HJR 10-LIMIT DECLARATION OF NATL. MONUMENTS  8:37:06 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Urging the United States Congress to pass the Improved National Monument Designation Process Act. 8:37:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor, presented HJR 10. He stated that the proposed joint resolution would express the Alaska State Legislature's support for Senate Bill 33, sponsored United States Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan and called the "Improved National Monument Designation Process Act." The Act would amend the Antiquities Act to require the President of the United States to obtain congressional approval, certify compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and receive notice that the legislature [of the state that would be affected] has enacted legislation approving the designation of any new monument. Currently the President can declare national monuments without these checks and balances and has done so repeatedly in past history. He stated that passage of Senate Bill 33 would ensure participation of the American public, Congress, and local governments. He urged passage of HJR 10. 8:40:20 AM REPRESENTAIVE SADDLER expressed appreciation for HJR 10. He asked the sponsor if he had come across any evidence that previous administrations had considered the standard of ["the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected"]. He opined that there has been a broad interpretation of the authority granted under the Antiquities Act. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred to his staff. 8:41:08 AM DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor of HJR 10, stated that there has been no interpretation of what "the smallest area" is. He said the most recent [past] administration added 440,000 square miles to a monument on the Atoll Islands, which are northwest of the Hawaiian Islands. He questioned whether that was the smallest possible area. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the bill sponsor was aware of the response of other states to U.S. Senate Bill 33 - particularly the Western states. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred again to his staff. 8:42:21 AM MR. BREESE pointed to a press release from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's office included in the committee packet and noted that 27 U.S. Senators had signed on in support of U.S. Senate Bill 33, and they are listed as being from the following states: Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Idaho, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Kansas, South Dakota, Florida, Alabama, and North Carolina. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that on pages 5 and 6 of the aforementioned press release, it reads that President Obama had designated 555 million acres - an area five times the size of California - as onshore national monuments, and that is well in excess of twice the entire acreage designated by all previous Presidents who had access to [the Antiquities Act]. He concluded, "So, obviously I'm going to support this." 8:43:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the bill sponsor if U.S. Senate Bill 33 requires every state to provide a resolution in support. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that the answer is no; however, he deferred to his staff for further comment. 8:44:07 AM MR. BREESE said U.S. Senate Bill 33 does not require a resolution of support, but does call for congressional approval and approval from the state that would be affected. If a President wanted to designate a monument in Alaska, for example, under U.S. Senate Bill 33, he/she would have to get a letter from the governor of Alaska stating that the Alaska State Legislature approves the designation. If a monument was being proposed in a marine environment, the President would need the approval of all states within 100 miles of the marine area. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for confirmation that HJR 10 was not required. MR. BREESE confirmed that is correct. He said HJR 10 is basically a letter of support for U.S. Senate Bill 33. In response to a follow-up question, he said he was not aware of any other states providing similar resolutions; however, he said he would investigate and get back to Representative Drummond with an answer. 8:45:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the intent of HJR 10 was not to be an approval of "whatever designation comes up," but rather to be a simple expression of the legislature's support for future legislatures to be able "to have their say on future designations." REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER confirmed that is correct. 8:46:29 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if the sponsor considered the requirement under U.S. Senate Bill 33 that the governor of each state deliver a letter reflecting his/her state's legislative approval as a "bug" or a "feature." MR. BREESE answered, "You could look at it as a bug." He said he doesn't know if the governor would have a problem saying the legislature "approved this." 8:48:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the impact of designations of National Monuments in Alaska has been. 8:48:42 AM ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), offered his understanding that to date there have been four national monuments created in Alaska: [Admiralty Island National Monument, Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, and Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness]. He said all four were designated by President Jimmy Carter by proclamation. He stated that once an area has been designated as a national monument, it has an extra layer of protection where uses are further limited in those areas. CO-CHAIR FANSLER indicated that he was looking at a list of 11 areas in Alaska and questioned why Mr. Fogels had listed only four. MR. FOGELS explained he had named only those areas designated as national monuments. He suggested state archeologist, Judy Bittner, could offer further details regarding the specific designations that exist under the Antiquities Act. He stated that the current [Alaska] administration supports HJR 10. He continued: Fundamentally our position is that the designation of any additional national monuments in Alaska is counter to the minimal "no-more" clauses of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and therefore should ultimately be authorized by the U.S. Congress with the input of the State of Alaska. 8:51:08 AM MR. BREESE explained to Co-Chair Fansler that currently there are four national monuments in Alaska. He said there is a list in the committee packet of the national monuments that have been declared under the Antiquities Act. A majority of those names on the list were subsequently made into National Parks by Congress. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Fansler, he offered his understanding that it takes Congress to make a National Park, followed by the approval of the President. CO-CHAIR FANSLER said a national monument has been clearly defined as something different from a National Park, and he suggested that "you're diluting what a national monument is through this resolution" by "making it follow the exact same path that a National Park would follow." MR. BREESE responded that he does not believe that to be the case. He said, "What you're doing is you're extending the public process and ... limiting the powers that the Presidents ... [have]." He said the Antiquities Act was an important Act to pass at the time, because many Native and tribal sites were being raided by people "looking to make a quick buck stealing some of the artifacts," for example. The Act gave the President the ability to act quickly to protect and preserve national monuments. He said that was 111 years ago, and there are improvements and protections in place that he indicated has resulted in less prevalence in the raiding of Native sites by "grave robbers." Although it still happens, he opined the need for such national declarations is not as it was before, and the process that can be followed through to Congress is "a better public process" involving more than just the President saying, "I think my backyard should be a national monument." He said that happened in Wyoming, when Franklin Roosevelt was offered land by John D. Rockefeller back in the 1940s; Congress denied making it part of the Grand Teton National Park, so President Roosevelt declared it a national monument. Following that, Congress passed a law requiring any further declarations of national monuments in Wyoming be approved by Congress. MR. BREESE stated that in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Congress added the "no-more clause" for Alaska that required congressional approval for any further national monuments to be designated in the state. Supporting [U.S. Senate Bill 33] would extend that to the other states. He emphasized, "We're not speaking in favor or opposed to any specific monument or creating a monument, just ... [in favor of having] a fair public process and having the checks and balances that this country was founded on." 8:55:29 AM CO-CHAIR FANSLER said [the theft of Native American artifacts] still occurs, and "this was a mechanism to prevent that." He asked if there is a better way to tailor "this" rather than having to work through Congress, a state, and the President. He said typically the U.S. does not have a unified President and Congress, which he indicated could result in "a great problem with grave robbery if we did need to move with speed." MR. BREESE suggested that would be a question to take up with Congress. He said the bill sponsor is putting forth a joint resolution that would express the Alaska State Legislature's support of the provisions in U.S. Senate Bill 33. CO-CHAIR FANSLER remarked that Congress does not listen to him. 8:56:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked Mr. Fogel if the concern was that the designation of lands as national monuments could result in the stifling of development. 8:57:40 AM MR. FOGEL answered yes. He said ANILCA already set aside "a huge swath of Alaska for conservation" and "the deal was cut that that should be it." Currently a President can designate additional monuments in Alaska without the blessing of Congress, and that could prevent development on federal lands in Alaska someday. 8:58:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to the concerns expressed by Co-Chair Fansler, said a state legislature and chief executive can quickly pass legislation when there is a consensus and need for it. He said he thinks one of the differences between the time in which the Antiquities Act was passed and today is that there now exists the National Park Service and Alaska has resources such as a state archeologist and others that are dedicated to the task of "identifying, inventorying, and advocating for protection of antiquities"; therefore, the need for a President to take action has been obviated by the state's current ability "to identify these antiquities." He opined that it is clear that federal authorities are overreaching their ability, and having the consensus and review of states that would be affected by the designation of a national monument is entirely appropriate. He said the question of federal designation of land and assertion of protection is a much broader issue than the Antiquities Act. He said authorities can go through the formal process of creating national parks, forests, and protections, which as ANILCA. Further, he said there have been creations of "quasi-legitimate areas of ecological concern" and "marine areas of climate concern." He stated there can be assertions that an area needs to be considered for evaluation for wilderness, which can create decades of de facto wilderness management. He said he thinks HJR 10 and the U.S. Senate Bill 33, which it seeks to support, is "an appropriate and narrow limitation of ... a runaway power that's been, to my opinion, abused by the federal administration." 9:00:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER indicated he thinks it is important for Congress to see support from other states. He said obviously Alaska has seen already the need for legislation such as U.S. Senate Bill 33, because of "the no-more Act." He stated his belief that the intent of the U.S. Senators in introducing their bill is to help all the states be able to control what they would like to see happen. 9:02:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to hear from state's historic preservation officer, Judy Bittner, regarding her history in the state and her perspective on the need of the proposed joint resolution and the action of the U.S. Senate. 9:02:44 AM JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historical Preservation Officer, Office of History & Archaeology Alaska Historical Commission, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), stated that within Alaska there are about 50 historic landmarks that have been designated under the Antiquities Act. She deferred to Mr. Fogel to answer any questions regarding HJR 10 and U.S. Senate Bill 33. 9:03:58 AM MR. FOGELS reiterated that the current administration [of the State of Alaska] supports HJR 10. He said ANILCA has several "no-more" clauses, and he reemphasized that the designation by the President of more monuments is counter to that and "should ultimately be blessed by Congress with the state's input." 9:05:14 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 10. CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that HJR 10 was held over.