October 11, 2017 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources through its newsletter The Scope:

If there’s anything we learned from the recent national monument review and decades of Antiquities Act (Act) abuse, it’s that Republicans and Democrats finally want the same thing: transparency and public input in the Act’s uses.

Ironically, for Democrats, it’s also an admission of the underlying problem – a statute that provides the president with unilateral authority to dictate national monument decisions in secrecy and without public input. It’s a recognition that the only path to creating the accountability we all seek – no matter which party controls the White House – is to amend the Act itself.

Thankfully, we have a solution: Chairman Bishop’s “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” or “CAP Act.”

Over the past months, Democrats have gone above and beyond to argue the importance of transparency in the executive’s use of the Act and for local communities to have a voice in the process. Well, we agree.

TRANSPARENCY:

• Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ): “It has been opaque and it has been contrived.”
• Ranking Member Raul Grijalva: “…let’s see some transparency and public accountability.”
• Rep. Ruben Kihuen (D-NV): “It’s obviously very, very disappointing in the lack of specificity and transparency.”
• Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA): “The American people deserve to know what the President’s intentions are.”
• Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA): “[T]he American people deserve transparency and honesty.”
• Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam): “The people of Guam deserve transparency…”

NOTE: While protecting the chief executive’s authority to designate monuments, the “CAP Act” requires proper environmental review and safeguards for public notice and coordination.

PUBLIC INPUT:

• Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): “…should focus on addressing local input…”
• Rep. Ruben Kihuen: “This whole process has been a sham. There hasn’t been transparency… listen to the American people.”
• Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA): “…zero interest in hearing directly from the people who would be most impacted.”
• Rep. Grace Napolitano: “…listen to my constituents as well as local stakeholders on what the monument means to our community.”
• Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM): “It doesn’t come as a surprise that local voices were not taken into consideration…”
• Sen. Martin Heinrich: “…a sloppy, inaccurate, and Washington-first work product devoid of local engagement. [N]ew Mexicans…are in the dark about what is going to happen…”

NOTE: While protecting the chief executive’s authority to designate monuments, the “CAP Act” requires all county commissions, state legislatures, and Governors in the area to approve of new monuments between 10,000 and 85,000 acres.

POLITICALLY DRIVEN PROCESS:

• Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR): “…a politically driven process.”
• Rep. Grijalva: “…choosing to appease… special interest friends instead of listening to the American people.”
• Sen. Martin Heinrich: “It’s clear this…is a politically driven attempt by Washington.”
• Sen. Martin Heinrich: “The public deserves better than predetermined political conclusions based on hearsay and claims that are easily disproven if the department had actually taken the time to listen to and work with local communities.”

NOTE: The “CAP Act” allows the president to make unilateral designations to protect resources under imminent threat while imposing public input requirements for larger monuments. It would end the era of politically motivated land grabs taking place in the dark of night, while restoring the Act’s intent.