by pack and saddle
stock remain open and accessible.
Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Cummings be permitted to sit
on the dais following their statements. Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen for any opening
statement she may have.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, as you
have said, this Subcommittee will consider three unrelated
bills.
The first, H.R. 1629, introduced by Mr. Rehberg, provides
that the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument shall not
include within its exterior borders any privately owned
properties. This is not a new subject for the Subcommittee.
Last Congress, we considered identical legislation. At that
time, there were some fundamental misconceptions regarding the
impact of the National Monument proclamation, with perceptions
holding more sway than the reality of the situation.
Two points need to be stressed today. The first is that
including private land within the exterior boundary does not
make that land part of the National Monument. On that point,
both the Monument proclamation and the Antiquities Act are
clear.
Second, neither the Monument proclamation or the
Antiquities Act gives the BLM any authority to subject these
lands to regulation and management as part of the Federal
Monument unless, of course, those lands are acquired by the
Federal Government. There has been a lot of focus on the Upper
Missouri Breaks boundary map, which contains Federal, State,
and private lands. This map reflects the fact that the public
lands are intermingled with State and private lands in many
sections and that Monument features bisect all these lands.
This is not uncommon. Intermingled public and private lands are
common in the West. Numerous, National Monuments and National
Forests have such intermingled public and private lands.
Members will need to look closely at H.R. 1629. This
legislation calls into question not only the exterior boundary
of the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, but also the
basis for the boundaries of numerous National Monuments and
National Forests around the country.
Our second bill, H.R. 2424, sponsored by our colleague and
our esteemed Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Representative Elijah Cummings, authorizes a $15 million grant
to The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in East Baltimore. While the
funding contained in the bill would come from the Department of
Justice, members of this Subcommittee are interested to learn
more regarding this unique and important museum of African-
American history and plans for expanding the Museum's existing
facilities.
Our final bill is H.R. 2966, a measure which you
introduced, Mr. Chairman, regarding the use and access of pack
and other saddle stock animals on Federal lands. H.R. 2966
appears to raise a number of issues. By amending the organic
statutes of the Federal land management agencies to enshrine
such use, the bill appears to raise pack and saddle animal use
above other public uses of Federal lands. Such public uses as
hunting, fishing, and hiking have no similar right of access in
these organic statutes. Furthermore, the legislation makes no
provision for curtailment of a pack or saddle stock use for
reasons of public health or safety or in an emergency, nor does
the legislation address conflicts with other public uses or the
management of natural and cultural resources. We should be
extremely wary in singling out one particular public use for
special treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the presence of our witnesses
here this afternoon. I especially want to welcome our Chair,
Elijah Cummings, and look forward to the insights on the
legislation we are considering.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
I will now move on to our first panel, which includes the
Honorable Elijah Cummings, Representative from the 7th District
of Maryland, who I believe stepped out. I know Mr. Cummings was
stating that he had a bill to manage on the Floor. Can you
check and see if he has stepped out? If not, we will move on to
our other speaker for now. There are people and things coming
in, but----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. OK. I think Mr. Cummings had to leave to
manage a bill on the Floor. We will leave it open for a
different time in the hearing for Mr. Cummings to make a
presentation.
That being the case, I will refer to Mr. Dennis Rehberg,
who is here to speak on H.R. 1629. Denny, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
the fact that you would take time out of your busy schedule to
schedule this hearing for me. Mrs. Christensen and Ms.
Bordallo, welcome, and thank you again for listening to an
issue that is very specific to Montana. It is not precedent-
setting for the rest of the country, but it is very important
to the 127 landowners within the State of Montana.
It allows us to address and debate an issue as old as our
republic--private property rights. In fact, the issues before
us today deal very much with the same concerns that led our
Founding Fathers to declare their independence from an
overbearing monarchy almost 300 years ago. Those Founding
Fathers clearly codified private property rights in the
Constitution, yet those rights are currently being challenged
in the form of a boundary to a National Monument located in the
State of Montana.
In the late hours of January 17, 2001, President Clinton
and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt created the Upper Missouri
River Breaks National Monument, encompassing nearly 400,000
acres of federally owned land. With less than 90 hours
remaining in his Presidency, the administration made this
designation without consulting county officials, the Governor,
the Congressional delegation, or the private property
landowners whom the designation would indirectly affect.
In the rush to complete his Executive Order designating the
Monument, President Clinton included more than 80,000 acres of
private land in its boundaries. Ranchers and farmers that have
worked the same land for generations woke up on January 18 of
2001 to find their family farms now part of an enormous new
Federal Monument. Overnight, and despite their opposition,
those 127 landowners found themselves and their land gobbled up
by the Federal Government.
Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman. The Federal
Government's decision to include more than 80,000 acres of
private land in the Monument's boundary sends one clear and
unmistakable message to the families involved: Washington wants
your land.
They called on me as their voice in Washington to remedy
the debacle that Washington had created in Montana, so I
introduced legislation last year. It was favorably reported
from this Committee, and I reintroduce it this year to do one
thing, remove private property from within the boundary lines
of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.
H.R. 1629, the Upper Missouri River Breaks Boundary
Clarification Act, is carefully crafted, I repeat, carefully
crafted to help Montana landowners while at the same time
preserving Federal management of the Monument itself. Local
support for this effort is great. In fact, on March 24, 2003, a
citizen delegation presented me with a petition supporting my
legislation, signed by more than 3,000 Montanans, most of whom
live inside or near the Breaks boundary.
I would like to, with unanimous consent, include that
petition in the hearing record, along with official letters of
support from the majority of the Montana State House and State
Senate; letters of support from the American Farm Bureau, who
are in the audience; letters of support from the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Montana Stock Growers, and
the Montana Farm Bureau; letters of support from the State
Senator Ed Butcher--he represents the folks in the Monument
area; letters of support from landowners Tom and Gladys Walling
of Winifred, Montana--they own 320 acres in the Monument
boundary; and letters from the county commissioners, who
unanimously have opposed including private property and support
this bill. I might add, in Montana, our counties are
represented by three county commissioners each, Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents alike, and they unanimously support
this legislation.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[NOTE: The petition and letters of support submitted for
the record has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dennis R. Rehberg, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Montana, on H.R. 1629
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing today. It
allows us to address and debate an issue as old as our republic--
private property rights. In fact, the issues before us today deal very
much with the same concerns that led our Founding Fathers to declare
their independence from an overbearing monarchy almost three hundred
years ago.
Those Founding Fathers clearly codified private property rights in
the Constitution. Yet those rights are currently being challenged in
the form of a boundary to a National Monument located in the State of
Montana.
In the late hours of January 17, 2001, President Clinton and
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt created the Upper Missouri River
Breaks National Monument--encompassing nearly 400,000 acres of
federally owned land.
With less than ninety hours remaining in his presidency, the
Administration made this designation without consulting county
officials, the governor, the congressional delegation, or the private
property landowners whom the designation would directly affect.
In the rush to complete his Executive Order designating the
Monument, President Clinton included more than 80,000 acres of private
land in its boundaries.
Ranchers and farmers that have worked the same land for generations
woke up on January 18, 2001, to find their family farms now part of an
enormous new federal Monument. Overnight--and despite their
opposition--those 127 landowners found themselves--and their land--
gobbled up by the federal government.
Let there be no mistake Mr. Chairman, the federal government's
decision to include more than 80,000 acres of private land in the
Monument's boundary sends one clear and unmistakable message to the
families involved: ``Washington Wants Your Land.''
They called on me, as their voice of Montana in Washington, to
remedy the debacle that Washington had created in Montana. So I
introduced legislation last year--it was favorably reported from this
Committee. And I re-introduced that this year to do one thing--remove
private property from within the boundary of the Upper Missouri River
Breaks National Monument.
H.R. 1629, the Upper Missouri River Breaks Boundary Clarification
Act H.R. 1629 is carefully crafted to help Montana landowners, while at
the same time preserving federal management of the Monument itself.
Local support for this effort is great--in fact, on March 24, 2003, a
citizen delegation presented me with a petition supporting my
legislation signed by more than 3,000 Montanans, most of whom live
inside or near the Breaks boundary.
In fact, I move to include this tremendous showing of local public
support in the official hearing record.
President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the
Monument in the dark of night, but the Antiquities Act specifically
mandates that lands included in a Monument, quote, ``shall be confined
to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of
the object to be protected.'' In the case of this particular Monument,
the Washington, D.C., powers-that-be deliberately ignored that
provision of the Antiquities Act and extended the Monument boundary as
they saw fit.
As you can clearly see from the map at the front of the room,--
private property is indicated by the bright pink color--the boundary of
the Monument was not confined to the smallest area compatible. It is
difficult to understand how all that bright pink up there equals ``the
smallest area compatible''--it seems like there are enormous areas of
bright pink on that map.
Mr. Chairman, private property was included not for proper care and
management of the Monument, but for future acquisition and inclusion in
the Monument. Officials at the BLM have stated as much publicly.
My point in bringing this to the Committee's attention is that the
inclusion of more than 80,000 acres of private property represents
blatant abuse of the Antiquities Act. And frankly, it ultimately brings
into question the legality of the Monument.
But my point in coming before the Committee today with my
legislation is not to question the legality of the Monument. Make no
mistake, Mr. Chairman, I support the Monument. I support protection of
this resource. My legislation, though, represents the landowners in my
state who wish to be taken out of its boundaries.
As various lobbying organizations from Washington, D.C., and
Montana have geared up for the debate over this legislation, one fact
seems to have been tossed aside in the stampede: none of the folks
opposed to my legislation are personally impacted by the Monument
boundary. In fact, the opposition witness we will hear from today lives
outside the Monument boundary.
H.R. 1629 has the unanimous support of locally elected county
commissioners representing the Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument. H.R. 1629 has the strong support of Governor Martz. The
largest daily newspaper in the region, The Great Falls Tribune, long an
advocate for the Monument, has editorialized in support of my
legislation. Quoting now from the editorial: ``In addition to a clear
map they can hold up when a tourist wanders onto their land, what the
landowners are seeking is anything that might give them more leverage
down the road in the event the larger public interest doesn't square
with their own...We don't see much of a downside to that, the original
framers of the Monument shouldn't either.''
But most importantly Mr. Chairman, this legislation has the strong
support of the private landowners who are actually affected by the
Monument designation and boundary. 3,300 local residents took the time
to sign a petition supporting this legislation. 3,300 people. In the
end, that should be all that matters to this Committee and the
Congress.
______
Mr. Radanovich. President Clinton used the Antiquities Act
of 1906 to create the Monument in the dark of night, but the
Antiquities Act specifically mandates that lands included in
the Monument, quote, ``shall be confined to the smallest area
compatible with the proper care and management of the object to
be protected.'' In the case of this particular Monument, the
Washington, D.C., powers that deliberately ignored that
provision of the Antiquities Act and extended the Monument
boundary as they saw fit.
As you can clearly see from the map, and I believe you have
one in your packet, the private property is indicated by the
bright pink color. The boundary of the Monument was not
confined to the smallest area compatible. It is difficult to
understand how all the bright pink up there equals the smallest
area compatible. It seems like there are enormous areas of pink
on that map.
Mr. Chairman, private property was included not for proper
care and management of the Monument, but for future acquisition
and inclusion in the Monument. Officials at the BLM have stated
as much publicly.
My point in bringing this to the Committee's attention is
that the inclusion of more than 80,000 acres of private
property represents blatant abuse of the Antiquities Act, and
frankly, it ultimately brings into question the legality of the
Monument.
But my point in coming before the Committee today with this
legislation is not to question the legality of the Monument.
Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman. I support the Monument. I
support protection of this resource. My legislation, though,
represents the landowners in my State who wish to be taken out
of its boundaries.
As various lobbying organizations from Washington, D.C.,
and Montana have geared up for the debate, one fact seems to
have been tossed aside in the stampede. None of the folks
opposed to my legislation are personally impacted by the
Monument boundary. In fact, the opposition witness we will hear
from today does not own property within the boundary.
H.R. 1629 has the unanimous support, as I said, of the
local county commissioners, the Governor, the legislators. The
largest daily newspaper in the region, The Great Falls Tribune,
long an advocate for the Monument, has editorialized in support
of my legislation. Quoting now from the editorial, ``In
addition to a clear map they can hold up when a tourist wanders
onto their land, what the landowners are seeking is anything
that might give them more leverage down the road in the event
the larger public interest doesn't square with their own. We
don't see much of a downside to that. The original framers of
the Monument shouldn't, either.''
But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation has
the strong support of the private landowners who are actually
affected by the Monument designation and boundary. Thirty-
three-hundred local residents took the time to sign a petition
supporting this legislation. Thirty-three-hundred people. In
the end, that should be all that matters to this Committee and
to Congress.
Thank you, and I ask unanimous consent to put this in the
record.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. I appreciate your
testimony.
Any questions of Mr. Rehberg?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. All right. That concludes our first panel.
Again, the Honorable Elijah Cummings had to leave for Floor
duty, I believe, but is welcome to come back and make his
statement for the Committee any time during the time that the
Committee is doing business.
Next up is panel two, Mr. Chad Calvert, who is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management, Department
of the Interior in Washington, D.C., and former employee of the
incredible George Radanovich.
Chad, welcome to the Committee. It is good to see you. Of
course, Chad is here to speak on H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, and H.R.
2966, all the bills that we will be hearing about. Chad,
welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF CHAD CALVERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND
MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, members of
the Committee. It is my honor and privilege to be here
testifying before this Subcommittee, in particular, for my
first hearing on the House side.
I would like to ask in advance that my statements be made
part of the public record and I am going to summarize them.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Calvert. With regard to H.R. 1629, I have to say that I
think the Congressman has already made the compelling case for
his bill and the Department supports the bill, particularly
because it would provide additional certainty to private and
State owners of land located within the boundaries and that the
designation itself and the management plan should have no
effect on their property rights.
The proclamation signed in January 2001 designed 377,000
acres as National Monument, running along 150 miles of the
river. It included large blocks of the Wild and Scenic River
Corridor and land management by the BLM, as well as land
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Monument
boundary also includes nearly 82,000 acres inside of it of
private land and 39,000 acres of State land.
It is true, it is not uncommon for management units to
encompass scattered private and State lands, but this Monument
actually includes more private and State land acreage than any
other. It is more scattered, and there are certainly more
individual landowners than in any other National Monument.
So it presents a number of difficult management questions
for the managing agency about how they work with local
landowners, how they engage people to be cooperative in their
management of the Monument, and how to move forward in a
supportive manner with those people.
The language of the proclamation does state clearly that
the Monument itself is established lands and interest in lands
owned and controlled by the United States within the boundaries
of the area described on the map, consisting of approximately
377,000 acres. On these Federal lands, the Monument
proclamation imposed a number of restrictions. However, it is
clear that these restrictions are not meant to apply to private
or State land within the Monument.
This legislation offered by Representative Rehberg would
help reassure those who express concerns, notably 3,300-plus of
them from the State of Montana, regarding this proclamation. It
would reaffirm that private lands are not within the boundary--
I am sorry, are not a part of the Monument, and it would direct
the Department of Interior to provide a map for management
planning purposes to reflect the actual Federal lands that make
up the Monument itself.
The Department would urge the Committee to reflect on
Section 2(a) and insert, in lieu of any privately owned
property to include any land that is not owned by the Federal
Government, which would allow for the State lands to receive
the same treatment as the private lands under the bill.
With that, I would conclude my testimony on that bill and
move just briefly to testimony on H.R. 2424, The Great Blacks
in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1629
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1629, the Upper Missouri River
Breaks Boundary Clarification Act. While we believe that the
Presidential proclamation establishing the Monument makes it clear that
the proclamation covers only Federally-owned lands within the Monument
boundaries, the Department supports H.R. 1629 because it would provide
additional comfort to the private and state owners of lands located
within the Monument boundaries that the Monument designation will not
impact management of their lands. This will also help us to engage some
of our local partners in a more constructive fashion that we believe
will result in a more broadly supported management plan for the Upper
Missouri River Breaks National Monument.
President Clinton created the Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument by Proclamation 7398 on January 17, 2001, under the
Antiquities Act of 1906. The Antiquities Act allows the President in
certain circumstances to create a Monument from land that is owned or
controlled by the United States. The Proclamation stated clearly that
the Monument consists of ``all lands and interests in lands owned or
controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area
described on the map entitled 'Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument' attached to and forming part of this proclamation.'' The
problem is that the map showed boundaries that enclosed private and
state land as well--not just Federally-owned or controlled lands. It
was undoubtedly intentional that the map boundaries enclosed private
and state land as well, because the Proclamation also said ``Lands and
interests in land within the proposed Monument not owned by the United
States shall be reserved as a part of the Monument upon acquisition of
title thereto by the United States.'' The Proclamation makes no claim
to non-Federal property within the area that it identifies as the
Monument. The legal uncertainty created by the Proclamation goes to the
status of non-Federal land within this area that the Federal Government
may later acquire, not to the scope of the Federal Government's current
interests or even to the reach of its existing acquisition authorities.
Although the uncertainty created by the Proclamation does not affect
the security of title held by private and state landowners, it may
affect their interests. If land that the United States acquires within
the Monument area automatically obtained Monument status, as the
Proclamation asserts, the prospects for economic activity in the region
could be altered. Accordingly, private and state landowners can benefit
significantly from congressional reaffirmation of the status of these
non-Federal lands. The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1629 as
a means of providing that reaffirmation to residents of the Upper
Missouri Breaks area.
Background
The proclamation designated 377,346 acres of Federal lands as a
National Monument, running along 149 miles of the Missouri River. It
includes the Wild and Scenic River corridor of the Upper Missouri River
as well as large blocks of land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, and a small number of acres managed by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. The Monument boundary also contains nearly 82,000
acres of private land and 39,000 acres of state land.
The language of the proclamation states clearly that the Monument
itself is established on ``all lands and interests in lands owned or
controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area
described on the map...consist[ing] of approximately 377,346 acres...''
On these Federal lands, the Monument proclamation imposed a number of
restrictions, including the withdrawal from entry, location, selection,
sale or leasing under the public land laws, the mining laws and mineral
leasing laws. It also prohibits off road motorized and mechanized
vehicle use, except for emergency or administrative purposes. The
proclamation does provide for continued livestock grazing and
management of oil and gas development on existing leases.
The formal planning for the Monument began on April 24, 2002, with
the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. During the 120-day
scoping period in the summer of 2002, the BLM's Lewistown Field Office
hosted a series of 11 open houses throughout north central Montana.
In July of 2003, the Lewistown Field Office again held public
meetings in 11 north central Montana communities, this time to begin
formulating alternatives for the Resource Management Plan (RMP). These
meetings included a short formal presentation by the BLM, one-on-one
discussions between the public and resource specialists, and an open
forum moderated by a member of the Central Montana Resource Advisory
Council. Approximately 350 members of the public attended the 11
meetings. The Field Office also received approximately 8,500 letters
and emails regarding potential alternatives. Governor Martz established
a task force that made recommendations concerning the Monument and its
management. This input along with all other comments and
recommendations are currently being reviewed and considered.
The draft RMP is scheduled for release in the summer of 2004.
During the public comment period following release of the draft, the
BLM will hold another 11 public meetings across north central Montana
to review the document. Throughout the process, the Monument staff will
continue to engage the public through regular updates on its website
and through mailings as well as through local media outlets.
The Status of Non-Federal Lands Within the Monument
The Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906, authorizes the President to
designate National Monuments on lands owned or controlled by the
Federal Government at the time of the Monument proclamation. The
Antiquities Act states, ``The President of the United States is
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation
historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other
objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the
lands owned or controlled by the Government, and may reserve as part
thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be
confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.''
The proclamation of January 17, 2001, sets apart and reserves lands
and interests in lands owned or controlled by the United States within
the boundaries of the National Monument described on the map made part
of the proclamation. The proclamation also recognizes the standing of
all valid, existing rights and interests within the Monument
boundaries. Although the proclamation makes clear that non-federal
lands within the boundary of the Monument are not a part of the
Monument, owners of private and state land within the Monument remain
concerned about the Monument's implications for non-federal lands. On
June 30, 2003, the BLM's Lewistown Field Office issued a report
entitled, ``The Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument--Analysis of
the Management Situation.'' In that report, it states, ``The BLM has no
jurisdiction over State or private land contained within the Monument
boundary.'' We believe H.R. 1629 adds legal finality to this statement.
H.R. 1629
The legislation offered by Representative Rehberg would help
reassure those who have expressed concerns regarding the proclamation
of January 17, 2001. It would reaffirm that private lands are not
within the boundary of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National
Monument and it would direct the Department of the Interior to provide
a map for management planning purposes to reflect the actual federal
lands that make up the Monument itself.
H.R. 1629 would give non-Federal landowners the assurance that
their cooperation is voluntary and, hopefully, will improve their
participation as partners with our Federal land managers. The
Department notes that this in no way prevents willing sellers from
working with the Administration to add their lands to the Monument
where all parties believe it is appropriate.
The Department urges the Committee to amend Section 2(a) of the act
by striking ``any privately owned property'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``any property not owned or controlled by the Federal
Government at the time of issuance of that Proclamation.'' The
legislation currently refers only to privately owned property, which
leaves out the roughly 39,000 acres of state-owned lands. We believe
that the same assurances provided to private landowners should also be
given to the State of Montana and any other non-Federal landowner that
might possess property within the proclamation boundary.
Conclusion
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have for me.
______
Mr. Calvert. The Department actually has no, to our
knowledge, sees no connection to the National Park Service
program in this bill and the money would be a pass-through
grant administered by the Department of Justice, and for that
reason, we would defer in our testimony and our position on
this bill to the Department of Justice.
I would be happy to pass along any questions on the bill to
the Department of Justice, but unfortunately, I will not be
able to answer any on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2424
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 2424, a bill to authorize assistance for the National Great Blacks
in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center.
H.R. 2424 would authorize assistance for the National Great Blacks
in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, Maryland,
administered by a non-profit group, The Great Blacks in Wax Museum,
Inc. The Museum features wax figures and related interactive
educational exhibits that celebrate the history of Black Americans. The
bill authorizes $15 million from the Department of Justice to pay the
federal share of the costs of expanding the Museum and creating the
Justice Learning Center.
H.R. 2424 does not appear to provide any role for the Department of
the Interior with the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum nor are we
aware of any connection this museum has with any National Park
programs. We therefore, defer to the Department of Justice for its
position on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other Committee members might have.
______
Mr. Calvert. And on H.R. 2966, a bill offered by Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Nunez, Mr. Rehberg, and others, it is a bill to
preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on
public lands.
In my capacity, I will work directly only with the Bureau
of Land Management, but it is my distinct pleasure today to
speak on behalf of the other Interior agencies, notably the
National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.
The administration supports the goals of this bill.
However, we would like to work with the Committee to clarify
several points as you move forward in the process.
We do support continuing to provide access for pack and
saddle stock animals on our public lands. Using these animals
is often the most appropriate way for visitors to enjoy many
back-country landscapes that are otherwise inaccessible.
On BLM lands alone, 73,000 recreational visits in 2002 are
attributed to horse and animal pack stock recreational use, and
it is our intention to assure that opportunities for that type
of use remain available on the public lands managed by the
Department of Interior.
The Department believes two points, however, should be
clarified in the legislation. The bill requires the Secretaries
of Interior and Agriculture to provide for management of lands,
to preserve or facilitate continued use and access where there
is historical tradition of such use. It also allows reductions
in the use of that access on lands only after complying with
the full review process required under NEPA. I would like to
address the NEPA issue first.
In my statement, I mentioned that the legislation, the
Department feels that the legislation is unnecessary. We do so
because it is our view that we already fully comply with NEPA
whenever we make decisions about land uses. We do this in a
number of ways. First, our land management plans, our park
plans, comprehensive conservation plans for refuges, Monument
plans, wilderness plans, and any other comprehensive land plans
that we do are all subject to NEPA. These typically utilize
Environment Impact Statements that include a full public
comment period.
We also use in our management decisions, where appropriate,
environmental analysis and FONZIs, categorical exclusions, and,
where appropriate, full Environmental Impact Statements, and
these decisionmaking processes all fully comply with NEPA.
Temporary collusions and reductions are usually allowed for
management plans, but on occasion may be conducted pursuant to
a categorical exclusion or an EA FONZI. Depending on the
Bureau, temporary closures include measures to protect wildlife
habitat, the vegetation, as well as health and safety of the
visitors. There are also different provisions for addressing
closures relating to emergency reasons, such as fires and
floods.
The other thing that we would like to point out is that
this legislation potentially sets up a conflicting priority for
recreational use for certain agencies. For example, permitted
uses in the National Wildlife Refuges must be compatible for
the purposes for which each refuge was established. They must
also comply with the six wildlife-dependent priority public
uses--hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and interpretation--that Congress
established in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service embraces these
six uses as the core of their mission. We are concerned that
additional prescribed uses would alter the balance among
competing recreational uses that are currently achieved through
the land planning process.
That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2966
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2966, to preserve the use and
access of pack and saddle stock animals on public lands, including
wilderness areas, National Monuments, and other specifically designated
areas, administered by the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and the Forest Service where there is a historical tradition of
such use.
We share the goal of ensuring that the use and access of pack and
saddle stock animals remains a viable recreational option on public
lands where those activities are currently provided. However, this
legislation is unnecessary because the Department already complies with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) when making
decisions concerning recreation use, including the use of environmental
assessments and categorical conclusions where appropriate. As described
more fully below, the Department does have concerns with provisions in
the bill that appear to give more weight to one recreational use than
to others without consideration of the agency's mission.
Providing appropriate recreational opportunities on federal lands
is an important priority for the Department. Traveling through the
backcountry with pack and saddle stock animals is an enjoyable,
practical, and meaningful way to experience some of the most
magnificent landscapes our country has to offer. For example, it has
long been a recreational attraction for visitors to our beautiful
National Parks in the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains, in particular.
On BLM lands alone, 73,000 recreational visits in 2002 were attributed
to horse or animal pack stock recreational use. It is our intention to
ensure that opportunities for this type of recreational use remain
available on the public lands managed by the Department.
H.R. 2966 would require the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to provide for the management of lands under their
respective jurisdictions to preserve and facilitate the continued use
and access of pack and saddle stock animals on lands where there is a
historical tradition of such use. It would allow the two Secretaries to
implement a proposed reduction in the use and access of pack and saddle
stock animals on such lands only after complying with the full review
process required under NEPA.
The Department believes that the provisions that apply NEPA to any
proposed changes in stock use are redundant. Under existing law,
changes in recreational uses on public lands are made through public
planning processes, such as proposed revisions to general management
plans for units of the National Park System, land use plans or activity
plans for BLM lands, and comprehensive conservation plans for National
Wildlife Refuges administered by FWS. These planning processes are all
subject to NEPA, and all offer ample opportunities for public
participation in the decision-making process.
In addition to these plans, the Department also complies with NEPA
when developing its wilderness management plans. For example, while BLM
generally allows the recreational use of pack stock in wilderness
areas, in some instances, the wilderness management plan prescribes
certain limitations. In Aravipa Canyon Wilderness, horses and pack
stock are limited to five per party, and stock use within the canyon
itself is limited to day use. This policy is in place for the
protection of sensitive riparian vegetation and as a result of
conflicts with other recreation users in the narrow canyon corridor. In
Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness, for safety reasons, the
horses and pack stock are not allowed in the Coyote Butte Special
Management Area, and commercial use is limited in the narrow upper two
thirds of the Paria Canyon. The slick rock environment is not suitable
for horse or pack stock travel and creates unsafe conditions for
recreational users.
National parks with backcountry recreational stock use typically
have a pack horse plan or equivalent plan supported by environmental
analysis and public disclosure under NEPA. Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks have a very sophisticated program for managing pack and
saddle use that provides for stock use when and where it is
appropriate, while protecting park resources. Rocky Mountains National
Park has a horse plan in effect that has resolved many longstanding
controversies between stock users and hikers.
In addition to decisions made during the planning process,
temporary closures to recreation uses made by the Department also meet
NEPA requirements by qualifying for a categorical exclusion or
undergoing a separate environmental assessment. Categorically excluded
actions fully comply with NEPA under the implementing regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality, which allow agencies to exclude a
category of actions from detailed NEPA analysis based on an agency
finding that such category of actions do not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Temporary closures include
measures to protect wildlife habitat, vegetation and, in some cases,
the health and safety of visitors.
All recreational activities that occur on federal lands should be
compatible with the respective agency's mission. By statute, for
example, all uses of refuges must be compatible with the purposes for
which each individual National Wildlife Refuge was established. The FWS
has concerns that the legislation appears to be in conflict with the
six wildlife-dependent priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation) that Congress established in the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. FWS views these six uses as
consistent with its mission. For FWS and other agencies, we are
concerned that this legislation would alter the balance among competing
recreational uses currently achieved through their respective planning
processes.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or the other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I have a couple questions regarding H.R.
2966, my bill. The questions are long, so I am going to read it
out. If I have to read it twice, that is fine.
Mr. Calvert, in your testimony, you state that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that my legislation is
in conflict with the six wildlife-dependent priority public
uses, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
However, would you agree that all of those listed wildlife-
dependent priority public uses can be accomplished on foot? In
other words, how is a pack and saddle animal use a conflicting
or competing interest, if you will, with those listed uses?
Mr. Calvert. I would like to, if I may, respond more fully
in writing in case I miss something the Fish and Wildlife
Service would like to add. However, the response that I can
give you is that the agency views those six statutory
compatible uses as the priority uses that they have before
them, and to add another use that potentially is higher in
priority than those presents a conflict for them that they are
not--it is not clear in the bill how you intend to reconcile
the stock and saddle animal use with those uses if there is a
conflict.
Mr. Radanovich. You don't view them as competing uses,
rather a statement of priority, one over the other?
Mr. Calvert. Not necessarily, but they could be.
Mr. Radanovich. Another long question. In your testimony,
you state that the agency is attempting to implement temporary
trail closures may qualify for a categorical exclusion in
compliance with NEPA under the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and would then be allowed to forego a
detailed NEPA analysis. Is it possible, then, that certain
administrations may be afforded the ability to hide behind that
categorical exclusion in an attempt to close the trail?
Mr. Calvert. Well, categorical exclusions are only
available where, first of all, they have been defined by the
Department as an available categorical exclusion, but second
and more importantly, if they meet any of the extraordinary--if
circumstances meet any of the extraordinary circumstances
provided in the law, then the categorical exclusion can't be
used, and those extraordinary circumstances can be things as
simple as heightened public controversy.
So, technically, categorical exclusions are used where you
need to be fully compliant with NEPA but where you feel that
your other NEPA documentation is already complete.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are on H.R. 1629 particularly. Mr. Calvert,
you said in your testimony that while the Monument proclamation
doesn't affect the security of title held by private or State
landholders, it might affect their interests. Can you explain
what interests might be affected and how they would be
affected?
Mr. Calvert. I can't make the case for them. I understand
that there are a number of concerns that they have. It is the
Department's view as well as the Bureau of Land Management's
stated view that we have no jurisdiction over those private and
State lands. However, they have legitimate questions as to why,
in a number of circumstances, the boundary lines were drawn
through their private land as opposed to around only Federal
land, and in order to try to provide a more cooperative spirit
in the development of the management plan for the Monument, the
Department feels it is important to give those people
additional certainty. For whatever reason, they feel that their
title could be affected in the future.
Mrs. Christensen. Your testimony also says that by
including private property in the exterior boundary, the
Monument creates a legal uncertainty, and I guess that sort of
must relate to the answer that you just gave me, but I am
wondering, also, is it your assertion that all National
Monuments that have private property in their exterior
boundaries also have legal uncertainty? This is really
important to me, because I have in-holdings in my own parks. Is
that the Department's position?
Mr. Calvert. No. It is important to distinguish, first of
all, the difference between the park Monuments, those that have
been set up to be administered by the National Park Service,
and this new raft of Monuments that were designated that were
handed over to the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of
Land Management had no practices in place to respond to that
and it was really dealing with these issues as sort of a first
impression.
The question isn't about necessarily what the status is for
the in-holdings. The question is, what is the purpose of the
boundary where it crosses private land only, and there are a
number of circumstances where that occurs in the Upper Missouri
River Breaks Monument, where the boundary wasn't drawn the most
narrowly, or as narrowly as it could have been. It was drawn
instead across private land, and those people have, I think, a
legitimate question in that what does this mean for me. Why is
this boundary running across my Federal land?
Mrs. Christensen. I would imagine, I know in our case, the
boundaries were placed where they were placed for a particular
reason, because of the need to protect certain resources. Is it
possible that those boundaries were drawn in an arbitrary
fashion rather than for a specific reason that can be justified
to the landowners?
Mr. Calvert. Well, anything is possible. I can't speak to
what the motivations were specifically about drawing the
boundary where it was drawn. It is my assumption that they
attempted to, particularly on the Western side of the Monument,
to capture the natural geology that runs along the river and
the features that accompany the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.
With regard to the Western side, I really can't--or, I am
sorry, the Eastern side, where it sort of balloons there up
above, I really can't speak to the motivations for drawing the
boundaries in one place or another.
Mrs. Christensen. Has the Federal Government threatened or
otherwise adversely affected the private property rights on the
35,000-plus acres of private land in the Upper Missouri Wild
and Scenic River that was designated in 1976 and which is also
within the exterior boundary of the National Monument?
Mr. Calvert. Not to my knowledge.
Mrs. Christensen. Deputy Assistant Secretary Morrison
testified last year that the Department was doing a study of
private lands within National Monuments. What discussions have
there been in the Department on the legal status of private
lands within the National Monuments?
Mr. Calvert. To the extent that the Solicitor's Office has
attempted to analyze the questions that we discussed a moment
ago about the effect of the boundary, those discussions have
been internal to the Solicitor's Office. There are several
divisions of the Solicitor's Office which each respond to
different clients within the Department and the discussions
have been between those offices. To my knowledge, there are no
plans to issue an official opinion of the Solicitor's Office.
Mrs. Christensen. So is the study ongoing?
Mr. Calvert. There wasn't a study in a formal sense. There
was an analysis that the Solicitor's Office and its individual
divisions were attempting to first scope and identify what
issues of controversy were out there and whether there were
clear legal responses to those. But----
Mrs. Christensen. Wouldn't it help to clarify for this and
future Monuments this issue of boundaries and whatever
interests would or would not be affected and whatever legal
uncertainties might exist if a Solicitor's opinion was issued?
Mr. Calvert. It would be helpful to provide guidance from
the Department on issues where there isn't a clear answer. On
the fact that the Federal Government is not going to assert
jurisdiction over private or State lands, we are clear on that.
But that doesn't get to the issue of why the boundary is where
it is and whether there is any future effect on those lands.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rehberg.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert, by changing the boundaries, does it in any
way, shape, or form change the size of the Monument?
Mr. Calvert. It changes the size encompassed inside the
external boundary. If----
Mr. Rehberg. But not the Monument.
Mr. Calvert. If you read the Antiquities Act and if you
read the management analysis of the BLM, the Monument itself is
the Federal land inside of the Monument and that would not
change.
Mr. Rehberg. Wouldn't you agree perhaps that usually when
these kinds of things are done in haste, mistakes are made, and
from your perspective within a new administration, was this
done in a hasty fashion at the last hour of the Presidential
administration, or was it done with forethought, with adequate
notice, public comment, a legal map that the landowners could
see and knew that their land was going to be included?
Mr. Calvert. To my knowledge, there were no public
meetings. There were no maps provided in advance. There was no
comment taken in developing the boundary. That doesn't mean
that the boundary wasn't done with a lot of thought-provoking
and searching analysis. But it was issued at the very end of
the administration and it was done without public comment.
Mr. Rehberg. So if you were going to follow the spirit of
the type of government we have in America, you would have made
a map available to the landowners to specifically say, your
land may be included in this Monument. What is your opinion?
Are you for it or against it?
Mr. Calvert. I can only speak as a member of Secretary
Norton's administration, and from our perspective, I am sure
you have heard it before, she ascribes to the four ``C''s and
would not have recommended making a Monument without working
with the local landowners first.
Mr. Rehberg. When this Committee had the hearing last year,
Mr. Chairman, I asked the question of the administration, had a
map been put out yet, because it had not been done at the time
that it was created and it had not been done at the time of the
testimony by the administration. I ask you the same question,
Mr. Calvert. Is there now a map that clearly defines
legitimately or legally exactly what private lands are included
along the periphery?
Mr. Calvert. At the time of the hearing, the last time,
there was the map that had been put into the Federal Register
with the proclamation, which was a small map printed on black
and white paper and not very easy to read. There is now a map
in the Lewiston Field Office in Montana that provides fairly
certain boundaries. If you are a property owner, you can go in
and find out whether you are inside or outside without
question. It also----
Mr. Rehberg. Has that map been provided to each of the
landowners?
Mr. Calvert. That, I can't answer, but I would be happy to
find out.
Mr. Rehberg. Would you, please?
Mr. Calvert. It is the planning map that is being used in
the field office.
Mr. Rehberg. At the time of the hearing a year ago, I asked
specifically the question, had the administration, the Clinton
administration, ever communicated with the landowners the
potentiality of their land being included. The answer was no,
or we are not sure, we will check. Have you ever been able to
identify any way, shape, or form that the landowners were told
which acreage of their private land was going to be drawn
inside the boundary?
Mr. Calvert. No. It would be hard to confirm that. I know
certain landowners were part of the discussion that led up to
the development of the Monument, but I can't tell you which
ones. Certainly, not all.
Mr. Rehberg. Land owners that are currently included in the
new Monument?
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. I would like----
Mr. Calvert. To the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Rehberg. OK. You have been involved in the public lands
issue for a long time. One of the things I say on the stump
back in my State is, just remember, there is no such thing as a
promise in our form of government, that while we state that we
are going to do something today, people kind of forget that 10
years from now. Can you look this Committee in the eye and tell
us that under no way, shape, or form there will ever be any
change in the management of that BLM land that will directly or
indirectly affect the private property that are included in the
in-holdings?
Mr. Calvert. No. I can only give you certainty that there
would be no change pushed forward by us.
Mr. Rehberg. So all the promises----
Mr. Calvert. A lawsuit could change--judicial review could
change the status of in-holdings. That is--beyond the four
years that we have there, I can't provide any certainty.
Mr. Rehberg. So a different administration with a different
philosophy could, in fact, because that private property is
included inside the boundaries, affect the management of the
Federal properties and indirectly affect the private property
management?
Mr. Calvert. They would have to change the current
interpretation of the Antiquities Act, but yes, I mean, they
could certainly argue that.
Mr. Rehberg. And one of the arguments is this is precedent-
setting, that it somehow affects another State or another
district or another park. Do you see anything in this bill
that, in fact, affects any other State, any other Monument, any
other park?
Mr. Calvert. Not in this bill, no.
Mr. Rehberg. I think my time is about up. I will save it,
if we get a chance for----
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Land
issues always catch my eye. I come from a very small territory
named Guam and land is very precious to all of us.
I have a question on H.R. 1629 to you, Mr. Calvert. I want
to understand this. So in what specific ways does inclusion of
private property inside the exterior boundary of the National
Monument affect their property? Does it impinge upon their
access to the property or impact their use of their property,
either positively or negatively? And if so, in what ways?
And then my second part of this question is, some examples
that you could share would be most helpful for me to
understand, and that is the implications of including or
excluding these properties inside the exterior boundary. And
maybe you could also enlighten us on the implications either
way for the BLM's management of the Monument. In other words,
what are the advantages or disadvantages of including these
private properties and do these people have any rights?
Mr. Calvert. Well, they certainly have all of their valid
existing rights. The proclamation makes that clear. The
Antiquities Act also applies only to Federal lands, so
arguably, there is no--in fact, the Department and the BLM have
stated as such, that there is no Federal jurisdiction over the
private and State lands by virtue of this Monument
proclamation.
Ms. Bordallo. So they can use their properties in any way
they wish?
Mr. Calvert. Well, consistent with nuisance laws and things
like that, yes. They can use them for any use they could have
used before the Monument. And I guess that answers your first
question. I am not sure.
On the second question, you asked for examples of
implications, and I am not sure exactly how to respond to that.
The most notable implications for private landowners, or the
questions that are raised are in places where the boundary
crosses their property and doesn't simply include Federal land.
It is common that you have in-holdings that are surrounded by
Federal land inside of a specific management unit. That occurs
all the time in parks and even within BLM conservation areas,
et cetera.
But it is uncommon to have boundaries of something like a
Monument, which is supposed to be drawn as narrowly as
possible, to go across or even around private land and simply
not--not just by the fact that it is surrounded by Federal
land, but to actually include it inside of a boundary for no
other purpose than drawing the boundary around it.
And that is what--given that the BLM asserts no
jurisdiction over this land, the instant question that comes to
mind is what effect does the boundary have? You are inside the
boundary, but are you a part of the Monument? I think the
answer to that is clearly no. But you are inside of the
boundary. And so the question that naturally arises in
landowners' minds is, why am I inside the boundary and what
implication does this have for me?
I can't with a fortune ball be able to identify all of the
potential implications that could occur in the future. There
will be a management plan that manages the use of the Federal
lands inside of the Monument. That management plan is ongoing.
The scope and process is being completed. They are working--the
BLM in Montana is working to put together a draft management
plan that should be completed by next summer and we will go out
for extensive public comment at that time.
Issues that could affect people's use of their land will be
things that have to do with the rights-of-way, that have to do
with any number of issues that relate to Federal and private
management anywhere. This is--if you have to have a right-of-
way where it crosses Federal land where it is not in a
Monument, you have to go through the Title V process to get
that right-of-way. That is not supposed to change. This
Monument shouldn't change the Title V right-of-way permitting
process. That is not to say that 10 years from now, it won't. I
can't answer that.
Ms. Bordallo. One other question, if I could, Mr. Chairman,
and I don't know, maybe the author could answer this better
than Mr. Calvert, but has the Federal Government ever made any
move to compensate property owners if they are interested, or
has there been any request on the part of the private owners to
compensate them for their property? I don't know, is this a
good question or not?
Mr. Rehberg. It is a good question. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentlelady yields, no, there has been no offer of compensation.
See, therein lies the issue. When you asked the question, does
it affect the private property, no. So why have it in the
boundary? Well, there must be a direct effect, then, or an
indirect effect or people wouldn't be working so hard not to
change----
Ms. Bordallo. To get it included.
Mr. Rehberg [continuing]. The way it was included. So yes,
there is an indirect effect, and what the indirect effect is,
the Federal Government wants to be the purchasers of that land
in the future, and that puts a cloud on either the title or the
land itself, because if the Federal Government has its fingers
on or designs on that property, indirectly they are saying, we
want to be the purchaser. Now, if the Federal Government really
wanted that land, would they poke the landowners in the eye as
they are doing? So when the argument is made, it doesn't affect
the private property that is inside that boundary, well,
obviously, it does, because people are working pretty hard to
keep it in there.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bishop for any questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Calvert, in the Antiquities Act
that was used for this particular Monument, historically, that
Act was used to designate a Monument where some kind of Federal
resource, either historical or archaeological, was under an
immediate threat. In the case of this particular Monument,
could you tell me what created the urgency to create the
boundaries as they are right now? What was the immediate threat
to a resource within this particular area?
Mr. Calvert. I can't answer what created the immediate and
urgent need to establish it because I was not there when it was
established. The BLM has put out in its management analysis the
purposes of the Monument, which probably give us the best guide
for why the Monument is there. There are certain geological
natural features there that are arguably worth protecting, or
from certain uses. But I can't tell you what the imminent or
urgent need was to do the Monument the way it was done.
Mr. Bishop. OK. That is sometimes helpful. I appreciate
that.
Since I was a little bit late coming in here, let me get a
couple of things that I think have been heard and I want to
make sure that they are there. If you do have private lands and
State lands and public lands within this particular
designation, that will always present the potential for some
kind of conflict. Am I correct in making the assumption that
there will always be a potential legal cloud over this
particular Monument that could frustrate both the private
citizens as well as the Federal Government's design unless you
do something to try and rectify the problem of having private
lands within this Monument?
Mr. Calvert. I don't want to say that there is a permanent
legal cloud on their title because that would be incorrect from
my understanding, for me to verify that, so to speak. But there
is an ongoing conflict surrounding the development of the
management plan for the Monument that directly relates to the
3,300-plus landowners who have communicated with Congressman
Rehberg. They support this bill because they do not believe
that their private lands should have been included in the
Monument and the Department doesn't feel that there is any
compelling reason to keep them inside of the boundary.
Mr. Bishop. So that would simply solve that problem?
Mr. Calvert. That is my understanding.
Mr. Bishop. And the Department does support this bill?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Udall?
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Calvert, for being with us
today. Do the interim management guidelines for the National
Monument threaten private property rights?
Mr. Calvert. I don't believe they do, no, sir.
Mr. Tom Udall. Will the final management plan for the
National Monument threaten private property rights?
Mr. Calvert. Well, I can't speak to what will be in the
final management plan until it is issued, but I don't
anticipate that it will, no, sir.
Mr. Tom Udall. And are the historic and scientific
resources of the Upper Missouri Breaks area confined solely to
Federal lands?
Mr. Calvert. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Tom Udall. Are the historic and scientific resources of
the Upper Missouri Breaks area confined solely to Federal
lands?
Mr. Calvert. I can't answer that. I am not familiar with
all of the scientific or historical resources that might be
there.
Mr. Tom Udall. Isn't it true that the Antiquities Act
allows the Secretary of Interior to acquire property from
willing sellers when historic and scientific resources of a
National Monument are also located on private lands?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tom Udall. I don't have any further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
Any other questions? Denny?
Mr. Rehberg. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I just want to
make a couple of points but ask you the question.
By including private land on the periphery within the
boundary, do you believe the intended--the stated intent is to
eventually have the Federal Government purchase that property?
Mr. Calvert. I can't say what the intent was, but what the
proclamation says is that, if private land inside the boundary
is acquired at any time in the future, it will become a part of
the Monument.
Mr. Rehberg. All right. We have already established the
fact that the Federal Government did not follow normal
procedures by having hearings, talking to the landowners,
asking their opinion, so we have already circumvented one
public process. If that land inside those boundaries comes up
for sale, if the boundaries were not on the outside of the
private property, legislation would have to be crafted by the
Bureau of Land Management asking permission of the Congress to
purchase the land and an appropriation made.
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rehberg. But not under the designation of the Monument,
because now the line is on the outside and once again it will
circumvent the public process because the Bureau of Land
Management will be able to buy the land directly without
Congressional approval, is that correct?
Mr. Calvert. Well, if money is made available by the
appropriators, yes, the land could be acquired and it would
become a part of the Monument without further action by
Congress or the President as the proclamation----
Mr. Rehberg. So not only did we not have public input on
the creation of the Monument in the first place and the
addition of the public lands, the boundary, but if the land is
purchased, we also won't have public input. So we are
compounding a problem, I would suggest.
Mr. Calvert. There would not be additional public input.
There would be Congressional activity because it would require
approval of the appropriations, but that is it.
Mr. Rehberg. If I might make a point to Mr. Udall, perhaps
you weren't here when I was asking questions before, but I just
would like to say that you used the word ``final'' guidelines.
There is no such thing as final, and nobody can assure that
what this administration establishes becomes the management of
that National Monument for all eternity because that Monument
is going to be around forever, but the next administration,
whoever that might be, whether it is the Bush administration or
someone else, can change those guidelines and the promise
cannot be made, and that is what these landowners fear, because
they never had an opportunity to suggest whether they wanted
their land included or not. There is no such thing as finality
in this form of government.
Mr. Tom Udall. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rehberg. I yield.
Mr. Tom Udall. I think I was using those terms in terms of
the legal term of art, that that is what they are titled in
order to ask him.
Mr. Rehberg. Yes.
Mr. Tom Udall. Isn't it true that, if I can go further, I
would just like to clarify one of the questions you were
asking, Mr. Rehberg. Your administration, if you had the intent
to go out and purchase these lands through the appropriations
process as has been outlined, you, of course, would involve the
public and do whatever you could to make sure that the public
was notified, the landowners were notified, and all of that,
wouldn't you?
Mr. Calvert. The Department abides by the four ``C''s
wherever it can and consults with the local population before
making significant decisions, yes, sir.
Mr. Rehberg. Reclaiming my time, that makes my point of the
difference between the last administration and this
administration. The last administration did not fulfill its
requirements of public notification and actually involve the
landowners. This administration is, but can you look me in the
eye and say the next administration, if it is not yours, is
going to do the same, and you just stated----
Mr. Calvert. Of course not.
Mr. Rehberg. Therein lies the point. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg.
Two questions for Mr. Calvert regarding the Missouri
Breaks. Under the Monument designation for private property, if
they are in-holders, are rights-of-way affected to the private
property owner under that Monument designation?
Mr. Calvert. To the extent that there are existing rights-
of-way permits, there is no effect. And, in fact, although
there isn't specific guidance on it in the management plan
because it isn't completed yet, in the interim guidelines that
Congressman Udall referenced, there is a specific mention of
Title V permitting, which is how the BLM typically processes
right-of-way applications and says that those decisions are not
a part of the management of the Monument itself, that those
decisions occur outside of that. And so processing, in theory,
processing of rights-of-way permits should not be affected.
The actual access won't be affected. The location of it
might. In order to protect certain geological features, the BLM
might require that an access road go around or go this way or
connect up to a different road somewhere else. The access
itself shouldn't be affected, but the location of the road
might be.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you very much.
Any other questions from members?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. If not, Mr. Calvert, thank you for being
here and speaking on these three bills.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Next, I will call up our third panel, which
includes Ms. Jennifer Roeser, who is the owner of McGee Creek
Pack Station from Mammoth Lakes, California; Joanne Martin,
Ph.D., President and CEO of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in
Baltimore, Maryland; Mr. Matt Knox, Chairman of the Missouri
River Stewards from Winifred, Montana; and Mr. Hugo Tureck, who
is the Vice Chairman of the Friends of the Missouri Breaks
Monument, Coffee Creek, Montana.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. We will
hear testimony from each of you. You have got five minutes. You
can sum up your written statements, because as you know,
written statements are included in the record anyway. Each will
be speaking for five minutes. If you will mind the clock, that
would be very helpful, and then we will go for questions from
the panel afterwards.
Ms. Roeser, we will start with you, if you will begin your
testimony, and welcome to the Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER ROESER, OWNER, McGEE CREEK PACK STATION,
MAMMOTH LAKES, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Roeser. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich and members of
the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
talk with you today about the critical need and the importance
of preserving the historic use and access of pack and saddle
stock animals--horses and mules is what we are talking about--
on our Federal lands. I am pleased to be with you and provide
this testimony and to answer any questions you have.
As a member and a director of the High Sierra Packers
Association, a second-generation owner of McGee Creek Pack
Station on the Inyo National Forest in California, a member of
the Back Country Horsemen of California, a nationally ranked
endurance trail rider, the wife of a Forest Service packer who
is also a second-generation pack station operator, and a
lifelong stock user of the mountains in California, I come
before you with testimony from my personal experience, my
professional background and business experience, and more than
anything, a heartfelt belief in the value and contribution that
maintaining this historic use can have for this society and for
future generations to come.
I hope to convey to you the long and frustrating struggle
that the stock use community has been going through for over 20
years to hold on to the trails and areas that have been
historically used by stock. This is a very important turning
point with the proposed Right to Ride Livestock Act, to protect
this legacy for the future. I hope to offer a brief history and
perspective of why the use of pack and saddle stock on Federal
lands is important to the public, to identify problems that
stock users encounter as they use Federal lands, and to
identify our perception as to the cause of the problem, and to
emphasize the need for urgency in passing this legislation.
For those who use pack and saddle stock, leading the pack
train is a way of reliving the pioneer era. It provides a link
with the past and is something that cannot be done without a
trail system, trail head access, and undeveloped areas for
camping. Having a sense of discovery and exploration is what
many users are seeking. They want and need to have a sense of
getting away from it all.
We are seeing an increasing loss of access through trail
restrictions, trail closures, and use restrictions. Stock users
are being prohibited from using areas they have historically
traveled through and they are being concentrated into ever-
smaller areas. In our business, the cumulative impact of the
restrictions placed on where we can travel and the trails we
can use has resulted in significant loss of opportunities for
families, persons with disabilities, school groups, church
groups, and others who use stock. In designated wilderness
areas, there is a management environment less tolerant of these
traditional forms of use. Restrictions are being advocated by a
minority group of users and agency personnel who personally do
not want to see stock use in the mountains.
Time is of the essence in passing this legislation.
Currently, there are numerous closures taking place that are
affecting stock users' access to trails right now. Historic
pack stations are being closed without any public notice.
Agency plans have increasingly more stock use restrictions
without any science or valid rationale to support the actions,
and with the number of National Forests, National Park, and
area management plan revisions due in the near future, time is
critical to prevent the loss of trails and access for stock.
I just want to give you a quick, very quick history. Some
of the conservation and preservation leaders of the past--it is
sort of relevant, because this is the bicentennial of the Lewis
and Clark expedition and that was sort of the beginning of
where this came from. But Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot,
Aldo Leopold, Steven Mather, and Horace Albright were great
leaders and had a vision for what was needed to protect
America's lands.
Pack and saddle stock provided the principal means of
transportation in the exploration and development of the
mountainous regions of the United States. Explorers, such as
Lewis and Clark, Jedadiah Smith, John Fremont, Joseph Walker,
dependent on horses and mules to take them over the rough
terrain encountered on their travels. The U.S. Calvary relied
on horses and mules for transportation on their patrols of
public lands prior to the formation of National Park and Forest
Systems.
The richness of our Federal land system is due in part to
our explorers' and conservation leaders' ability to conduct
their duties using horses and mules. The extensive trail system
that exists today in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range of
California was built to facilitate the movement of pack animals
through the high country.
Recreational use of the back country by horsemen began in
the early 1800s as local residents traveled to the high country
to escape the heat of California valleys. As road systems
developed on each side of the Sierra in the early 1920s, the
commercial packing business began in earnest, and by the mid-
1930s, the packing business was in full swing, with many
outfits providing services to those anxious to visit the High
Sierra. Commercial packers played an important role in the
emergencies and for suppression of wildfires in back country
and wilderness areas.
Our link to the past is important as it provides us with an
understanding of the processes that shaped our American history
and culture. Many users of pack and saddle stock seek to find
and experience the historic activities of an earlier time. To
be able to view and live as early explorers did provides many
users the opportunity to connect with history outside of a
museum setting. Our link to the past is our ability to carry
out this tradition and culture of the early day pioneer and to
work to ensure that these traditional skills are not lost to
future generations.
As we begin our journey into the 21st century, free and
unrestricted wilderness travel is fast becoming an anachronism.
Incremental restrictions and regulations threaten the very
essence of the wilderness experience and the ability to
continue historic patterns and types of travel in remote,
unroaded back country is eroding year by year.
Some of the problems that I just want to quickly outline
are loss of access, first of all. One of the most important
issues facing those who use pack and saddle stock on public
lands is the loss of access. This issue is identified by a
report to this Committee by Dr. John Hughes, Chairman of the
University of California at Davis. He mentioned closures and
exclusions at the time, alarming condition of back country and
wilderness trails, overregulation, and the need for legislative
relief.
Loss of services to the public are being experienced. The
general public who do not have their own stock still want to
have the experience of exploration, discovery, and enjoyment,
and getting away from it all. We sense an antagonism from
agency personnel merely because we are commercial businesses
and being in business means we need to make a profit.
The end result is the public who wishes to use our services
is denied even further because of the additional constraints
that are placed on commercial providers. We provide America's
last chance for families to vacation together without the
gadgets that are so much a part of our daily lives. No video
games, no phones, no TVs means most families can interact with
each other on a one-to-one basis. That is pretty important.
One of our perceived causes of the problem is that our
history of pack and saddle stock is being eroded by the
personal agendas of extreme environmental groups and aligned
agency personnel. Additionally, we are losing the
infrastructure of our trail system due to lack of annual
maintenance and a downgrading of the trail system, which is due
in part to lack of maintenance.
It appears the agencies are interpreting the Wilderness Act
with a conspicuous bias toward extreme preservationism at the
expense of the equally important responsibility of providing
for the use and enjoyment of the American people. It is our
belief that this is not what Congress intended when they passed
the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The efforts of land managers to place higher emphasis on
restoring pristine conditions are the result of misguided
preservation and purity biases. In fact, the House report on
the Endangered American Wilderness bill specifically directed
the Forest Service to abandon its purity approach. Congress
clearly expected that wilderness would accommodate a wide
spectrum of Americans who desired a wilderness-type recreation.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Roeser?
Ms. Roeser. Yes?
Mr. Radanovich. If I can, I forgot to mention the five-
minute clock. Would you like to sum up now?
Ms. Roeser. I will do that, yes. I am sorry. I saw three
minutes over there.
I will just sum up by saying that the timing for this
legislation is appropriate and that we have tried, not only as
private stock users, but as commercial entities, every possible
means to resolve a number of the issues prior to coming to
Congress to ask for legislation. We pride ourselves on our
stewardship of Federal lands that we have operated on
collectively in my family for 80 years. We participated fully
in planning processes. We provided input, attended literally
hundreds of meetings, engaged in legal options, and we now seek
a solution that will provide stability and assurance for the
traditional and historic use of pack and saddle stock on our
Federal lands.
I thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roeser follows:]
Statement of Jennifer A. Roeser, Director, High Sierra Packers'
Association, Eastern Sierra Unit, on H.R. 2966
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today about the critical
need and the importance of preserving the historic use and access of
pack and saddle stock animals on our federal lands. I am pleased to be
with you to provide this testimony and to answer any questions you may
have.
As a member and Director of the High Sierra Packers Association, a
second generation owner of McGee Creek Pack Station (Inyo National
Forest), a member of the Backcountry Horsemen of California, a
nationally ranked endurance trail rider, the wife of a Forest Service
packer (also a second generation pack station operator), and a lifelong
stock user of the mountains in California--I come before you with my
testimony from my personal experience, my professional and business
experience, and more than anything--a heart felt belief in the value
and contribution that maintaining this historic use can have for
today's society and for generations to come.
I hope to convey to you the long and frustrating struggle that the
stock use community has been going through for over 20 years to hold on
to the trails and areas that have historically been used by stock. This
is a very important turning point, with the proposed ``Right-to-Ride
Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2003'' to protect this legacy for the
future.
I hope to offer a brief history and perspective of why the use of
pack and saddle stock on federal lands is important to the public; to
identify problems that stock users encounter as they use federal lands;
to identify our perception as to the cause of the problem; and to
emphasize the need for urgency in passing this legislation.
1. For those who use pack and saddle stock, leading the pack train
is a way of reliving the pioneer era. It provides a link with the past,
and is something that cannot be done without a trail system, trailhead
access, and undeveloped areas for camping. Having a sense of discovery
and exploration is what many users are seeking. They want--and need--to
have a sense of getting away from it all.
2. We are seeing an increasing loss of access through trail
restrictions, trail closures, and use restrictions. Stock users are
being prohibited from using areas they have historically traveled
through and they are being concentrated into smaller areas.
In our business, the cumulative impact of the restrictions
placed on where we can travel and the trails we can use have resulted
in a significant loss of opportunities for families, persons with
disabilities, school groups, church groups and others who use stock.
3. In designated wilderness areas, there is a management
environment less tolerant of the traditional forms of use. Restrictions
are being advocated by a minority group of users--and agency
personnel--who personally do not want to see any stock use in the
mountains.
4. Time is of the essence in passing this legislation. Currently
there are numerous closures taking place that are affecting stock
users' access to trails. Historic pack stations are being closed
without any public notice. Agency plans have increasingly more stock
use restrictions without any science or valid rationale to support the
actions. And with the number of National Forest, National Park and area
management plan revisions due in the near future, time is critical to
prevent the loss of trails and access for pack and saddle stock use.
1. HISTORY
Let us reflect on some of our country's conservation and
preservation leaders whose wisdom and foresight helped to provide us
with an incredible network of public lands.
Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce
Teddy Roosevelt
Gifford Pinchot
Aldo Leopold
Stephen T. Mather
Horace M. Albright
These great leaders had a vision for what was needed to protect
America's lands. Pack and saddle stock provided the principle means of
transportation in the exploration and development of the mountainous
regions of the United States. Early explorers such as Lewis and Clark,
Jedediah Smith, John C. Fremont and Joseph Redeford Walker depended on
horses and mules to take them over the rough terrain encountered on
their travels. The U.S. Army Cavalry relied on horses and mules for
transportation on their patrols of public lands prior to the formation
of the National Park and Forest systems. The richness of our federal
land system is due in part to our explorers' and conservation leaders'
ability to conduct their duties using horses and mules.
The extensive trail system that exists today in the Sierra Nevada
mountain range in California was built to facilitate the movement of
pack animals through the high country. Among the first trails built
across the Sierra were the Hockett and Jordan Trails which were
completed in 1864. The first Mt. Whitney Trail was completed in 1881.
The famous John Muir Trail traversing over two hundred miles along the
backbone of the Sierra was started in 1908.
Recreational use of the backcountry by horsemen began in the early
1800's as local residents traveled to the high country to escape the
heat of the California valleys. Historically, the Sierra Club sponsored
trips to Yosemite as early as 1902, with trips the following year to
Sequoia Park and Mt. Whitney. These outings and subsequent trips relied
heavily on pack stock to transport their extensive baggage and camp
equipment.
As the road systems developed on each side of the Sierra in the
early 1920's, the commercial packing business began in earnest, and by
the mid-thirties the packing business was in full swing with many
outfits providing services to those anxious to visit the High Sierra.
Commercial packers also played an important role in emergencies and in
the suppression of wildfires in backcountry and wilderness areas.
Please see the attached ``Previous and Present Day Packing Services in
the Sierra Nevada'' for a brief history of packing in the central
Sierra region. The decline in the number of commercial operators is due
in part to the excessive regulations, and agency decisions to close
facilities.
Our link to the past is important as it provides us with an
understanding of the processes that shaped our American history and
culture. Many users of pack and saddle stock seek to find and
experience the historic activities of an earlier time. To be able to
view and live as our early explorers did provides many users the
opportunity to connect with history outside of a museum setting. Our
link to the past is our ability to carry out this tradition and culture
of the early day pioneer and to work to insure that these traditional
skills are not lost to future generations. As we begin our journey into
the twenty first century, free and unrestricted wilderness travel is
fast becoming an anachronism. Incremental restrictions and regulations
threaten the very essence of a wilderness experience, and the ability
to continue historic patterns and types of travel in remote, unroaded
backcountry is eroding year by year.
Perhaps Aldo Leopold, a wilderness advocate and U.S. Forest Service
Ranger in New Mexico in the early 1900's best expressed the concept of
packing history as being an important value of wilderness when he
wrote,
``The time is almost upon us when a pack train must wind its
way up a graveled highway and turn its bell mare into the
pasture of a summer hotel. When that day comes, the diamond
hitch will be merely a rope; Kit Carson and Jim Bridger will be
only names in a history lesson...If, once in a while man has a
chance to throw the diamond hitch and travel back in time, he
is just that much more civilized than he would have been
without that opportunity.''
2. PROBLEMS
Loss of Access. One of the most important issues facing those who
use pack and saddle stock on public lands is the loss of access. This
issue has been identified as one of the most critical aspects for
nearly 20 years. Dr. John Hughes, Chairman at the University of
California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, provided a report to
the Presidential Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1986 and reported
the following:
``Closures and Exclusions. Many areas where stock use
occurred historically have been closed to overnight use by pack
and saddle stock, and some have been placed `off limits' to
entry to horsemen. Often these closures were made on the basis
of local bias without the benefit of public input or studies by
qualified specialists. Excessive use by other use groups has
led to the closing of trails that were built by and for the use
of pack and saddle animals. The Mt. Whitney trail was closed to
stock use to mitigate the possible conflict between pack stock
and hikers.
Alarming Condition of Backcountry and Wilderness Trails.
Trail maintenance has declined to the point that many of the
trails, especially on the high mountain passes, may be lost
completely for the use by pack and saddle stock. It has been
many years since an adequate trail maintenance program has been
in place anywhere in the Sierra Nevada. A trail that becomes
too dangerous for saddle and pack animals closes the areas
served by the route to stock use as effectively as if each area
were closed on an individual basis.
Over Regulation. Most of the national public lands
administrators manage their forest and parks with an over
abundance of rules and regulations. Thirty years ago stock use
on public lands was near an all-time high. Now stock use is
down by as much as 85% and the rules and regulations continue
to increase with each summer season. Horsemen visiting those
areas still open to their use are often faced with complex and
confusing rules that are often inconsistent with those found in
other regions. It is easy to demonstrate that many of the
regulations imposed upon stock users were made due to personal
bias of administrators rather than any proven need to protect
the resources of a National Park or Forest.
Legislative Relief. Legislation should be enacted mandating
the administrators of national public lands to recognize the
significance of historic stock use and the rights of horsemen
to use pack and saddle animals where such use has been historic
and significant. Such a mandate would guide all future managers
of the national public lands as they formulate future
management plans, and would in effect create a consistent
administrative policy in regards to pack and saddle stock use
from one National Forest or Park to another. Such a guide would
negate any personal bias on the part of administrators and
would serve to help make necessary regulations more uniform and
less confusing.''
It is disturbing that the very same issues that Dr. Hughes reported
on in 1986 are still very much the same issues we are facing today. His
call for legislative relief showed the foresight that is now so
imperative to act upon.
Later, in 1999, Horse and Rider Magazine polled its readers
regarding their ``top problem or concern'' and loss of riding trails
was the number one concern, ranked first by 42% of the respondents.
On May 23, 2001, Alan T. Hill testified on behalf of the American
Horse Council to the House Resources Committee regarding several key
issues related to the loss of access. Alan's testimony stated:
``We have become alarmed as we have witnessed during the last
decade the continued decline in the condition and extent of our
trail systems and a pervasive trend throughout the country of
increasing restrictions directed specifically at pack and
saddle stock use on our federal lands including wilderness
areas, National Forests, National Parks, National Monuments,
backcountry and front country''
National policy needs to reaffirm that recreational and
historical uses--such as equestrian uses--be recognized as an
appropriate and acceptable use on federal lands such as
wilderness areas, National Forests, Parks and Monuments, and
that management of our public lands is for the use and
enjoyment of the American people. It has been our experience
that special designations, i.e., Monuments, wilderness, road-
less areas, seldom if ever expands recreational opportunities
for horsemen. In practice these designations often result in a
loss of access and recreational opportunities.
Restrictions and prohibitions imposed on recreational equine
use and incidental grazing should be the exception rather than
the rule and be determined by site-specific analysis based on
use, land characteristics and science. It should not be
subjective or based on the social preferences of other users.
The ability of the Forest Service or any other Federal land
agency to unilaterally close a trail or trail head with no
notice or public process must be stopped. De facto restrictions
on access or the limitation through onerous regulations must be
eliminated.''
Loss of Services to the Public. The general public who do not have
their own stock still want to have the experience of the exploration,
discovery and enjoyment of ``getting away from it all.'' Yet, as
providers of service to the public, commercial pack stock operators are
restricted beyond belief! We sense an antagonism from agency personnel
merely because we are commercial businesses. And being in business
means we need to make a profit. The end result is the public who wishes
to use our services is denied even further because of the additional
constraints that are placed on commercial providers. We provide
America's last chance for families to vacation together without the
gadgets that are so much a part of our daily lives. No video games, no
phones, and no television means families and groups interact with each
other on a one-to-one basis. Spending quality time together is a very
important aspect of the backcountry experience our clients seek. We
hope to continue to provide these opportunities for future generations.
The issues of access, restrictions and closures drive home the
compelling need for protection of the historic uses of pack and saddle
stock on our federal lands.
3. PERCEIVED CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM
Our history of using pack and saddle stock is being eroded away by
the personal agendas of extreme environmental groups and aligned agency
personnel. Additionally, we are losing the infrastructure of our trail
system due to a lack of annual maintenance, and a downgrading of the
trail system, which is also due in part to a lack of maintenance.
There has been a disturbing trend in agency management plans to
reduce, restrict and eliminate stock use facilities and services. The
list includes pack station closures, trail closures, camping
restrictions, grazing restrictions and closures, cross-country travel
restrictions and closures, group size restrictions, and higher fees to
stock users for wilderness permits under the Recreation Fee
Demonstration Program.
An overview of wilderness management plans shows a distinct and
pervasive trend of restrictions aimed specifically at pack and saddle
stock. These actions deprive stock users of the type and range of
recreational opportunities intended in the Wilderness Act. For example:
In the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas in
California, encompassing more than 800,000 acres, we cannot take our
guests more than 1/4 mile from a ``system'' trail. This has virtually
eliminated approximately 70% of the area that our guests can no longer
access by pack and saddle stock. Historically, visitors traveled to the
famous lakes and streams throughout the wildernesses by way of game
trails, fishermen trails, and routes marked only by way of rock
markers. Now, that use is considered illegal. We now have to
concentrate our guests into much smaller areas, and we have to
continually re-use the same areas, thus increasing the chances for
damage to the sites.
In the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho, the trail
system has decreased substantially over the last 50 years. Today, more
than 98% of the Wilderness is unavailable to stock use because of an
absence of trails. With the loss of trails, this results in use being
confined to less than 1% of the wilderness.
A recently approved plan for the Sawtooth Wilderness
requires stock users to camp in the most heavily impacted 18% of the
area and makes 82% or the wilderness unavailable to stock users, even
if they use state of the art ``leave no trace'' methods. Managers
acknowledged that stock use has not increased, and may have actually
decreased since the area was designated as wilderness. Restrictions
were imposed simply to ``prevent'' impact in the pristine portions and
provide ``stock free'' opportunities for those who do not wish to
encounter stock.
It appears the agencies are interpreting the Wilderness Act with a
conspicuous bias toward extreme preservationism or wilderness purity at
the expense of the equally important responsibility of providing for
the use and enjoyment of the American people. It is our belief this is
not what Congress intended when they passed the Wilderness Act of 1964.
The Wilderness Act specifically states that wilderness will be
``devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation, and historical use.'' (Sec. 4b, P.L. 88-577)
This intent was affirmed in the 1998 court case of Wilderness Watch v.
Dale Robertson, Civ. No. 92-740, August 31, 1998. In this decision the
District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the statute
directs the Forest Service to administer the wilderness with an eye not
only toward strict conservation, but also to ``ensure the use and
enjoyment of the American people.''
The efforts of land managers to place a higher emphasis on
restoring pristine conditions are the result of a misguided
preservation/purity bias. In fact, the House Report on the Endangered
American Wilderness Bill (Report 95-540, July 27, 1977) specifically
directed the Forest Service to abandon its purity approach. Congress
clearly expected that wilderness would accommodate a wide spectrum of
Americans who desired wilderness-type recreation experiences of a
nature that were established at the time the law was passed. The intent
of Congress (emphasized throughout the Congressional Record) was to
preserve existing conditions while providing for existing and future
uses. However, at the field level--managers are still directing
wilderness plans to the pristine end of the spectrum, and are
instituting unrealistic and illogical constraints, particularly for
commercial pack and saddle stock providers. It is our belief that our
customers are being unjustly denied fair access to significant portions
of the wilderness due to the personal biases of agency land managers.
The agencies are also bowing to the pressure and threats of litigation
from extreme anti-stock user groups.
Many of the commercial operators were in business well before the
Wilderness Act became law. In fact my husband's family, and mine,
worked diligently to lobby support for the creation of the original
John Muir Wilderness. Our families have always had a strong
conservation ethic, one which I am proud to also share today. It is in
our best interest to care for the land as best we can to continue to
provide the quality of experience our guests are seeking.
Other management plans that are affecting stock use include:
The Southern Region Forest Plan Revisions for the
National Forests in 11 southern states is proposing a standard that
would block the use of many miles of historic foot travel trails that
are currently open to riding and pack stock. Literally thousands of
riders who access and enjoy Southern National Forest trails would find
themselves trailering miles and miles just to reach approved trails and
trailheads.
One alternative in a Preliminary Draft Management Plan
for Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks proposed ``No Stock'' in the
Parks entirely. Even though pack and saddle stock have a well
documented history in these Parks dating back more than 100 years, Park
planners indicated they had to include this alternative because another
user group had requested them to do so.
The planning documents do not contain substantive qualitative
monitoring data, and the agencies have been unable to provide this when
requested. These actions appear to be driven by the biases, preferences
and values of the agency personnel.
The agencies are also using the trail system as a tool to achieve
social and recreation objectives, rather than as a transportation
system. Year after year, trails are disappearing from inventories, and
are being taken off the main system. The maintenance backlog is not
being eliminated, and it does not appear this loss of mileage is being
reported to Congress. With a loss of system trails, pack and saddle
stock use is curtailed even more. We are being confined into main
travel corridors, which only increases the odds for user conflict,
resource impact, and future restrictions.
We are seeing trails with a history of pack and saddle stock use
dating back many years before wilderness designation, now being
reserved for backpack use. This is being accomplished either through
direct restrictions or by reducing the maintenance standards. Either
way, it is an inappropriate means of eliminating stock use where it has
historically existed. .
4. URGENT NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Congressman Radanovich and Honored Members of this Subcommittee, we
have tried every possible means to resolve every single one of these
issues prior to coming to Congress to ask for legislation. My husband
and I pride ourselves on our stewardship of the federal lands on which
we have operated on for collectively more than 80 years. We have
participated fully in planning processes; we have provided input;
attended literally hundreds of meetings; engaged in legal options; and
we now seek a solution that will provide stability and assurance for
the traditional and historic use of pack and saddle stock on our
federal lands. Every day that goes by without this legislation means
these historic uses are endangered and vulnerable to changes. On behalf
of the High Sierra Packers' Association, I thank you for this
opportunity and look forward to providing any assistance or additional
information you may need.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much for being here. I
appreciate that.
Next is Dr. Joanne Martin, who is the President and CEO of
The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr.
Martin, welcome to the Subcommittee and you may begin your
testimony. Again, the lights there, basically the rule is that
you treat them just like a traffic light. Green is go, yellow
means speed up, and red means stop.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Welcome, and please begin your testimony,
Dr. Martin.
STATEMENT OF JOANNE M. MARTIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, THE GREAT BLACKS IN WAX MUSEUM, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Dr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the privilege of
speaking before you on H.R. 2424, The Great Black Americans
Commemoration Act, which passed the Senate as S. 1233. It was
introduced by Congressman Elijah Cummings and Senator Barbara
Mikulski.
I would like to spend the moments that I have remaining
talking to you about the ``why'' of The Great Blacks in Wax
Museum and the ``why'' of this legislation.
My late husband, Dr. Elmer Martin, and I founded The Great
Blacks in Wax Museum in 1983, so July 9, 2003, represents or
marks our 20th anniversary. We started as a traveling exhibit.
We bought four wax figures with some money that we were saving
to make a down payment on a house. We took these wax figures
around to schools, churches, malls, libraries, and then at the
end of the exhibit, we would throw them into the hatchback of
my car and take them home to our two-bedroom apartment. And if
you would come in at any given time, you would have found Mary
McCloud Bethune's head on the dresser and Frederick Douglass'
torso in a corner.
One of the most significant ``why''s of The Great Blacks in
Wax Museum had to do with my husband organizing a Little League
baseball team. He had ID pictures taken of the kids, took them
to a park to practice, and he saw a 6-year-old coming toward
him distraught, crying, angry, demanding that my husband make
the photographer take the picture over. My husband looked at
the picture and declared, ``Son, the picture looks just like
you. Why should he take it over?'' And the kid said, ``Because
it made it took dark. I don't want to be this black.''
And he was talking to someone from a product of the 1960s,
the black consciousness movement of the 1960s and 1970s, a
generation that had declared that we were black and beautiful
and black and proud, and we are going to be black and beautiful
and black and proud forever. We already knew as college
teachers, my husband and I, that we were dealing with a group
of college students just moments away from that time who
thought that career-wise, it was possible to be too black, that
learning black history and culture would not get you a job or
the American dream. And then to find that we were dealing with
a 6-year-old, a generation from those college students, who
thought that physically it was possible to be too black, that
was very disconcerting for us.
So we started The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in a
storefront in downtown Baltimore. We had the support of Senator
Clarence Blount, who introduced a bill in the Maryland General
Assembly. We went to the City of Baltimore for matching funds,
and the only request that we made of the city was that they
find the building for us in a low-income fragile community,
because my husband and I were so convinced that we were going
to create such a compelling museum that people would have to
come, and in the process, we could help to bring a community
back to life based on the philosophy that community development
and cultural development go hand in hand.
A ``why'' for me of a wax museum is that when you are
dealing with a history that is often denied and neglected, that
it is often a history without faces. What the wax medium and
what The Great Blacks in Wax has done is to put a face on that
history. And so we have an ebony Marcus Garby and a caramel-
colored Colin Powell and a sepia Bill Pickett, and hopefully a
generation of black children who will never feel the need,
because they see so much of themselves in all that those
figures represent, to say, I don't want to be that black.
And finally, the ``why'' for The Great Blacks in Wax Museum
is around my husband's belief that if we fail to make those
important connections between the past and the present, none of
what we do makes any difference.
A case in point, a group of young African American males
came into the Museum one day. They were there under duress.
They were told by their counselor that they had to come in
order to get to ESPN Zone, which is where they wanted to go.
They had to come to The Great Blacks in Wax Museum. I resisted
the temptation to just let them through and get out of there,
which is what they wanted, and I knew that if I hung in there
long enough, I would be able to chip through that resistance.
And when I finally saw that I was, then I took the
opportunity to make those connections that my husband talked
about and I said to them, you are in the world today with the
blood of an ancestor flowing through your body right now who
was put on a slave ship but who did something unbelievable.
They lived through that experience. And, therefore, flowing
through your body right now is the blood of an ancestor who
gave you God's most precious gift, and that is life.
And all they might ever ask of you if they could is that
you live that life as if you appreciated how precious life can
be. To understand that your ancestors died by the millions,
they would probably find it crazy the way we kill one another
today. But your ancestors found education worth dying for. They
want you to be able to live for it.
But your ancestors would know a slave ship if they saw one,
but might be confused today by what we call the prison, the
jail, the penitentiary because the similarities are
frightening. In both cases, we are talking about people being
taken away in chains. In both cases, we are talking about
people being given a number and having their identity taken
away. In both cases, we are talking about people being branded,
physically branded with a hot branding iron as a slave, legally
branded a criminal. In both cases, we are talking about people
being made property, of the slave master, of the State. And in
both cases, we are talking about people being confined.
Your ancestors would know a slave trader if they saw one,
so they would know the one who sold them into an evil called
slavery, but they might warn you to be on guard for the ones
who through drugs sell us into a slavery just as evil. They
might want you to know that there is still some work for you to
do because the shark of hatred and bigotry and racism still
lurks in the waters, and they might need you to know that even
something that seems so minor as being able to go into a Burger
King to have it your own way did not come without sacrifice.
Some of your ancestors had to die for that right.
And in the final analysis, they might ask only of you that
you try to understand what your African ancestors meant when
they said, ``I am because we are, and because we are, I am.''
That is the ``why'' of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum. That is
the ``why'' of this legislation. We ask you to give us the
opportunity to continue to work for community and show that
community development and cultural development can go hand in
hand, and should, and to continue to tell our stories and tell
them well. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Dr. Martin, for your testimony.
I notice we have a couple of inconspicuous or very quiet guests
in the room today. Mrs. Christianson's guest was maybe Harriet
Tubman. Can you identify them for us?
Dr. Martin. We have Dr. Benjamin Hooks, who, of course, was
in the Nixon Administration, a member of the FCC, and Mary
Eliza Mahoney. She was the first professional black nurse in
America.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you for your testimony,
Dr. Martin.
Dr. Martin. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Martin follows:]
Statement of Joanne M. Martin, Ph.D., Co-Founder, President and Chief
Executive Officer, The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Baltimore, Maryland,
on H.R. 2424/S. 1233
Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Dr. Joanne Martin, co-founder with my late husband,
Dr. Elmer Martin, of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore,
Maryland. It is my honor and privilege to address you today regarding
the proposed National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2003,
H.R. 2424/S. 1233.
As you know, this legislation proposed by Congressman Elijah
Cummings and Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, with broad
bipartisan support, authorizes federal assistance in the expansion of
our museum facility to establish the National Great Blacks in Wax
Museum. This national museum initiative to help tell the story of great
Black Americans began more than 20 years ago. Let me give you some
background on the Museum's origins.
Brief History of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum
The Great Blacks In Wax Museum, America's first wax museum of
African American history, was founded in 1983 by my late husband, Dr.
Elmer Martin, and myself. However, our story really began in 1980 when,
with money we were saving for a down payment on a house, we purchased
four wax figures. We carried these to schools, churches, shopping
malls, and festivals throughout the region, with the goal of testing
public reaction to the idea of a black history wax museum. So positive
was the public's response that in 1983, with personal loans, we opened
the Museum in a small storefront in downtown Baltimore. The success of
the Museum, especially among students on field trips, made it
imperative that my husband and I find larger space. In 1985, we closed
the Museum and organized an aggressive fundraising effort to secure new
and expanded space and to purchase more wax figures. These efforts
allowed us to purchase an abandoned fire station on East North Avenue.
After extensive renovations, we re-opened the Museum in October 1988.
When the Museum moved to its East Baltimore location, away from the
lucrative Inner Harbor tourist market and very much off the beaten
track, many told us that few people would venture into a deteriorating
community to see a wax museum. Yet, in 1989, the first full year of
operation in its new location, 44,000 visitors ventured into the
neighborhood to see the Museum. The museum's visitorship increased
steadily in subsequent years. In 2002, more than 300,000 people from
across the country and from other nations visited the unique cultural
institution.
Why a Wax Museum?
Some of you may question why a wax museum would be appropriate to
help teach the public about the history of great Black Americans. My
husband and I felt strongly about the significance of the wax medium in
bringing public attention to the faces of people who are deserving of
recognition. We believed that of all artistic mediums, wax creates the
closest likeness of the human face. Moreover, we felt that bringing the
faces of great Black Americans into relief was one of the most
important objectives of this museum, since historically great Black
Americans' likenesses, as well as their stories, have not been well-
known to the public.
Additionally, it is important to recognize that wax has
historically been used in art and cultural institutions to depict
significant people. The wax medium has long been recognized as a unique
and artistic means to record human history through preservation of the
faces and personages of people of prominence. Wax exhibits were used to
commemorate noted figures in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and Rome,
in medieval Europe, in the art of the Italian renaissance.
Approximately 200 wax figures and scenes, a 19th century slave ship
re-creation, a special permanent exhibition on the role of Youth in the
making and shaping of history, a Maryland room highlighting the
contributions of outstanding Marylanders to African-American history, a
gift shop, a mini auditorium for lectures and films are some of the
major cultural features currently on display at The Great Blacks in Wax
Museum. The public's reaction to this wax museum speaks for itself. The
Afro American newspaper has declared The Great Blacks In Wax Museum a
``National Treasure.'' In fact, The Museum does serve the entire
nation. International visitors have come from France, Africa, Israel,
Japan, and many other continents and nations. The Great Blacks In Wax
Museum story has been heralded by news media around the world,
including CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New
York Times, The Chicago Sun Times, The Dallas Morning News, Kulturwelt,
USA/Africa, The Los Angles Times, USA Today, Crisis, Essence Magazine,
Ebony Magazine, Good Morning America, ABC World News Tonight, BET, CBS
Sunday Morning, National Public Radio, Maryland Public Television, To
Tell the Truth, the CBS News Early Show, and The Amanda Lewis Show.
Future Exhibits of the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum
As is stated in the Findings section of the proposed legislation,
our museum proposes to tell the story in wax exhibits and other
appropriate media of the remarkable achievements made by Black
Americans in the national service over the years. Under this
legislation, Great Black Americans will be memorialized by wax figures
and other exhibits at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum. The
Museum will showcase the 22 Black Americans who served in the U.S.
House and Senate in the 1800s, and those from the 1900s such as Sen.
Edward Brooke (R-MA), and Reps. Julian Dixon (D-CA), Louis Stokes (D-
OH), and J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK).
The National Great Blacks in Wax Museum will focus on Black
veterans of various military engagements, including the Buffalo
Soldiers and Tuskegee Airmen, and the role of Blacks in the settlement
of the western United States. It will also showcase Blacks who served
in senior civilian Executive Branch positions, and in the judiciary and
other significant legal positions, as well as others who have not
received appropriate recognition.
Funding Required for the Museum Expansion Project
The current budget estimate to expand current museum facilities to
create the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum totals $60 million. This
multi-year budget will cover demolition and removal of current
dilapidated and unsafe structures, gutting and renovating an entire
city block, rebuilding a five-story museum complex, architects,
engineers, and related site development costs, and the costs of
designing and constructing new museum exhibits.
Three-quarters of the funding for the museum expansion will be
derived from nonfederal sources. These include the State of Maryland,
which has already obligated over $3 million for the expansion project.
Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich is strongly supportive of this project
and committed to our success.
Another important funding source is the City of Baltimore. Mayor
Martin O'Malley has obligated $2 million to date for the museum
expansion, and is committed to using his municipal resources to assist
with costs of the expansion. On September 3, the Mayor attended a
groundbreaking ceremony at the Museum marking the demolition of 48
structures to the rear of the property to make way for museum parking
facilities. Much of the balance of the funding for the museum expansion
will be contributed by the private sector.
The Great Blacks in Wax Museum is in close dialogue with a large
number of private sector grantmakers. These include major corporations
such as AllFirst Bank, Bank of America Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Mercedes-
Benz, Hewlett-Packard, Tropicana, Target, K-Mart, General Mills,
Marathon Oil, Hewlett Packard, Baltimore Gas and Electric, Advanta
Corporation, Recording Industries Association of America, Heiniken,
WalGreens, Wal-Mart, Sams Club and Sony.
The Museum is also under consideration by major philanthropic
foundations. These include Associated Black Charities, St. Paul
Companies Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore Community
Foundation, Abel Foundation, MetLife Foundation, Freddie Mac
Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Microsoft Foundation, and Enterprise
Foundation.
Community Support for our Initiative
The Great Blacks in Wax Museum expansion program enjoys the strong
support of the local community in East Baltimore, of allies throughout
the State of Maryland, and of friends of the Museum throughout the
nation. The many supporters and donors include the Prince Hall Masons,
Links International, Zeta Phi Beta National Sorority, Kappa Alpha Psi
National Fraternity, Delta Sigma Theta National Sorority, NAACP, Zion
Baptist Church, ACTEX Foundation, the President's Round Table, The
Baltimore Times, and the De'zert Club of Philadelphia.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of The Great Blacks in Wax
Museum, as well as the Museum's many supporters, I want to express our
great appreciation for the opportunity to testify before the Committee
today. We are grateful to the Subcommittee Chairman, Congressman
Radanovich, the full Committee Chairman, Congressman Pombo, as well as
the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Congresswoman Christensen and the
full Committee Ranking Member, Congressman Rahall. We appreciate the
consideration of every member of this Committee for our plans to
establish a national museum addressing the legacy of great Black
Americans.
I particularly want to express our appreciation to the sponsors of
this legislation, Congressman Elijah Cummings and Senator Barbara
Mikulski, as well as the bipartisan group of House and Senate
cosponsors. We are convinced that this initiative will have a profound,
positive impact on the ability to educate youth and the public about
the contributions of great Black Americans and about American history.
Thank you for your consideration of this legislation. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. We are now joined by Mr. Matt Knox, who is
Chairman of the Missouri River Stewards from Winifred, Montana.
Mr. Knox, welcome to the Subcommittee. Please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW O. KNOX, CHAIRMAN,
MISSOURI RIVER STEWARDS, WINIFRED, MONTANA
Mr. Knox. Chairman Radanovich and members of the House
Subcommittee, my name is Matt Knox and I am Chairman of the
Missouri River Stewards. Our family ranch is in the Missouri
Breaks northeast of Winifred, Montana. Our family does own
deeded land within the Monument boundary as well as we have
State lease and BLM lease within the Monument boundary.
I am grateful for this opportunity to give testimony before
you to support H.R. 1629. Before I state my reasons for
supporting this legislation, I would like to give you a little
background on the issue.
The concept for a new designation for the Breaks first
surfaced in early 1999 when former Secretary Babbitt floated
the river and declared the area to be special and in need of
additional protection. While we agreed with him that the area
is, indeed, special, we felt strongly that the wild and scenic
designation for the river, along with a myriad of wilderness
study areas, ACECs, and National Historic Trails was ample
protection. Holders of grazing allotments in the Breaks were
already engaged with the BLM in watershed planning to ensure
rangeland health was being maintained. The fact that this area
remains special is a testimony to the stewardship practices
that have been in place here since early settlement days. We
strongly felt, if it isn't broke, let us not fix it.
What followed, however, was a lengthy and, we believe,
heavily manipulated public process that was conducted through
the Central Montana RAC. We participated in this process in an
effort to challenge the perceived need for additional
designation. We were frustrated continually with the issue of
boundaries. At no time were we shown a definitive map of the
proposed designation. Land owners were never consulted about
the prospect of having their lands included in the National
Monument, and no one, including our elected officials, had any
knowledge about the boundaries.
Our first look at boundaries was when a map of the Monument
was published in a local newspaper the day after designation.
Not even the RAC knew what the boundaries would be, and for
discussion purposes developed an arbitrary administrative unit
for which all the recommendations could or would apply. It
should also be noted that the RAC did not establish this unit
until after the public debate period had ended.
With that historical backdrop, I would like to address the
most compelling question before this Subcommittee. Why should
the private properties be removed from the Monument? Virtually
every landowner having property in the Monument has signed a
statement calling for their land to be removed. Over 3,300
members of the public across Montana have signed a petition
calling for the same thing. The majority of our elected
officials in Montana support this effort.
I think everyone understands when incidental private
properties are included in a Federal designation, but when
81,000 acres are purposefully included, that is a matter that
demands remedy, especially when private lands are functioning
as a substantial part of the perimeter boundary of a National
Monument.
The Constitution establishes Congress as the authority over
public lands. We believe that Congress needs to be involved in
deciding whether private property should be targeted for
purchase and included in National Monuments. If Congress
abdicates that responsibility, the decision falls solely to the
current administration, whatever that might be.
The message from Central Montana is clear. We want the
private properties removed from the Monument, and there are
several underlying reasons for that judgment. For example, most
of the ranches in our area are a mix of Federal, State and
private lands. Management decisions have been typically made in
a cooperative manner. If the private lands in the mix are
targeted for acquisition, it would be very easy and perhaps
irresistible for Federal land managers to impose greater land
use restrictions and regulations on grazing allotments to the
extent that a willing seller is created. This could also have
the unintended consequence of compelling landowners into
selling to land developers.
When private property becomes Federal, our school system
suffers from the loss of the tax base. Payment in lieu of taxes
represents minimal funding and the money goes to our county
general fund and not to our local school districts.
There is a ranch in our area that is highly coveted by the
BLM. That ranch was nearly purchased by BLM a few years ago.
That ranch alone contributes $15,000 a year, or close to
$15,000 a year in property taxes to our local school district.
The local community would suffer gravely with just the loss of
this one ranch.
In summary, removing the private property to clarify the
Monument boundary is the right thing to do. If it is true that
Monument rules do not apply to private lands, as Federal
officials have stated, then one should not expect there to be
any adverse impact on the remaining Federal lands and the
Monument by their removal. Clearly, removing private land from
the Monument will greatly reduce inadvertent trespass and
conflicts between landowners and Monument visitors, facilitate
management, and reduce the temptation for a Federal buyout.
I urge this Subcommittee's full support of H.R. 1629 and I
thank you for the privilege to testify before you on this
matter that is so important to us in Central Montana. Thank
you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Knox. I appreciate your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]
Statement of Matthew O. Knox, Chairman, Missouri River Stewards,
Winifred, Montana, on H.R. 1629
Chairman Radanovich, and members of the House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, my name is Matt Knox and I
am Chairman of the Missouri River Stewards. I am a landowner and
operate part of the family ranch in the Missouri Breaks located 24
miles northeast of Winifred, Montana. I am grateful for this
opportunity to give testimony before you in support of H.R. 1629.
Before I enumerate my reasons for supporting this legislation, I
would like to give you a little background on this issue.
The concept for a new designation for the Missouri Breaks first
surfaced in early 1999 when then Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, floated the Upper Missouri River and declared the area to be
special and in need of additional protection. While we agreed with him
that the area is indeed special, we felt strongly that the Wild and
Scenic designation for the river, along with a myriad of Wilderness
Study Areas, ACEC's, and National Historic Trails, was ample protection
for the area.
Those of us who own grazing allotments in the Breaks were already
engaged with the BLM in watershed planning, which is a process to
ensure range land health is being maintained and riparian standards are
being met. The fact that this area remains special today is a testimony
to the success of the resource management practices and the love of the
land that has been in place here since early settlement days. Our
opinion on the entire designation matter was that ``if it ain't broke,
let's not fix it.''
What followed, however, was a lengthy, heavily manipulated public
process that was conducted through the Central Montana Resource
Advisory Council (RAC). Area landowners affected by the proposed
designation actively participated in this public process in an effort
to challenge the perceived need for additional protection for the area.
Throughout the public process, a source of constant frustration for
us was the issue of boundaries. At no time were we shown a definitive
map of the proposed designation. Landowners were never consulted about
the prospect of having their lands included in a National Monument and
no one, including our county commissioners, state legislators, governor
and congressional delegation, had any knowledge about the boundaries.
Our first preview of the boundary was when a map of the Monument was
published in a local newspaper the day after the Monument proclamation
was issued.
Not even the RAC knew what the boundaries would be. In the RAC
report to the Secretary of the Interior on December 30, 1999, it was
stated that throughout the December meeting there was discussion
concerning the area in question. It was not until the December 8th
meeting that the RAC decided upon a tentative administrative unit. The
RAC referred to this unit as the Expanded Upper Missouri National Wild
and Scenic River and all of the RAC's resolutions would apply to that
area. It should also be noted that the RAC did not establish this
administrative unit until after the public debate period had ended.
Shortly after the RAC submitted its final report to the Secretary
of the Interior, it became evident that the entire public process was
more form than substance. On February 17, 2000, at the University of
Denver Law School, then Secretary Babbitt announced his true intentions
about land designations in the West. He stated: ``It would be great to
get these protective issues resolved in the Congressional, legislative
process. But if that's not possible, I'm prepared to go back to the
President, and not only ask, not only advise, but implore him to use
his powers under the Antiquities Act and to say to him: Mr. President,
if they don't and you do, you will be vindicated by history for
generations to come.''
In other words, the Secretary was committed to adding designated
lands to former President Clinton's Land Legacy Initiative by whatever
means necessary. The Missouri Breaks would have to be nominated by
Montana's Congressional Delegation for some form of designation such as
a National Conservation Area, as he favored, or the President would
declare the area a National Monument. In the end, the President did
declare the Monument in the Missouri Breaks.
With that historical backdrop, I would like to address the most
compelling question before this Subcommittee: Why should the private
property be removed from the Monument?
Virtually every landowner having private property in the Monument
has signed a statement calling for their land to be removed from the
Monument. Over 3,300 members of the public across Montana have signed
the petition to Congress calling for removal of the private property.
Our Congressional Representative, one of our U.S. Senators, the
Governor of Montana, the majority of Montana's Legislators, and County
Commissioners in the four-county area of the Monument support the
removal of private property from the Monument.
I also believe that Congress, in passing the Antiquities Act of
1906, did not intend for the President to have indiscriminate powers to
include virtually unlimited amounts of private lands in National
Monuments. I believe the intent of Congress was clearly articulated in
the Antiquities Act by the provision that states that Presidents may
establish National Monuments to protect historic or scientific objects
that are situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the
United States.
I think everyone understands when incidental private property in-
holdings are included in a designation. But when 81,000 acres of
private property are purposefully included that is a matter that
demands remedy, especially when private lands are being used to form
substantial parts of the perimeter boundary of a National Monument.
We could not understand why the BLM went on a land-shopping spree
to select private property for inclusion in the Monument, so we asked
them. We were told that these were lands they wanted to acquire from
willing sellers and if these lands were included up front in the
Monument they could be reserved, upon purchase, as part of the Monument
by the Secretary of the Interior. That way Congress would not have to
be troubled to enact legislation to include these parcels as part of
the Monument.
We respectfully disagree with the BLM's rationale in this matter.
The United States Constitution establishes Congress as the sole
authority over public lands and I firmly believe that Congress needs to
be involved in deciding whether vast tracts of private property should
be targeted for purchase and included in National Monuments. If
Congress abdicates that responsibility, the private land decision falls
solely to the President.
The message from central Montana is clear: We want the private
property removed from the Monument. And there are several underlying
reasons for that judgment.
For example, most of the ranches in our area are a mix of federal,
state and private lands. Management decisions have in the past been
typically made in a cooperative manner. If the private lands in the mix
are targeted for acquisition, it would be very easy, and perhaps
irresistible, for federal land managers to impose greater land use
restrictions and overregulate grazing allotments to the extent that a
``willing seller'' is created. Heavy handed federal management could
also have the unintended consequence of compelling landowners into
subdividing and selling to the highest bidder such as land developers
or business entrepreneurs.
Whenever private property transitions to federal ownership, the
community and its school system suffers from the loss of the tax base.
The federal compensation for loss of tax revenues, known as PILT,
represents minimal funding and the money goes to our county general
fund and not to school districts.
The PN ranch, located at the confluence of the Judith River and the
Upper Missouri River, is a property highly coveted by the BLM that they
nearly purchased for over five million dollars. That ranch contributes
approximately $15,000 a year in property taxes to the local school
district and spends many more thousands of dollars with local merchants
and businesses. The local community would suffer gravely with the loss
of just one ranch.
The boundaries established for the western reach of the Monument
especially lacks justification and includes only the running river
water that is owned by the State of Montana and property that is owned
by ranchers. One can only speculate about the objects of antiquity that
are being protected by the river flow and by the adjacent private land.
To correct this matter, there seems to be only one solution--remove the
private property from the Monument.
An observation conveyed to me by a colleague best sums up the need
to remove the private property from the Monument. My colleague was
camped on the Missouri River one evening when a number of people
floating the river joined him at the campsite. He asked them what their
impressions of the area were after their first day on the river. They
replied that they found it rather strange to canoe all day on a river
in a National Monument and everywhere they looked and everywhere they
wanted to stop, they were surrounded by private property.
It is my firm belief that removing the private property to clarify
the Monument boundary is the right thing to do. If it is true that
Monument rules do not apply to private lands, as federal officials have
stated, than one should not expect there to be any adverse impact on
the federal land in the Monument by removal of the private land.
Clearly, removing private land from the Monument will greatly reduce
inadvertent trespasses and conflicts between landowners and Monument
visitors and diminish the temptation for federal buyouts.
I urge this Subcommittee's full support of H.R. 1629 and I thank
you for the privilege to testify before you on this matter that is so
important to us in central Montana.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next up is Mr. Hugo Tureck, who is Vice
Chairman of the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument, from
Coffee Creek, Montana. Mr. Tureck, welcome to the Subcommittee,
and you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HUGO J. TURECK, VICE CHAIRMAN, FRIENDS OF THE
MISSOURI BREAKS MONUMENT, COFFEE CREEK, MONTANA
Mr. Tureck. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Representative
Rehberg, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Hugo
Tureck. I am a rancher and Vice Chairman of the Friends of the
Missouri Breaks Monument. Our organization is made up of
business people, hunters, farmers, and ranchers, and those who
love the open spaces of Montana. As a coalition, we are
committed to protecting and preserving the Upper Missouri
Breaks in its present form.
I thank you for the opportunity today to testify in
opposition to H.R. 1629. I have the privilege of being a public
lands rancher not far from the Monument. We raise cattle and
small grains on dry land operation that is suffering from an
ongoing drought. Let me emphasize I reside outside of the
Monument. However, I am a public lands rancher and I have had
to deal with the BLM, as have those who oppose the Monument.
However, I have never felt threatened by this agency, but
rather felt that they have worked hard to build good working
relationships.
The BLM testimony to date mirrors much of the testimony
that Ms. Morrison gave a year ago on June 13 when this bill was
first presented. I would like to quote from her testimony.
``While we at the BLM believe that the Presidential
proclamation establishing the Monument makes it clear that the
proclamation covers only federally owned lands within the
Monument boundaries, the Department does support this bill
because it would provide additional comfort for the
landowners.'' What Ms. Morrison has stated is that this
legislation does not protect private property, that these
rights are already protected.
I would like to argue that this legislation does not
provide additional comfort, either, for those ranchers. Rather,
it only reinforces people's unfounded fears of being betrayed
by their government.
Unlike the proclamation, H.R. 1629 does nothing to protect
private property rights in the Monument. Private property
rights are already protected by the proclamation. We live in a
system of laws that protect private property rights. The
Presidential proclamation provides another layer of protection
by making clear that these rights are protected. The
proclamation explains why private property was included in the
boundaries of the Monument. The proclamation clearly states
that if the property was significant, historical, cultural,
wildlife, or landscape qualities or purchased by the United
States from a willing seller, these lands will be reserved as a
part of the Monument.
While this legislation does nothing to protect private
property rights, it does threaten the integrity of the Missouri
Breaks National Monument. Many of the historical and cultural
sites, such as the Nez Perce Trail, the Kid Curry Hangout, and
Bull Whacker Trail are on private lands. These and other sites
are part of our national identity. Today, if a landowner
chooses to sell his land to the government, it becomes a part
of the Monument. If this legislation passes, it would take an
Act of Congress to purchase lands and then add them back to the
Monument. This becomes a problem because there are over 415
different parcels of land.
This is not what the public wants, whether they live in
Montana or in Florida. As Chairman of the RAC, I heard from
people across Montana who wanted this place protected. Since
designation, there have been numerous opportunities for public
input into the future of the Breaks. Efforts to dismantle the
Monument shortly after its designation generated over 1,400
letters to our Governor, 1,100 of these asking her to keep the
Monument as it is.
There have also been two public comment periods as the BLM
develops this management plan for the protection of the
Monument in its entirety. The first, there were over 5,700
letters, of which 5,602 supported the protection of the
Monument in its entirety. Another comment period just closed
and almost 7,000 people wrote the agency. It is clear that
Montanans, like people across this country, want this place
protected.
There are other troubling things about this proposed
legislation. It sets a precedent that may be applied to the
other 15 Monuments managed by the BLM. It also sets a precedent
that may be applied to other special places managed by the
Department of Interior. The National Park Service oversees 395
units. Private land is included in 242, or 61 percent of those
sites, including Yellowstone, Valley Forge, and Gettysburg. How
much proof do those opposed to the Monument need?
Twenty-six years ago, Congress, led by Senator Metcalf of
Montana, created the Upper Missouri River Wild Scenic River.
Forty-six percent, or 35,800 of these 81,000 acres that this
bill would remove from the Monument are within the boundaries
of the Wild and Scenic River designation. Just think, 26 years
ago, Congress knew that they could do this and private property
rights would be protected and none would be violated. Twenty-
six years later, you know Congress was right, that private
property rights were not violated and that the river was better
protected than before.
This Monument, with its inspiring landscape, celebrates
Lewis and Clark and their role in the building of our nation.
Let us not weaken this Monument by passing legislation such as
this. Rather, it is time for us to work together to put in
place a management plan for this new Monument that serves not
just a few special interests, but all Americans now and for
future generations. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Tureck, for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tureck follows:]
Statement of Hugo J. Tureck, Public Land Rancher, and Vice-Chairman,
Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument, on H.R. 1629
Mr. Chairman, Representative Rehberg and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Hugo Tureck. I am a rancher and Vice-Chairman
of the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument. Our organization is
made up of business people, hunters, farmers and ranchers and those who
love the open spaces of Montana. As a coalition, we are committed to
protecting and preserving the Upper Missouri River Breaks Monument in
its present form.
I thank you for the opportunity today to testify in opposition to
H.R. 1629. My family and I have the privilege of being public land
ranchers not far from the Monument. We raise cattle and small grains on
a dry land operation that is suffering from an ongoing drought.
I served on the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for six years. I was the Chairman
during the entire public process that led to the designation of the
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in 2001. Our RAC is made
up of 15 individuals representing many different points of view
including ranchers, sportsmen, conservationists, elected officials and
individuals representing oil and gas and timber interests. The RAC is a
consensus council, that works to find common ground on natural resource
issues affecting the public lands managed by the BLM.
As Chairman of the RAC, I oversaw the preparation for and
development of the report to the Secretary of Interior that resulted in
the designation of the Missouri Breaks as a National Monument. That
report summarized an inclusive public process undertaken by the RAC, at
the request of the Secretary, to determine how Montanans felt about the
public lands--a vast and wondrous landscape--that we call the Missouri
Breaks. Our charge was to find out what Montanans agreed upon, what
kind of a future we wanted for these lands.
Before the RAC accepted this task, we held a public meeting in
Lewistown, Montana, seeking public input on whether or not this project
was something that the people of north central Montana wanted us to
work on. The meeting room was packed with people, mostly ranchers and
farmers, who asked the RAC to become involved, which we did.
To reach the greatest number of people living in the area around
the Breaks, we conducted hearings in several communities in Central
Montana. To facilitate maximum participation we met for two days in
each of those communities and accepted testimony during the day as well
as in the evening. Hundreds of Montanans from all walks of life felt
this issue important enough that they took time from their busy lives
to attend the meeting presenting statements and listening to others. We
also received hundreds of letters.
As I listened to the testimony and read the many letters, I was
moved by the passion that Montanans felt for this place. Rancher or
floater, hiker or hunter, bird watcher or just a person seeking
solitude; it made no difference. All felt a special love for this land
we call the Missouri Breaks.
This is what the RAC reported to the Secretary of the Interior:
Montanans wanted this enchanted place to remain as wild tomorrow as it
is today. Montanans also wanted to see the cultural and historical
artifacts that abound in this Monument protected and they consider it
critical that wildlife habitat be enhanced. The people of my state also
wanted to see traditional uses including hunting, fishing and grazing
to continue. Finally, and of critical importance, Montanans wanted to
make sure that all private property rights were protected. While the
RAC did not make a recommendation to the Secretary regarding Monument
designation (and therefore did not address boundaries we were in full
agreement that this special landscape needed and deserved special
management to protect its unique resources.
It is important for you to know that the majority of Montanans that
testified and wrote letters supported the idea of a Monument as the
best way to protect this landscape. They were also adamant in voicing
that public land belongs to all Montanans and to all Americans. It was
a small minority that opposed the Monument.
When the President of the United States, using the powers given to
him by Congress, through the Antiquities Act, created the Missouri
Breaks Monument, he did so using the report from the Central Montana
RAC to the Secretary. The Proclamation was written to reflect the
values Montanans strongly agreed upon, such as continued hunting and
grazing. It also reflects our recommendation to include specific and
clear language to protect private property rights.
The Monument Proclamation states that: ``establishment of this
Monument is subject to valid existing rights''. The Proclamation
further states that ``...there are hereby set apart and reserved as the
Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, for the purpose of
protecting the objects identified above, all lands and interests in
lands owned or controlled by the United States.''
Unlike the Proclamation, H.R. 1629 does nothing to protect private
property rights in the Monument. Private property rights are already
protected by the Proclamation and within existing government law and
policy. We live in a system of laws that protect private property
rights. The Presidential Proclamation provides another layer of
protection by making clear that private property rights are protected.
There are numerous rumors about how our government has cynically
tried to force or intimidate individual landowners into selling, or how
our government has attempted to restrict private property rights. As a
public lands rancher I am naturally curious if any of these rumors can
be substantiated. I have called upon those making these claims to give
us evidence. I have yet to see any.
The Proclamation explains why private property was included within
the boundaries of the Monument. The proclamation clearly states that if
property with significant historical, cultural, wildlife or landscape
qualities are purchased by the United States from a willing seller,
these lands will be ``reserved as part of the Monument.''
Why is this important? There are a significant number of historical
and cultural sites that are on private land, but are an integral part
of the historic and wildlife landscape. Sites like the Nez Pearce Trail
where in 1877 Chief Joseph led his band across the Missouri River and
up Cow Creek toward his final battle with General Miles. Sites like the
Kid Curry hangout where gunfighters and rustlers hid from the law.
Sites like the Bull Whacker Trail where bull trains hauled supplies
from Cow Island to Ft. Benton when the water levels were so low that
river travel was impossible.
These and other sites are a part of our national identity. These
are sites that help us define ourselves as Americans and deserve
adequate protection for future generations to enjoy. Today, if a
landowner chooses to sell his land that contains one of these sites to
the government, it becomes a part of the Monument and is protected for
all Americans. If this legislation passes, lands that the BLM might
acquire through purchase, trade or donation could not be added to the
Monument without additional legislation or another Presidential
Proclamation. This would be the case for each acquisition--which means
extra work for Congress or the President and additional costs to the
American taxpayer, as legislation is expensive in both time and money.
If this bill passes it also means that if BLM does acquire land
through purchase, trade or donation, that land would not be part of the
Monument and would therefore not be given the same protection. Those
newly acquired lands would be open to oil and gas development and a
host of other potential threats, creating a formidable and expensive
management challenge for the BLM which makes it very unlikely that the
agency would seek to acquire, from willing sellers, any in-holdings in
the Monument. Either way, the public loses and the future of the
Monument and its abundant wildlife, historical, and ecological values
now within the boundary will be jeopardized, and our ability to
preserve a piece of history and wildness will be ultimately lost.
This is not what the public wants whether they live in Montana or
in Florida. As chairman of the RAC I heard from people across Montana
who wanted this place protected. Since designation there have been
numerous opportunities for public input into the future of the Breaks.
Efforts to dismantle the Monument shortly after its designation
generated over 1400 letters to our governor, 1100 asking her to keep
the Monument as it is. There have also been two public comment periods
as the BLM develops a management plan for the Monument--the first
generated about 5,700 public comments and 5,602 supported protection of
the Monument in it's entirety. Another comment period has just closed
and almost 7,000 people wrote the agency and we are waiting for the
analysis of those comments. It is clear that Montanans, like people
across this country, in increasing numbers, want this land protected.
The bill we are discussing today offers a facade of comfort to the few
people who oppose the Monument while ignoring what the majority of
Americans and Montanans want.
Last year, Representative Rehberg told the editorial board of the
Montana Havre Daily News that ``he wants to eliminate any worries the
landowners may have that the federal government would somehow try to
restrict the landowners use of their own property.'' The Havre Daily
News responded in their editorial as follows: ``Rather than
exacerbating people's fears, Rehberg should be reassuring landowners
that they have nothing to worry about.''
Representative Rehberg has also stated that including private land
within the boundaries of the Monument will open that land up to
vandalism and trespass. But in reality drawing a line on a map would be
of little help. On our ranch, our private lands are checkerboarded with
public lands. It is almost impossible for a person to tell where my
private land ends and the public's land begins. If I want to keep the
public off of my property and on the public land, I would need to
clearly mark my boundaries. This is already my right and my
responsibility.
There are a few very troubling things about this proposed
legislation. It sets a precedent that may be applied to the other
fifteen Monuments managed by the BLM, thirteen of which also have
private lands within their boundaries. It also sets a precedent that
may be applied to other special places managed by agencies under the
Department of Interior, such as other National Monuments and National
Parks. The National Park Service (NPS oversees 395 units that include
many different designations such as National Parks, National Monuments
and National Historic Parks. Private land is included in 242 or 61
percent of those sites, which include sites such as Yellowstone and the
Grand Canyon as well as sites like Harper's Ferry, Valley Forge, the C
& O Canal, and Gettysburg.
It is also troubling that those asking for this legislation seem to
have little trust in their government to treat its citizens fairly. It
also seems those asking for this legislation have little faith in their
fellow citizens, yet ask these citizens to trust them when they
proclaim that they are the stewards of these public lands.
Twenty-six years ago, Congress led by Senator Metcalf of Montana
created the Upper Missouri River Wild and Scenic River. Forty-six
percent or 35,800 of the 81,000 acres that this bill would remove from
the Monument are within the boundaries of the wild and scenic
designation. Just think, twenty-six years ago Congress knew that they
could do this and private property rights would not be violated.
Twenty-six years later, we know Congress was right--that private
property rights were not violated and that the river was better
protected than before.
Twenty-six years later the President of the United States using the
powers granted to him through the Antiquities Act created a Monument
protecting a larger area for future generations. This Monument with its
inspiring landscape celebrates Lewis and Clark and their role in the
building of a nation. It celebrates so much of what they stood for. Let
us not weaken this Monument by passing legislation such as this.
Rather, let us work together to put in place a management plan for this
new Monument that serves not just a few special interests but the
interests of all Americans now and for future generations.
______
Mr. Radanovich. We will begin with questions from my
colleagues up here on the dais.
Ms. Roeser, I have got a couple of questions for you. Can
you give us an example here in the Committee of how you have
tried to work with the Federal agencies to resolve some of the
access problems that you have had with the trails?
Ms. Roeser. Yes. We have been involved throughout any
development of management plans, certainly from the scoping
process, comment periods, and then comments on the final
documents numerous times on numerous different units, from the
John Muir-Ansel Adams Wilderness to Yosemite Park, Sequoia
Park, on and on. Oftentimes, our comments were just given sort
of a perfunctory review, so we would often take them to the
next level, which would mean appeals to the Regional Forester
in the case of the Forest Service, appeals to the Chief of the
Forest Service, and so on. So we have followed that route
numerous times.
There has been dozens and dozens of public hearings, public
comment periods, and we have even been forced with legal action
actually a few times, so it has been numerous.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. In the prior panel, Mr. Calvert,
representing the Department of Interior, stated that my
legislation was not necessary because the current process of
categorical exclusions is NEPA compliant. However, is it your
feeling that if a normal NEPA process were required prior to
the trail closures you mentioned and a public comment period
was required, as would be under NEPA, having that process
mandated, would that be helpful in addressing the problems that
you mentioned?
Ms. Roeser. It would certainly be a huge start. Many times,
decisions are made without the input of stock users and
certainly without the input of people who do not own stock but
wish to use stock, in other words, hiring a commercial
outfitter. So that input is often not received, first of all.
And second of all, we believe that this simply reiterates
what is already in the law that has been repeatedly ignored by
the land agencies for many, many years.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
We are now joined by Mr. Elijah Cummings, who could not
attend earlier because of some Floor activity. Mr. Cummings,
welcome back to the Subcommittee. If you would like to give
your statement, and then we will go ahead and open up this
entire panel then to questions from members of the dais.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate your courtesy and thank the Committee.
Chairman Radanovich and Ranking Member Christensen and
members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss legislation
which is of great importance to me, the National Great Black
Americans Commemoration Act, H.R. 2424, S. 1233.
The legislation which I have introduced jointly with my
good friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, would
authorize Federal assistance in the establishment of an
institution of great significance to this nation, the National
Great Blacks in Wax Museum.
The National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act will
help to bring long-overdue recognition to African Americans who
have served our nation with distinction. But those names,
faces, and records of achievement are not well-known by the
public. This legislation, introduced in June, enjoys the
bipartisan support and cosponsorship of more than 50 of our
colleagues in the House. Senator Mikulski's companion bill, S.
1233, has already passed the Senate.
The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, America's first wax museum
of black history, was founded in the early 1980s. The museum
occupies part of a city block in East Baltimore and currently
includes approximately 200 exhibits. Existing figures depict
Colin Powell, Harriet Tubman, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary
McCloud Bethune, and former Representatives Robert Smalls of
South Carolina, Mickey Leland of Texas, Parren Mitchell and
Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, and Shirley Chisholm and Adam Clayton
Powell of New York. This legislation will help to present the
faces and stories of black Americans who have reached some of
the highest levels of national, and sometimes international,
service, but who are generally unknown.
A priority in this museum expansion project will be the
creation of new exhibits presenting black Americans who served
in this Congress during the 1800s, some born in slavery and
others born free. These great Americans proudly served their
constituencies and this nation. The expanded museum will also
focus on black military veterans, on black judges, lawmen, and
prominent attorneys, and the role of blacks in discovery and
settlement.
This legislation will help to showcase blacks who have
served in senior civilian executive branch positions. These
include Ralph Bunch, E. Frederick Morrow, Robert Weaver,
William Coleman, Patricia Batt Harris, Louis Sullivan, and
others who have not received appropriate recognition.
The State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore already
have contributed over $5 million toward this expansion project,
which will occupy an entire city block in an empowerment zone
area. The museum is conducting extensive outreach to major
corporations and other private donors. This legislation
authorizes a Federal share not to exceed 25 percent or $15
million, whichever is less, of the expansion project dollars.
I am very pleased by the strong support that has been
exhibited for this legislation on both sides of the aisle, in
the Senate as well as the House. The Senate companion bill, S.
1233, passed the Senate by unanimous consent. It is a little
more than a month after its introduction in June of this year.
The House version, H.R. 2424, has attracted the support and
cosponsorship of more than 50 of our colleagues, both
Republicans and Democrats, as well as members of the two House
committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources and the
Committee on the Judiciary.
This legislation is, indeed, a tribute to the people of my
Congressional district who believe in the power of a cultural
institution, such as a museum, to bring about positive change
in a challenged community. It also very importantly constitutes
the realization of a dream of two great Americans, the late Dr.
Elmer Martin and Dr. Joanne Martin, who is with us today.
At great personal sacrifice, the Martins dedicated
themselves to building a cultural institution of prominence in
a part of our city where no other such institution would choose
to locate. They passed up opportunities to establish their
museum in far more lucrative, tourist-oriented sites in
Baltimore, choosing instead to remain instead in a fragile
community in East Baltimore.
I would also like to point out the phenomenal success of
this initiative. The Great Blacks in Wax Museum draws more than
a quarter-million visitors per year, including several members
of Congress and their staff and I, I might add. More than 50
percent of those visitors are schoolchildren. On a typical
day's visit to The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, you will find
school buses lining the block on East North Avenue, including
buses from other States. A destination for scholars as well as
students, receiving over one million hits annually on its
website, The Great Blacks in Wax Museum truly deserves its
reputation as a national treasure.
I urge the support of all members of the Committee for this
legislation to assist with the establishment of the National
Great Blacks in Wax Museum and I thank you for your
consideration of this important preservation and community-
building initiative and I look forward to working with the
Committee in bringing it to fruition. And I thank you again,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cummings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland, on H.R. 2424
Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen and Members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss legislation which is of great importance to me, the
National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act (H.R. 2424/S. 1233).
This legislation which I have introduced jointly with Senator Barbara
Mikulski would authorize federal assistance in the establishment of an
institution of great significance to this nation, the National Great
Blacks in Wax Museum.
The National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act will help to
bring long overdue recognition to African Americans who have served our
nation with distinction, but whose names, faces, and records of
achievements are not well-known by the public. This legislation,
introduced in June, enjoys the bipartisan support and cosponsorship of
more than 50 of our colleagues in the House. Senator Mikulski's
companion bill (S. 1233) has already passed the Senate.
The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, America's first wax museum of Black
history, was founded in the early 1980s. The museum occupies part of a
city block in East Baltimore, and currently includes approximately 200
exhibits. Existing figures depict Colin Powell, Harriet Tubman, Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary McLeod Bethune and former Representatives
Robert Smalls of South Carolina, Mickey Leland of Texas, Parren
Mitchell and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, and Shirley Chisholm and Adam
Clayton Powell of New York.
This legislation will help to present the faces and stories of
Black Americans who have reached some of the highest levels of national
service, but who are generally unknown. A priority in this museum
expansion project will be creation of new exhibits presenting Black
Americans who served in Congress during the 1800s. Some born in slavery
and others born free, these Americans proudly served their
constituencies and the nation. The expanded museum will also focus on
Black military veterans, on Black judges, lawmen and prominent
attorneys, and the role of Blacks in discovery and settlement.
This legislation will help to showcase Blacks who served in senior
civilian Executive Branch positions. These include Ralph Bunche
(Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration), E. Frederic Morrow
(Eisenhower Administration), Robert Weaver (Johnson Administration),
William Coleman (Ford Administration), Patricia Harris (Carter
Administration), Louis Sullivan (George H.W. Bush Administration), and
others who have not received appropriate recognition.
The State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore already have
contributed over $5 million toward this expansion project which will
occupy an entire city block in an Empowerment Zone area. The museum is
conducting extensive outreach to major corporations and other private
donors. This legislation authorizes a federal share not to exceed 25%,
or $15 million (whichever is less) of the expansion project.
I am very pleased by the strong support that has been exhibited for
this legislation on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate as well as
the House. The Senate companion bill, S. 1233, passed the Senate by
unanimous consent a little more than a month after its introduction in
June of this year. The House version, H.R. 2424, has attracted the
support and cosponsorship of more than 50 of our colleagues, both
Republicans and Democrats as well as members of the two House
committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources and the
Committee on the Judiciary.
This legislation is a tribute to the people of my congressional
district who believe in the power of a cultural institution such as the
Museum to bring about positive change in a challenged community. It
also, very importantly, constitutes the realization of a dream of two
great Americans, Drs. Elmer and Joanne Martin. At great personal
sacrifice, the Martins dedicated themselves to building a cultural
institution of prominence in a part of our city where no other such
institution would choose to locate. They passed up opportunities to
establish their museum at far more lucrative, tourist-oriented sites in
Baltimore, choosing instead to remain in a fragile community in East
Baltimore.
I would also like to point out the phenomenal success of this
initiative. The Great Blacks in Wax Museum draws more than a quarter
million visitors per year, including several members of Congress and
their staff I might add. More than 50 percent of those visitors are
schoolchildren. On a typical day's visit to The Great Blacks in Wax
Museum, you will find school buses lining the block on East North
Avenue, including buses from other states. A destination for scholars
as well as students, receiving over 1 million hits annually on its web
site, The Great Blacks in Wax Mmuseum truly deserves its reputation as
a ``national treasure''.
I urge the support of all members of this Committee for this
legislation to assist with establishment of the National Great Blacks
in Wax Museum. Thank you for your consideration of this important
preservation and community-building initiative and I look forward to
working with the Committee on bringing it to fruition.
______
Mr. Rehberg. [Presiding.] At this time, we will go back to
the questioning of the various witnesses. I would like to begin
by asking Mr. Tureck, why do you think you love Montana's lands
more than Mr. Knox?
Mr. Tureck. I didn't say that.
Mr. Rehberg. Well, Mr. Knox's property is included inside
the boundary, his private property, and yours is not, and you
are making a determination on his private property. What gives
you the right as an American citizen to determine what he does
with his private property?
Mr. Tureck. I am not in any way determining what he does
with his property. His property rights are totally protected.
Mr. Rehberg. So why wouldn't you support legislation? If he
requests to have his private property taken out of the
boundaries, why can't he do that?
Mr. Tureck. What is the cost to him of having it in the
boundaries? The advantage is that there is another potential
buyer out there if he ever wants to sell his land.
Mr. Rehberg. Let me ask you this. In your testimony, you
characterize oil and gas development among the threats to
private land that might be possible, if not for the Monument
designation. My question is two-fold. First, do you believe
that you are the best decisionmaker for property that you do
not own, and second, have you placed a perpetual easement on
your property that would ensure that your property would never
be susceptible to these types of threats?
Mr. Tureck. Let me start with the second question, if I
may. We own land on Square Butte, which is a natural area. It
is the world's largest laccolith. It has been visited since the
1880s by geologists from across the world. It is a very fragile
area. I would like to announce that, yes, we have put a
conservation easement up there that is probably the most
restrictive easement you will ever see. OK. The only economic
activity allowed on our land up there is grazing. There can
never be a house built. There can be no mining. We will not
allow power lines to go across it nor roads to be built.
Mr. Rehberg. How would you feel personally if Mr. Knox
determined that the rest of your ranch ought to be included in
that same easement and came to the government and said, without
Mr. Tureck's knowledge, we are going to put that all in an
easement and we are going to affect his future ability to
develop his property?
Mr. Tureck. There is nothing stopping Mr. Knox from
developing his property now.
Mr. Rehberg. He has land in-holdings. He makes a
determination he wants to develop a well. Are you going to be
sitting before us supporting a pipeline being built across
Federal properties to take the oil out of his in-holding?
Mr. Tureck. I doubt it, because I would protect the Federal
lands, but he can put that well in. He can subdivide. He can do
what he wants to do.
Mr. Rehberg. He just can't get it out.
Mr. Tureck. But that might be a problem otherwise.
Mr. Rehberg. But less of a problem if all he has to deal
with is the Bureau of Land Management.
As former Chairman of the Central Montana Resource Advisory
Council, on December 30, 1999, you submitted recommendations
made by your council to then-Interior Secretary Babbitt.
Section 6 of those recommendations, entitled ``Issues Not
Covered,'' lists both private property and boundary issues as
issues that were not covered. However, in your testimony, you
state that the President created the Missouri Breaks Monument
using those recommendations.
It would seem clear to me that if private property rights
and boundary issues, the two most central issues in today's
discussions, were not covered, as your report clearly
indicates, you would be in favor of my bill in an attempt to
fully cover these issues.
Mr. Tureck. First of all, private property rights were
addressed by the RAC. We recommended all private property
rights be respected, and that is what the proclamation did. We
did not talk about boundaries, because we did not talk about
designation. We knew that there was no consensus on that. We
are a consensus council.
Mr. Rehberg. As Chairman of the RAC----
Mr. Tureck. Let me finish if I may, sir.
Mr. Rehberg. You may.
Mr. Tureck. OK. As a consensus council--or the ranchers
that oppose this Monument refuse to talk boundaries because
they refuse to talk about designation. There was not going to
be a designation. They fought that to the final end. That was
their choice.
Mr. Rehberg. As Chairman of the Resource Advisory Council,
you are pretty aware of probably who the membership of that
committee was. Were any of the landowners who have land
currently in the boundary on the President's Resource Advisory
Committee? Now, the President has the ability through the
Secretary of Interior to appoint anybody he wants, so he had
the ability to appoint landowners who have land inside those
boundaries. Were any of those members on that Advisory Council?
Mr. Tureck. At the time, no, but let me explain. Nobody
applied from within where the boundaries now rest. Nobody had
ever applied. I had asked people to apply. I said, this is
somewhere you should get involved. They did not apply. But----
Mr. Rehberg. In your testimony----
Mr. Tureck. Let me finish.
Mr. Rehberg. In your testimony, you brought up a lot of
peripheral issues, such as the potential impact or effect on
other places, like Glacier or Yellowstone or Yosemite. Show me
in the bill where this specifically deals with any other
Monument other than the Missouri Breaks Monument.
Mr. Tureck. In all due respect, Representative Rehberg,
this sets a precedent, and as you yourself pointed out today,
this administration is going to be different from the next
administration. Once this precedent is set, where does it go
next? I anticipate----
Mr. Rehberg. I would put it to you, Mr. Tureck, that the
Congress has, in fact, adjusted boundaries in the past. The
precedent has been set long before this Congress. This just
rights a wrong for one specific boundary in one specific
Monument.
Mr. Tureck. This does much more than just the boundary.
This also removes all private lands within the Monument.
Mr. Rehberg. My time is up. I will recognize Mrs.
Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me address a question to Dr. Martin, but first, I want
to thank her on behalf of the Committee for her very compelling
testimony and to commend you and your husband for not only
preserving our past, but protecting our future.
I was wondering if, you know, we have a number of museums
and monuments across the country, some of them are Federal but
some are privately owned or locally or State-owned. Some are
still being established. Is there any formal or informal
collaboration planned so that that story can be told in a
more--with more continuity and there be more coordination among
all of our museums that tell the story of African Americans in
the past.
Dr. Martin. Museums today clearly understand the need to
collaborate when you look at the economic climate that we find
ourselves in and the ways in which the tourism industry is
affected by any number of issues and occurrences on the
national scene, in the national scene. So more and more,
museums are forming alliances. We are looking to the American
Association of Museums, for example, or the Association of
African American Museums. Within our individual States, we
belong to tourism councils and so forth.
And as we begin to reach out to one another, then that
brings us in touch with the kind of expertise that many of us
simply cannot afford. It allows us to share resources, to share
stories, experiences. So that is clearly on all of our agendas,
to collaborate more and to understand that there is strength
through unity.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you for your answer.
Mr. Knox, are you aware that there are more than 35,000
acres of private land within the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic
River, which were designated in 1976 and which are part now of
the current Monument?
Mr. Knox. Yes, I am.
Mrs. Christensen. And do you know of any situations where
the BLM violated the private property rights of landowners
within the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic Rivers since that
time, since 1976?
Mr. Knox. Not specifically, no, but I can give you a little
background on why we ended up grudgingly, I have to say, but we
did end up cooperating with and get along fairly well with the
Wild and Scenic designation.
First of all, it was done by Congress and we felt, whether
we liked it or not, Congress did what they did.
Second, this Monument, or, I mean, excuse me, this
designation was written with a multiple-use mandate. It is, to
my knowledge, the only Wild and Scenic River Act that was
created that way.
And what we are always concerned about with the mix of
private and Federal lands, of course, is that the private lands
are the base properties for grazing allotments. Almost all of
these private lands that you see on this map are the base
properties for grazing allotments. And everything that is done
on Federal land that affects that grazing allotment affects
that private property.
So when the Wild and Scenic River Act was passed with a
multiple-use mandate by Congress, we felt we had to accept it
and we did.
Mrs. Christensen. I will probably come back to you with
another question, but before my time runs out, I wanted to ask
Mr. Tureck a question also. Do you recall how many hearings or
public meetings the Resource Advisory Council which you chaired
held on the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, and do you
believe those meetings were a sham, as some of the people have
claimed?
Mr. Tureck. No, I don't believe those meetings were a sham.
First of all, we held the first meeting actually to consider
whether we should even take this issue up as an RAC, and that
meeting was well attended. A great number of the people were
actually from Winifred and down on the river said they wanted
the RAC to take it because that was their only hope. When we
didn't come up, I guess, with the recommendation they wanted,
then we were a failure.
But we traveled to three cities. We spent two days in each
city to take testimony. Over 200 people testified. We took it
during the day and at night both, so those people who felt
importantly about this could come and talk. Then we also took
written comments. Over 200 letters were also received. It was
this that we turned around and dealt with in our
recommendations.
And in our recommendations, let me point out, we
recommended multiple use for the Monument. Grazing is
grandfathered in. It is mentioned in the proclamation. So is
hunting and fishing. I would argue that actually Mr. Knox's
rights are better protected than mine, of grazing on public
lands.
Also, I would like to point out that if any land is
purchased by the Federal Government from a willing seller, that
land would automatically be operated under tailored grazing
and, therefore, be given back out to grazing.
Could I make one more comment, too----
Mrs. Christensen. Sure----
Mr. Tureck [continuing]. And this has to do with the tax
base that Mr. Knox alluded to being lost if you turned around
and sold land to the Federal Government, that that would be
lost. I pay on my rough break somewhere between 15 and 50 cents
an acre, depending on the class of land. Per acre, that is what
I pay in taxes. The government gives $1.35 an acre, per acre,
in PILT payments locally. Those payments go directly to the
county.
The county--I think Congress in its infinite wisdom here
and the BLM decided not to micromanage that money but rather
let the counties manage it. Fergus County has chosen to spend
that money on roads. We, the taxpayers, will turn around, and
those who elect these county commissioners, and say, spend that
money on schools.
So I don't see that there is necessarily--and he mentioned
the one ranch. I calculated the PILT payments versus the taxes
they pay. It would be almost identical.
Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. First, Dr. Martin, I know this is
not a question, but I couldn't pass you by without at least
thanking you for the comments that you made orally here.
Dr. Martin. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Your discussion on heritage, I think was
beautiful. All of us are a byproduct of our ancestry. That is
what creates us. And the future generations--this is the old
history teacher in me coming out--will never understand
themselves until they can go back and understand their
heritage, and I just want you to know how much I appreciated
the words you said and the efforts you are doing. I will raise
my voice at the end so it sounds like a question, but it is not
really there. But I just want to thank you for what you said.
Dr. Martin. Well, I am an English teacher, so that didn't
work, but----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Martin. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Tureck, if I could ask you a question. In
your testimony, one of the reasons you gave for continuing the
status quo is the inclusion of private property in the Monument
if at some future time it should be purchased, but it would
automatically be included. And you characterized going the
other direction, which is equally effective, of letting the
land go and then buying it by Congressional action as
burdensome and a waste of taxpayer money. In fact, the direct
words were, it would mean extra work for Congress or the
President and additional cost to the American taxpayers, as
legislation is expensive in both time and money. I find that
unique, because I think that we would define those terms
differently. I think we would call that the democratic process.
I guess my question has to be, is it your honest feeling
that the benefit of automatic inclusion outweighs the efforts
of giving affected landowners their say in a Congressional
approach.
Mr. Tureck. Since we are basically talking about only
buying land from willing sellers, the landowners have the right
to sell to who they want if they want to sell, but it is only
to willing sellers. Why do we need a Congressional hearing? And
Congress does have basically a veto on this because they--it is
through appropriations. But it is not in condemnation. BLM has
no rights to condemnation. It is to willing sellers.
Mr. Bishop. Well, let me try this. Mr. Knox, you own land
in this Monument, correct?
Mr. Knox. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Are you presently a willing seller?
Mr. Knox. No.
Mr. Bishop. And I understand of the 127 owners, 125 of them
want out of this Monument designation.
Mr. Knox. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. What would create you to be a willing seller in
the future?
Mr. Knox. Well, as I stated earlier, where we are very
concerned, and we always will be as long as we are ranching in
that area, and hopefully we will be ranching there--I would
like to see my daughters have the same opportunity that my wife
and I have had--but what we are always concerned about is the
private lands attached to the Federal lands and the effect that
management decisions made by BLM have on those private lands.
And when you institute or impose, in this case, a new
Federal designation on an area, you know, these new
designations always come with some kind of new management
restrictions. We are still in the middle of the RMP process so
we don't know what those will be. But those will have a direct
bearing and a direct effect on not only how we use our private
lands, but also the value of those private lands. So for people
to think that somehow this doesn't have any effect, they are
very wrong.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Knox, help me understand if I am going
through this analysis in any way inaccurately. When Congress
originally established the process for creating public lands,
Monuments, et cetera, as they went through both a FLMPA and
NEPA process, it was for the due process effort that was part
of it. Many people have said that we need to trust our
government because it hasn't let us down before. That bothers
me once again, because the Founding Fathers, when they wrote
our Constitution, said that no generation of America should so
blindly say that they would trust the government.
In fact, the Bill of Rights is misstated. It actually
should be called the ``Bill of Wrongs.'' Things are wrong for
the government to do no matter how many people or how many
councils want to do them. And part of the Fifth Amendment was
obviously the guarantee of due process, that no one could take
away your property without due process.
Am I wrong in assuming that that is perhaps what has
happened here, that if the government wants to buy that from a
willing seller, they should do it before they include it in any
kind of Federal project, not after? And tell me if I am wrong.
To me, the analogy is, if I was in the private sector and I
went out and built a building, I would build a building on the
land and then see if I could coerce the owner of the land into
selling it to me, as opposed to buying the land first and doing
it the appropriate way.
Now, have I gone through that analysis in your mind in any
way inaccurately?
Mr. Knox. No, that is very accurate and it reflects the way
we feel in the Missouri River Breaks area. When I say ``we,'' I
mean the landowners. At one point, Mr. Tureck is correct that
we did oppose the Monument designation. But in December of
2000, when Secretary Babbitt announced to the media that he was
going to recommend to the President that the area be designated
a National Monument, if nothing else, at that time, they should
have come to us and said, OK, here are the boundaries. We would
like your input and your comments on what those boundaries will
be, whether or not your private property is included, if there
is a way we can draw your property out if you don't want it to
be included in this designation. That was never done, and that
is a matter of public record. It just didn't happen.
Mr. Bishop. And I am sorry that didn't happen. I apologize
for that. My time has expired.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. Mr. Cummings?
Mr. Cummings. I don't have any questions.
Mr. Rehberg. Mrs. Christensen, if I could just make a
couple of points to answer some of your questions, and that is
I think the answer you received, if you heard at all, was a
good one on the Wild and Scenic designation because what he
told you was the Wild and Scenic designation was an Act of
Congress. It was authorized. It was appropriated and managed as
such. So it went through the public process, and the only way
you can establish a Wild and Scenic Corridor is either through
an Act of Congress or through the State Legislature, so you
have the public process. In this particular case, you did not.
The answer you heard from Mr. Tureck was incomplete on
payment in lieu of taxes. I don't know you get your funds in
your community, the Virgin Islands, for education, but in the
State of Montana, being a former appropriator and a legislator,
we get our money for education from property taxes. The problem
is, payment in lieu of taxes doesn't go to schools, it goes
back to counties for them to spend. So as the Federal
Government purchases property that is deeded and takes it out
of the taxpaying process, the schools lose the money. The
counties are a beneficiary, not 100 percent, and that is part
of the problem we have with payment in lieu and that is why we
continue to beat up on every President since Washington,
probably, to get them to fully fund payment in lieu, but there
is not a transfer of 100 percent from schools back through the
PILT to schools. It is lost to them. So I just wanted to
clarify those points.
One more question of Mr. Tureck, then I would like to turn
to Mr. Knox, and that is, Mr. Tureck, you mentioned all those
letters and all those signatures you got on all those
petitions. Did one single person sign your letters and
petitions that owned property inside the Monument?
Mr. Tureck. I really can't tell you. I really can't tell
you.
Mr. Rehberg. Again, therein lies the problem. It is easy
for somebody to plow their neighbors' field. I would just love
to graze your property without your permission. You probably
wouldn't like that. But I guess, oh well, it is in the greater
good of me because my cattle need your grass, and that is
essentially what you are saying by saying, in spite of the fact
that 127 people that own 81,000 acres inside the Monument don't
want their property in there, for the greater good of the
Federal Government, we are going to include your property.
Mr. Tureck. We have tried to find out the number of
landowners inside the Monument. We have come up with 92, of
which 20 percent live out of State. I am not sure that those
have all been contacted. I would like to see all the letters of
those who said, ``I want out,'' and signed.
Mr. Rehberg. Well, Mr. Tureck, we are waiting to hear from
one who wants to be included.
Mr. Knox, a question for you. You obviously don't love the
land as much as Mr. Tureck because you don't want your land to
be protected. Are you mismanaging the McClelland Farm?
Mr. Knox. No, we are not.
Mr. Rehberg. Ironically, I will tell the Committee there is
a conflict of interest. I did not know it. I didn't know Mr.
Knox. He is the Chairman of the Land Stewards. But he actually
farms my great-grandmother's homestead. It just is purely
coincidental. I have no landownership up there, but if I ever
find out you are mismanaging the McClelland Farm, you are in
deep trouble. It is within the Wild and Scenic Corridor. It is
now within the Missouri Breaks and it does deserve protection
and, I assume, because you manage that property, you are
managing it to the best of agricultural practices for the
betterment of the Missouri Breaks. I hope that is true.
Let me follow up on Mr. Bishop's question, then. Do you
feel in any way, shape, or form, after you have been poked in
the nose or the eye by the Federal Government, that you deserve
to cooperate or you should cooperate with them in becoming a
willing buyer and seller? I mean, what has created a warm and
fuzzy feeling in your mind after they did this in the 12th hour
of the Clinton Administration to make you want to participate
or cooperate with the Federal Government?
Mr. Knox. Well, that is a good question. You know, one of
the--there are basically three categories of land that, as
ranchers, we are virtually all dealing with, and that is
private, State, and Federal, and they are intermingled. The
country is rough. You can't fence away any given parcel of land
easily or economically feasibly.
And so what is required is cooperation, and when a kind of
designation like this is imposed without a public process
regarding boundaries and regarding private lands, and when the
boundary is cutting through parcels of private land and
constituting the perimeter boundary of a designation like this,
it does create an atmosphere where cooperation is a little bit
harder to come by. I would----
Mr. Rehberg. Go ahead.
Mr. Knox. Excuse me. I would like to point out in response
to something Mr. Tureck said about nobody put in for the RAC
that would be directly affected by this. I myself did in 1995
during the Clinton Administration, and so did a neighbor of
ours, Danny Boyce. The Boyce family is the second-largest
landowner in the National Monument, and he and I both put in
for the RAC. Our applications were turned down, but I believe
that was 1995.
Mr. Rehberg. Begging the Committee's indulgence, I would
like to ask one more question, because I do have a ranch. That
is what I did for a living before I became a Congressman three
years ago and I do have public lands intermingled in a
checkerboard fashion.
As a result of public lands inside my property, I see a
trespass problem, not because people don't respect private
property, but because they think they have access to that
public property even though it is wholly surrounded by private
property. I assume--I will ask you the question. Do you have
the same problem, and if you do, are the Federal agencies ever
out there to help you with the trespass or do you end up being
the cop confronting people, trying to explain to them that they
are accessing land that is not public? In what way has the BLM
helped you ameliorate the difficulties with trespassing?
Mr. Knox. The particular piece of property that we have
within the Monument boundary is on the upper end of the land
that you referred to, the McClelland Homestead, and typically,
we let people have access to it. It is a good fishing area and
people like to camp there.
So we, as the Knox Ranch, I can't say that that is a huge
issue for us. But the Boyce family that I mentioned earlier,
they own a large parcel in what is called Knox Ridge and there
is a county road that runs through the middle of it. It is, of
course, their summer range and it is a mixture of BLM and
private, a large chunk of private land, and they have had a lot
of problems.
People simply aren't good map readers. When you draw a
designation boundary around something, that confuses the issue
even more. People say, well, you know, it kind of looks like
maybe it is private land here on this map, but yet it is within
this boundary. So maybe I am within my rights to be on this
property.
And so that is the reality of it. People just simply don't
understand property rights issues in some cases, not all cases,
but in some cases, and they don't understand the relationship
between Federal and private and they can't read a map.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I guess I have one question.
Hopefully, it won't lead to others. But it just seems to me
that the reason both Federal and private lands are included in
this is that there are historic and scientific resources on
both, so protection is needed for both and I guess that is why
the private properties are included.
What I don't understand is why the Congressional process is
accepted, even though everything was not agreed to in a
Congressional process, either, but the Presidential process,
which has full authority under the Antiquities Act, just as
much authority as the Congressional process had and which
appeared to have had extensive public comment and a public
process, the recommendations of which, as I understand it, are
included in the Monument proclamation, why that is not
accepted.
Both have authority to be done. Both had public processes.
Both have things that maybe some of the private landowners
agree with and don't agree with. I don't see the difference. I
mean, I don't see why there is such a strong objection to this
process, especially since the property rights of the private
landholder is not infringed upon.
Mr. Knox. To answer your question, I would simply go back
to the lack of public process on the boundary issue. When the
Wild and Scenic River was created, I was, I guess, a high
school kid then, but I remember my father was involved in it.
In my memory, and to my knowledge, they were looking at maps
before Congress passed that legislation.
We weren't in this case, and it is maybe a little harder to
swallow when it is done administratively. I am not saying that
the Antiquities Act is wrong or inappropriate. I am just saying
that for people on the ground, it is just a little harder to
accept.
Here again, I would go back to a fundamental difference,
and maybe this is only the Missouri Breaks Monument. Maybe they
had boundary discussions and saw maps on all the other ones, I
don't know. But in this particular case, we didn't, and that is
why I think this legislation--and we have talked a lot about
precedents today. I think the good precedent that this
legislation would create is that in the future,
administrations, before they create a large Federal designation
through administrative authority with the use of the
Antiquities Act, that they would consult with landowners and
have a very, very intense, I guess is the word I would use,
public process regarding boundaries and how they affect private
landholders. And if we could create that precedent, I think
that people would be more accepting of the use of this kind of
administrative power.
Mrs. Christensen. Do you think that a Monument would ever
get designated under that kind of a process? We are assuming
that Monuments are designated because there is a resource that
is in need of protection.
Mr. Knox. Yes. I--did you have more?
Mrs. Christensen. No. I just wanted to allow Mr. Tureck to
also answer both questions after you are finished.
Mr. Knox. OK. Yes, I believe this one probably would have
been created with that kind of public process.
Mrs. Christensen. OK.
Mr. Knox. Because if they had, for example, if they had
come to us with some kind of give-and-take public process that
said, you know, we are probably going to do this, but do you
want your property drawn in or out, and, you know, there are a
lot of different ways we could do this, at some point, we would
have sat down with them.
Mrs. Christensen. Can I--my time is running out. Can I
allow Mr. Tureck to also answer?
Mr. Tureck. Yes. I would like to point out that I think
this legislation really is indirectly an attack upon the
Antiquities Act.
Mrs. Christensen. Clearly.
Mr. Tureck. OK, and I do that in part of Representative
Rehberg's introductory statement questioning the legality of
this Monument alone. The Antiquities Act is 95 years old and we
have struggled with it for 95 years and yet it is still in
place and is still intact and Presidents use it. Only three out
of all the Presidents over the 95 years have not created
Monuments. If this legislation were to pass, it would destroy
the Antiquities Act, and that is what I think the intention of
it really is.
What was the other question you asked?
Mrs. Christensen. The question was, what was the difference
between--I thought that it was a public process that
incorporated the public opinion before the proclamation of the
Monument, as well.
Mr. Tureck. Yes. See, the first Monument created by the
Clinton Administration, the one in Utah, was done much as
people said, in the heat of the night, you know, late at night,
the Staircase Escalante.
Mrs. Christensen [continuing]. Escalante.
Mr. Tureck. After that, all of these other Monuments had
extensive hearings, probably more extensive than the creation
of any other Monument under the Antiquities Act by any
President before. You remember the Grand Canyon was created as
a Monument by Teddy Roosevelt. It was brought before the court,
saying it was much too large, that it was not the smallest unit
possible. It was thrown out of court. I mean, we have brought
them before. Now, we are trying to legislate the Antiquities
Act out.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. I am going to take the opportunity
not to let Mr. Tureck put words in my mouth. I do not oppose
the Antiquities Act. Mrs. Christensen, if you will read the
Antiquities Act, you will see it very clearly says, take no
more land than is absolutely necessary and in imminent danger,
and the question becomes, what was the imminent danger? Did
they take more land than was absolutely necessary? And therein
lies the problem that Mr. Knox talks about, the fact that if
they had been given the opportunity to talk about the
boundaries and what should be in and out, they probably could
have come to a consensus, and I so strongly believe in the
consensus process.
Mrs. Christensen. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rehberg. I will yield.
Mrs. Christensen. It is my understanding that the
boundaries are, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the
boundaries are drawn after----
Mr. Rehberg. That is correct, but the management is
determined beforehand. In this case, it is catty-wampus. They
put it into the later hours of the Clinton Administration, and
you can't deny that the reason it was done was because they
wanted to get it done before they left office, and they left
not only the boundaries unanswered without public input, but
they hadn't talked about the management, either. They would not
have done that. They would have given the Department the
opportunity to establish the management protocol. In Wild and
Scenic, very clearly, they have to determine under which
conditions it was going to be managed.
So again, you can see the reasonableness of Mr. Knox and
his compatriots up on the Missouri River in being willing to go
through the legislative process. They lost the issue. They
accepted it. They don't have a particular heartache with the
Wild and Scenic, but then you poked them again.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. I think, Mr. Rehberg, you just took my
statement away right there. That is OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask one question, Mr. Tureck. What were
the three Presidents who used--which three Presidents used this
Antiquities Act?
Mr. Tureck. No, I said three did not use it. President
Bush, President Reagan, and I am not sure of the other
President. All of the other Presidents have used the
Antiquities Act.
Mr. Bishop. Eisenhower?
Mr. Tureck. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. And Franklin Roosevelt?
Mr. Tureck. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. And Hoover?
Mr. Tureck. I think----
Mr. Bishop. And Coolidge.
Mr. Tureck. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. And Harding.
Mr. Tureck. And yes.
Mr. Bishop. And if you say Taft, you will be accurate.
Mr. Tureck. It has been used by Republicans.
Mr. Bishop. In a uniquely different process, let me go
through, and also to Mrs. Christensen, there is a difference in
what you were talking about. In the one process, you asked if
something could take place without the Antiquities Act. The
Congressional process established in those situations does work
and it has worked. In my State, there were four that had been
done since 1950 that had been created in that process.
The difference in the Antiquities Act is it has some
specific guidelines that have to be in there to allow it to be
an administrative process. The first one has to be the
endangerment, the imminent danger, which, as the Department
testified, they have no recollection of what that imminent
danger was.
The second one needs to be in the smallest area possible,
which means there has to be the concept of a large area and
then you come down to a smallest area. And once again as I am
listening to the testimony of the Department again, you have
reversed that process. You have started with the largest area
and you have done nothing else. You haven't found the smallest
area possible, the smallest footprint.
And the final one, the Antiquities has to be done on land
controlled by the Federal Government, not private property.
That is an abuse of the Antiquities Act power that is there,
which is why frequently, especially the last time was with
President Truman, what he created in the Antiquities Act was
uncreated by the next session of Congress because it violated
those processes and procedures, and that is what I think you
are talking about in this particular Monument in Montana. There
are specific processes that are integral to the Antiquities Act
that, at least from the testimony from the Department, were not
there.
Mr. Rehberg. Let me conclude by thanking the two other
witnesses for patiently sitting through a battle within the
State of Montana. Perhaps you have a better understanding of
the kinds of issues that we have confronting us in natural
resources. You both have very worthy causes and thank you for
appearing before our Committee. And to the two gentlemen from
Montana, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules
to be here with us, as well.
Without further comment, this meeting is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]