The Bush Administration and pro-development members of Congress have targeted the newly created monuments for boundary "adjustments" and as potential sites for new oil and gas development. House Resources Committee Chair Jim Hansen released a report in March that gave a preliminary assessment of the oil and gas reserves in the newly created National Monuments and of the coal reserves in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Bush Interior Secretary Gale Norton has also sent letters to Western governors and local officials in states with new monuments, asking them to suggest boundary and other changes to those National Monuments and has repeatedly stated that the Administration will be looking at the new monuments as part of their overall "energy" strategy.

A "Policy Briefing on the Environment" included in the Monday, April 23 edition of the Capitol Hill newspaper "Roll Call" featured an article by House Resources Ranking Member, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), on National Monuments. The text of the article appears below.

By Rep. Nick Rahall

Imagine Chaco Canyon National Historical Park with its ancient cliff dwellings stripped bare of all native artifacts by looters. Or envision Grand Canyon National Park with active mining operations dotting the canyon or the Colorado River turning a greenish-blue from mine waste leeching into it. Had the 59th Congress not acted to grant President Theodore Roosevelt the authority to protect these areas through the Antiquities Act, such nightmare scenarios might well have come true. Congress intended the act to allow a president to move quickly to protect pristine areas owned by the federal government from assault by nature or by man, and it has performed that function well for nearly a century.

Unfortunately, the modern assaults of urban sprawl, aggressive development and increasing pollution have been detrimental to sensitive areas of public land that contain significant natural, historical and scientific resources. Although the Antiquities Act of 1906 may sound outdated, the importance of the resource protection it provides has only increased. The Clinton Administration recognized this reality and used the act to effectively address threats to natural wonders such as the Grand Staircase-Escalante, Canyons of the Ancients and Giant Sequoia National Monuments. Sadly, the decision to halt the assault on some of our most vulnerable public land has led to an unwarranted attack on the decision-makers.

Critics of these national monument designations have made baseless charges that the former president engaged in an "abuse of authority" and a "monumental land grab." Such inflamed rhetoric simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The use of presidential proclamations to designate national monuments is not unique. In the past 95 years, 119 national monuments have been designated pursuant to the Antiquities Act. Like Roosevelt and nearly every president since, President Bill Clinton was compelled to provide a level of protection to sensitive and pristine public lands that would ensure their preservation for all time. He was well within his authority to do so. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to use the term "land grab," with its connotation of a taking of private property, since the Antiquities Act clearly states that the president can only designate public lands as national monuments. All of our national monuments were already owned by the American people before they were designated, and critics of the designations would know this if they simply read the law.

Opponents of these designations also erroneously claim that the last administration moved to protect these areas without sufficient consultation. In truth, many of these areas suffered from too much consultation rather than too little. For example, proposals to protect the Grand Staircase-Escalante date back to the 1930's. The president acted not in the absence of consultation but because years of consultation had produced scant results. Aware of the very real threats to the significant resources of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, Clinton used the Antiquities Act as it was intended.

Regarding the other recent national monuments, the "no consultation" claim ignores the significant efforts of former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Acting as the president’s eyes and ears on these proposals, Babbitt visited the proposed monuments personally – in many cases two or three times. He spoke with local officials, attended public meetings and made public his recommendations to the president, complete with maps of the proposed designations. It is difficult to imagine what else the administration could have done to publicize these decisions.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to have been persuaded by these inaccurate charges and is threatening to renew the assault on the monuments. President Bush recently stated his belief that our national monuments should be opened to energy development. Such a shift in policy is not only disappointing but wrong. Not during the OPEC embargos of the 1970s or even a true national emergency such as the Persian Gulf War has America opened its national treasures to oil and gas development. Our national monuments, parks and other protected lands should be the last places opened for development, not the first. Those who would like to see these national treasures exploited for a quick profit should not be heeded. Rather than string "Open for Business" signs on our national monuments, the Bush Administration should focus on developing renewable energy sources, increasing conservation incentives and effectively managing the millions of acres of federal land already available for energy development.

Sadly, potential energy development is not the only threat facing our national monuments under the Bush administration. Recently, Interior Secretary Gale Norton sent letters to local officials in areas with monuments designated by Clinton seeking input into management decisions and soliciting suggested boundary changes. Unfortunately, the intent of the letter was not to gather suggestions for how better to protect the natural resources in these areas. Rather, the administration is solely interested in shrinking boundaries and widening uses. Also troubling is the fact that the secretary’s letter seeks such input from only a handful of select individuals, thereby ignoring the national character of these national monuments. The true owners of these monuments, the American people, are left to wonder which parcels the secretary wants to carve out of these monuments and what new activities she believes should be allowed in these pristine areas.

Ultimately, the important thing is not what critics of these national monument designations say but rather what they do. Contrary to the claims of some, the Antiquities Act is not an unfettered grant of authority to the president, and there is nothing in either current law or the Constitution preventing Congress from passing legislation to repeal the designation of a national monument. Given the overheated rhetoric regarding these designations, why has no such legislation been introduced?

Perhaps it is because the American people would not stand for it. I hope the Bush administration and the critics of the recent national monument designations will come to recognize what the American public already knows: Our national monuments are an integral part of an environmental conservation system that is the envy of the world. I will strongly oppose any attempt to open up our national monuments. America’s heritage is not for sale.