[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4532, SHASH JAA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND INDIAN CREEK NATIONAL
MONUMENT ACT--PART 1 AND 2
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, January 9, 2018 (Part 1)
Tuesday, January 30, 2018 (Part 2)
__________
Serial No. 115-33
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-219 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Stevan Pearce, NM Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Norma J. Torres, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Darin LaHood, IL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Vice Chairman Vacancy
Daniel Webster, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Greg Gianforte, MT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018, Part 1................. 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 8
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 9
Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Matthew, Director, Coalition for Self-Government in
the West, Sutherland Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah....... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Chapoose, Hon. Shaun, Member, Ute Tribal Business Committee,
Ute Indian Tribe, Fort Duchesne, Utah...................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Herbert, Hon. Gary, Governor, State of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Utah....................................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Morris, Suzette, White Mesa Ute Community, Member of Posey
Band Ute Tribe, San Juan County, Utah...................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Bishop
Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Letter to the Utah
Congressional Delegation, dated November 30, 2016...... 47
Benally, Rebecca, San Juan County Commissioner and Member
of the Navajo Tribe, prepared statement of............. 54
``Great American lie that all tribes are for Bears Ears
NM,'' by Darren Parry, Northwestern Band of the
Shoshone Nation........................................ 41
The Hill, ``Sizing them up: Utah rep, not Trump or Obama,
meets Navajo needs on Bears Ears,'' by Alfred Ben,
December 26, 2017...................................... 40
Utah Congressional Delegation, Letters to Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition, dated November 2, 2016 and
November 18, 2016...................................... 46
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, prepared
statement of........................................... 55
Sierra Club, Letter to Chairman Rob Bishop and Ranking
Member Grijalva, dated January 9, 2017................. 56
The Navajo Nation, Letter to Chairman Rob Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva, dated January 19, 2018........ 57
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Letter to Chairman Rob Bishop and
Committee Members, dated January 10, 2018.............. 58
Submissions for the Record by Representative Lowenthal
Democratic Members of the Federal Lands Subcommittee,
Letter to Chairman Tom McClintock, dated January 9,
2018................................................... 7
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 59
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR A. Donald McEachin, VA
Garret Graves, LA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Jody B. Hice, GA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Jimmy Gomez, CA
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
COLLEEN HANABUSA, HI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Stevan Pearce, NM Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Norma J. Torres, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Jack Bergman, MI Vacancy
Liz Cheney, WY Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Part 2................ 61
Statement of Witnesses:
Begaye, Hon. Russell, President, Navajo Nation, Window Rock,
Arizona.................................................... 87
Prepared statement of.................................... 89
Benally, Hon. Rebecca, Vice Chair, San Juan County
Commissioners, Monticello, Utah............................ 107
Prepared statement of.................................... 108
Bowekaty, Carleton, Councilman, Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, New
Mexico..................................................... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, Former Member of Congress, Utah's 3rd
District, Alpine, Utah..................................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Hammond, Casey, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 102
Prepared statement of.................................... 104
Questions submitted for the record....................... 105
Lopez-Whiteskunk, Regina, Former Ute Mountain Tribe
Councilwoman, Former Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition Co-
Chair, Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council, Towaoc, Colorado... 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Reyes, Hon. Sean D., Attorney General, State of Utah, Salt
Lake City, Utah............................................ 98
Prepared statement of.................................... 100
Questions submitted for the record....................... 101
Small, Tony, Vice Chairman, Ute Business Committee, Ute
Indian Tribe, Fort Duchesne, Utah.......................... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 70
Tenakhongva, Clark, Vice Chairman, Hopi Tribal Council, The
Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi Village, Arizona.................... 78
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Questions submitted for the record....................... 84
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Bishop
Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Letter to the Utah
Congressional Delegation, dated November 30, 2016...... 128
Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva
National Trust for Historic Preservation, et al., Letter
to Rep. Bishop, Grijalva, McClintock, and Hanabusa,
dated February 13, 2018................................ 129
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Letter to Rep. Bishop,
Grijalva, McClintock, and Hanabusa, dated February 7,
2018................................................... 130
Bishop, Rob, Member of Congress, Letter to Utah Land Office/
Navajo Land Department, dated February 22, 2013............ 125
Chaffetz, Jason, Member of Congress, Letter to Hon. Russell
Begaye, President, Navajo Nation, dated October 16, 2015... 126
Utah Delegation, Letter to President Barack Obama, dated
April 29, 2016............................................. 127
Utah Delegation, Letter to Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition,
dated November 18, 2016.................................... 127
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 131
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4532, TO CREATE THE FIRST TRIBALLY MANAGED
NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SHASH JAA NATIONAL
MONUMENT AND INDIAN CREEK NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT''--PART 1
----------
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Pearce, Tipton,
Bergman, Gianforte, Bishop (ex officio), Lowenthal, Gallego,
Gomez, and Grijalva (ex officio).
Also Present: Representatives Curtis and Stewart.
Mr. McClintock. The hour of 10:00 having arrived, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to order.
I would ask unanimous consent that the gentlemen from Utah,
Mr. Curtis and Mr. Stewart, be allowed to sit with the
Subcommittee and participate in the remainder of the hearing
following the testimony.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority
Member, and the Vice Chairman. This will also allow us to hear
from our witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their
schedules.
Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be part of the hearing record if
they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m.
today.
Without objection, so ordered.
We will now proceed to opening statements.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands
meets to consider H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument
and Indian Creek National Monument Act, by Congressman John
Curtis and co-sponsored by the entire Utah congressional
delegation.
The over-arching objectives of this Subcommittee bear
repeating: to restore public access to the public lands, to
restore good management to the public lands, and to restore the
Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities most
impacted by the public lands.
The Constitution gives sole jurisdiction over the public
lands to the Congress. The Antiquities Act of 1906 delegated
limited authority to the President to designate national
monuments on Federal lands containing, ``historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of
historic or scientific interest.'' The law also very
specifically limited monuments to, ``be confined to the
smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the
objects to be protected.'' The aim was to protect newly-
discovered archeological sites from looting.
When under consideration, Congressional Members expressed
concern that the Act might be abused. One asked the bill's
sponsor, Congressman John Lacey, whether the Act could ever be
used to lock up large areas of land. He responded, ``Certainly
not. The object is entirely different.''
President Theodore Roosevelt first used the Antiquities Act
to declare 1,200 acres around the Devils Tower in Wyoming as a
national monument--1,200 acres. Yet, in the waning days of the
Obama administration, without any public hearings or
consultation with Congress, and in direct contravention to the
wishes of the Utah congressional delegation, the Utah state
government, and the local and tribal governments in the
affected jurisdictions, President Obama declared more than 1.3
million acres as the Bears Ears National Monument. This is a
land area larger than the entire state of Delaware and 1,000
times larger than President Roosevelt's first use of the law.
This designation carries severe restrictions on land use
that limit public access and use of these public lands, that
thwart good management of these lands, and that ignore the
wishes of the local communities affected by these public lands.
It turns out this action was initiated by environmental
groups in San Francisco, financed by millions of dollars from
left-leaning foundations whose consistent purpose has been to
lock the American people out of their own public lands. Its
constituency appears to be almost exclusively drawn from out-
of-region and out-of-state interests.
Last month, President Trump modified Obama's Executive
Order to comport with the limitations set forth in the
Antiquities Act.
Today, Congressman Curtis, backed with the unanimous
support of the Utah congressional delegation, brings us H.R.
4532, which reasserts Congress' sole constitutional authority
over this issue.
It establishes two national monuments in San Juan County,
Utah: the Shash Jaa National Monument, the first tribally co-
managed national monument in the Nation, and the Indian Creek
National Monument.
The bill also establishes a first-of-its-kind Archeological
Resources Protection Unit, statutorily dedicating additional
law enforcement personnel and Federal dollars for the exclusive
protection of antiquities within the monuments' boundaries.
When the Norman and Plantagenet Kings of England locked up
millions of acres of forest as the private preserve of the
crown, public outreach became so great that in 1215 no fewer
than five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress
this abuse.
The American Founders learned these lessons and created our
Constitution, in which no one person would have the authority
to lock up millions of acres of land with the stroke of a pen.
The American public lands are the opposite of the King's
Forest. They are intended to preserve these lands for the
people's, ``use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time,''
as first put forth in the Yosemite Charter of 1864.
By giving Congress, and not the President, authority over
public land, our Constitution guarantees that all voices will
be heard when a decision affecting millions of acres of land is
made.
Under our Constitution, the people expect their government
to listen to those most affected by local land use decisions,
and not just out-of-state special interest groups. And they
have every right to demand that Congress re-assert its role
over management of the lands on their behalf.
This bill seeks to right a wrong and to go about monument
designation the constitutional way, through open hearings, open
debate, and congressional action.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Federal Lands
Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to consider H.R.
4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act by Congressman John Curtis and co-sponsored by the entire
Utah congressional delegation.
The over-arching objectives of this Subcommittee bear repeating: to
restore public access to the public lands, to restore good management
to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good
neighbor to those communities most impacted by the public lands.
The Constitution gives sole jurisdiction over the public lands to
the Congress. The Antiquities Act of 1906 delegated limited authority
to the President to designate national monuments on Federal lands
containing ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures,
or other objects of historic or scientific interest.'' The law also
very specifically limited monuments to ``be confined to the smallest
area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be
protected.'' The aim was to protect newly discovered archeological
sites from looting.
When under consideration, Members expressed concern that the Act
might be abused. One asked the bill's sponsor, Congressman John Lacey,
whether the Act could ever be used to lock up large areas of land. He
responded, ``Certainly not. The object is entirely different.''
President Theodore Roosevelt first used the Antiquities Act to
declare 1,200 acres around the Devils Tower in Wyoming as a national
monument.
Yet, in the waning days of the Obama administration, without any
public hearings or consultation with Congress--and in direct
contravention to the wishes of the Utah congressional delegation, the
Utah state government, and the local governments and tribal governments
in the affected jurisdictions--President Obama declared more than 1.3
million acres as the Bears Ears National Monument. This is a land area
larger than the state of Delaware, and one thousand times larger than
President Roosevelts' first use of the law.
This designation carries severe restrictions on land use that limit
public access and use of these public lands, that thwart good
management of these lands, and that ignore the wishes of the local
communities affected by these public lands.
It turns out this action was initiated by environmental groups in
San Francisco, financed by millions of dollars from left-leaning
foundations whose consistent purpose has been to lock out the American
public from the public lands. Its constituency appears to be almost
exclusively drawn from out-of-region and out-of-state interests.
Last month, President Trump modified Obama's Executive Order to
comport with the limitations set forth in the Antiquities Act.
Today, Congressman Curtis, backed with the unanimous support of the
Utah congressional delegation, brings us H.R. 4532, which re-asserts
Congress' sole constitutional authority over this issue.
It establishes two national monuments in San Juan County, Utah: the
Shash Jaa National Monument, the first tribally co-managed national
monument in the Nation, and the Indian Creek National Monument. The
bill also establishes the first-of-its-kind Archaeological Resources
Protection Unit, statutorily dedicating additional law enforcement
personnel and Federal dollars for the exclusive protection of
antiquities within the monuments' boundaries.
When the Norman and Plantagenet Kings of England locked up millions
of acres of forest as the private preserve of the crown, public outrage
became so great that in 1215 no fewer than five clauses of Magna Carta
were devoted to redress this abuse.
The American Founders learned these lessons, and created a
constitution in which no one person would have the authority to lock up
millions of acres of land with the stroke of a pen.
The American public lands are the opposite of the King's Forests--
intended to preserve these lands for the people's ``use, resort and
recreation . . . for all time'' as first put forth in the Yosemite
Charter of 1864.
By giving Congress--and not the President--authority over public
land, our Constitution guarantees that all voices will be heard when a
decision affecting millions of acres of land is made.
Under our Constitution, the people expect their government to
listen to those most affected by local land use decisions, and not just
out-of-state special interest groups. And they have every right to
demand that Congress reassert its role over management of the lands on
their behalf.
This bill seeks to right a wrong and to go about monument
designation the constitutional way: through open hearings, debate and
congressional action.
______
Mr. McClintock. I now recognize the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to thank all of the witnesses for
traveling so far to be with us.
I must say this hearing feels a little bit like deja vu.
Just 3 weeks ago, right before the holiday district period, we
had a hearing on a similar rushed piece of legislation to
provide cover for President Trump's illegal elimination of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
And now here we go again, our second day back in the new
year, considering legislation to cover up the President's
elimination and reconfiguration of Bears Ears National
Monument.
Let's be clear, tribes advocated for years to protect the
area, whether through legislation or through an Antiquities Act
proclamation, though it was the initial hope of the tribes that
a legislative agreement could be reached.
At first, the obvious vehicle for protecting the area was
Chairman Bishop's Utah Public Lands Initiative. For more than a
year, tribal governments worked in good faith to have their
voices heard. Tribal representatives participated in meetings
in Utah and here in DC, submitted proposals, and asked for
feedback.
Ultimately, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, a
historic coalition representing the five tribes connected to
Bears Ears, felt cut out of the process and left the
negotiating table. They then turned to their only remaining
option, a presidential proclamation under the Antiquities Act.
Contrary to what opponents of President Obama's creation of
Bears Ears National Monument say, the designation was not some
fly-by-night, last-minute proclamation. The plan was not kept
secret or hidden from Utah's political representatives.
In fact, e-mails and documents obtained by the Democratic
Committee staff show that as far back as 2013, the
administration began communication with the Utah delegation,
the Utah Governor's Office, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition, and other key regional stakeholders to begin working
to protect Bears Ears landscape.
The Obama administration worked closely with the delegation
staff up until the Committee marked up the Chairman's bill in
the fall of 2016. But when it became clear that the Chairman's
bill was not going to make it across the finish line, President
Obama signed the proclamation to establish Bears Ears National
Monument.
For a brief moment, it felt like a victory for all the
stakeholders--the proclamation was balanced and full of
compromise. But by April 2017, facts about the creation of the
monument and its permitted uses began being obscured, in some
cases outright ignored.
It no longer mattered that President Obama's proclamation
allowed activities such as rock climbing, hunting, backpacking,
white water rafting, biking, and horseback riding, or that the
traditional Native cultural uses were recognized, including
collection of medicines, berries, firewood, and other
vegetation.
Instead, the public was told by monument opponents that all
those things would be limited under the Obama proclamation.
Ironically, President Trump's proclamation is silent on
recreational and Native rights, so as things stand today,
access to gather firewood or plants for religious and cultural
purposes is in limbo.
If this legislation was truly intended to protect the
outdoor recreation economy of Utah, it would incorporate my
bill, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. But, sadly, this
legislation before us today is hastily written and does nothing
to codify the wilderness study areas in Utah, leaving them in a
perpetual purgatory of land management indecision and allowing
my colleagues to continue to vilify the BLM when it is really
Congress that refuses to act.
Last, I would like to reiterate this bill directly affects
five tribal nations. If the primary objective of this
legislation were to truly increase tribal participation in the
management of Bears Ears, we would have representatives from
each of the nations here.
If we were actually seeking to honor tribal concerns, we
would be holding a hearing on H.R. 4518, a bill with nearly 100
co-sponsors introduced by Representative Gallego to expand the
Bears Ears National Monument.
I am grateful that we will be able to hear from Shaun
Chapoose, a member of the Ute Business Council. However, I
think it would be beneficial to hear from even more tribal
voices, so I would like to submit this letter requesting a
second hearing with witnesses invited by the Minority. I ask
unanimous consent that this letter be part of the hearing
record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses, and I hope that in the future we hold a more
balanced hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today,
especially since many of you traveled so far to be here with us.
I must say that his hearing feels a bit like deja vu. Just 3 weeks
ago--right before the holiday district work period--we had a hearing on
a similar rushed piece of legislation to provide cover for President
Trump's illegal elimination of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument.
And now here we are again, our second day back in the new year,
considering legislation to cover up the President's elimination and
reconfiguration of Bears Ears National Monument.
Tribes advocated for years to protect the area, whether through
legislation or an Antiquities Act proclamation, though it was the
initial hope of the tribes that a legislative agreement could be
reached.
At first, the obvious vehicle for protecting the area was Chairman
Bishop's Utah Public Lands Initiative. For more than a year, tribal
governments worked in good faith to have their voices heard. Tribal
representatives participated in meetings in Utah and DC, submitted
proposals, and asked for feedback.
Ultimately, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition--a historic
coalition representing the five tribes most connected to Bears Ears--
felt cut out of the process and left the negotiating table. They then
turned to their only remaining option: a presidential proclamation
under the Antiquities Act.
Contrary to what opponents of President Obama's creation of Bears
Ears National Monument say, the designation was not some fly-by-night,
last-minute proclamation. The plan was not kept secret or hidden from
Utah's political representatives.
In fact, e-mails and documents obtained by Democratic Committee
staff show that as far back as 2013, the administration began
communication with the Utah delegation, the Utah Governor's Office, the
Bears Inter-Tribal Coalition, and other key regional stakeholders
working to protect the Bears Ears landscape.
The Obama administration worked closely with the delegation staff
up until the Committee marked up the Chairman's bill in the fall of
2016. But when it became clear that the Chairman's bill was not going
to make it across the finish line, President Obama signed the
proclamation to establish Bears Ears National Monument.
For a brief moment, it felt like a victory for all of the
stakeholders--the proclamation was balanced and full of compromise. But
by April 2017 facts about the creation of the monument and its
permitted uses began being obscured, and in some cases outright
ignored.
It no longer mattered that President Obama's proclamation allowed
activities such as rock climbing, hunting, backpacking, whitewater
rafting, biking, and horseback riding--or that traditional Native
cultural uses were recognized, including collection of medicines,
berries, firewood and other vegetation.
Instead, the public was told by monument opponents that such would
be limited under the Obama proclamation.
Ironically, President Trump's proclamation is silent on
recreational and Native rights, so as things stand today, access to
gather firewood or plants for religious and cultural purposes is in
limbo.
If this legislation was truly intended to protect the outdoor
recreation economy of Utah, it would incorporate my bill, the America's
Red Rock Wilderness Act. But, sadly, this legislation before us today
is hastily written and does nothing to codify any of the Wilderness
Study Areas in Utah, leaving them in a perpetual purgatory of land
management indecision and allowing my colleagues to continue to vilify
the BLM when it is really Congress who refuses to act.
Last, I would like to reiterate this bill directly affects five
tribal nations. If the primary objective of this legislation were truly
to increase tribal participation in the management of Bears Ears, we
would have representatives from each nation here to testify.
If we were actually seeking to honor tribal concerns, we would be
holding a hearing on H.R. 4518, a bill with nearly 100 co-sponsors
introduced by Representative Gallego to expand the Bear Ears National
Monument to 1.9 million acres, in accordance with the initial proposal
put forward by the Inter-Tribal Coalition.
I am grateful that we will be able to hear from Shaun Chapoose, a
member of the Ute Business Council. However, I think it would be
beneficial to hear from even more tribal voices, so I would like to
submit this letter requesting a second hearing with witnesses invited
by the Minority. I ask unanimous consent that letter is part of the
hearing record.
So, I look forward to hearing from the witness today and I hope
that we can hold a more balanced hearing at a future date.
______
Mr. McClintock. Without objection, the letter will be
received.
[The information follows:]
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC
January 9, 2018
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Federal Lands Subcommittee,
Natural Resources Committee,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman:
Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a hearing on
H.R. 4532--the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act. While we applaud the focus on national monuments, we are
concerned that the witness panel does not reflect a fair representation
of the stakeholders affected by this legislation. The bill doubles down
on President Trump's recent action to abolish the Bears Ears National
Monument, an area that tribal communities have been fighting for years
to protect. Except for one witness invited by the minority, the panel
does not include an official government representative from any of the
five tribal nations linked to the monument.
The Committee should hear from a wider range of tribally elected
leaders, scientists, and other experts to examine ways we can improve
the management of Bears Ears under Proclamation 9558.
Pursuant to Rule XI of the Rules of the House and Rule 4 of the
Rules of the Committee on Natural Resources, the undersigned Members of
the Committee hereby request a further hearing on the H.R. 4532, during
which witnesses selected by the Minority shall be allowed to testify.
Sincerely,
Raul M. Grijalva, Alan Lowenthal,
Ranking Member Member of Congress
Ruben Gallego, A. Donald McEachin,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Jimmy Gomez, Anthony Brown,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
______
Mr. McClintock. I would point out to the gentleman that I
had a conversation with the Ranking Member, Ms. Hanabusa, a few
weeks ago in which I pointed out that the hearing structure of
witnesses for this Subcommittee is the same as it was under
Democratic majorities. In fact, we took those rules from the
Democratic Majority.
I told her, however, that if there was ever any concern
that she had that there were insufficient witnesses on the
Minority side to come to me personally and we would work out an
arrangement. No such undertaking has been made, and I find this
action objectionable and highly distressing.
The Chair notes that we are joined by the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee. I will now,
without objection, recognize the Chairman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
And I thank Mr. Lowenthal, the gentleman from California.
We have had great trips together. I like you. You are wrong,
but I like you. And also the staff data that was given to you
was wrong. There was never a markup on our PLI bill.
We were promised data coming from the Interior Department
that did not show up. We were also promised language for co-
management that never appeared. And when the President made the
Bears Ears declaration, it shut the process down. So, that is
what actually took place.
And if you look very carefully at those e-mails that you
mentioned, you will find out that they were very vague and they
did not give specifics as to what the President was planning.
Satchel Paige is one of my favorite all-time baseball
players, great pitcher. At one time he was trying to help some
young pitchers to hit the corners of the plate. They were
missing it wildly. Finally, in frustration, he said, ``Just
throw strikes, home plate doesn't move.''
That is one of the issues that we have here today.
President Obama, while golfing in Hawaii, created a national
monument that was not even close to home plate. His ball was
actually in a different ZIP code.
Secretary Zinke flew over this area in a helicopter, went
on horseback. What he threw was a strike. And now what we have
from special interest groups are trying to change the false
narrative of the past to a present narrative to make it
reasonable by moving home plate. But home plate simply doesn't
move.
The big lie that we have heard in the past was we are
trying to protect this area from oil and gas exploration and
mining. That is off the table, and I think Mr. Curtis will
explain how that is off the table in his particular
legislation, because it never really was part of it there.
Representative Curtis, in his bill, is throwing strikes.
Whereas, the opposition from special interest groups are
throwing balls that basically are going over the backstop.
There is a commission that has no authority, that was
established by President Obama. That will still exist. But what
we will do new in the Curtis bill is the idea of co-management
will be real, not a fraud, but it will be real.
Law enforcement, which is important for this area, does not
exist in the management plan or in the management declaration.
But in the Curtis bill, there is actually money that is
appropriated and manpower that is mandated that is real and
different.
What Curtis is doing, and those who will be talking about
his particular bill, are throwing lots of strikes. Some of the
other interest groups out there are throwing lots of balls. But
the bottom line is, home plate doesn't move. And it doesn't
matter what you want to try to move it, it still doesn't move.
We need to concentrate on the strikes, not the balls.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection, the Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me just reiterate the point that Ranking Member
Lowenthal just made, that the process for the establishing of
the Bears Ears Monument had an intimate, ongoing, and
comprehensive involvement on the part of Native Nations--five--
in not only the construct of the designation and the content of
the designation but input into what the scientific, historic,
cultural, and sacred sites were indeed.
And to now, at this point, at this juncture, to eliminate
that work in one fatal swoop, I think is very, very arrogant on
the part of Congress. It is arrogant on the part of this
legislation, given that tribal nations were given, rightfully
so, under the Constitution, the ability to be sovereign and,
more importantly, the ability to consult, confer, and reach
consensus with the Federal Government.
This bill effectively turns that upside down. And we are
going back to a time in history in which we are the givers of,
as opposed to the allies of, the cooperative government that we
should be with Native Nations.
I think that is at the crux of the legislation. That is at
the crux of the repeal of the designation. And that is at the
crux of this particular piece of legislation, to take us back
in time, a time that we all thought was way behind us.
I yield back, and I will save my time for questions. Thank
you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable John Curtis of Utah
for 5 minutes to present his bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN R. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
today to testify on my bill, H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National
Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
I would like to thank the entire Utah delegation for
supporting this legislation, especially Chairman Rob Bishop and
the Natural Resources Committee staff for their continued work
on this issue for many years. This bill would not be possible
without their many years of work and the work of those who
preceded me.
I would also like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for holding this hearing.
While it is difficult to overstate how politicized the
creation and management of our national monuments has become, I
believe all sides of this debate share many common goals, where
we can still work together to protect this area for generations
to come.
These goals include a high priority on protecting and
preserving both antiquities and the natural beauty of this
area, as well as maintaining traditional uses of the land. I
believe H.R. 4532 meets these high standards of expectations.
I also believe that moving swiftly to find solutions is
critical. The two presidential declarations have brought
worldwide attention to this area but have done little to put a
plan in place or boots on the ground to protect and preserve.
My bill seeks to create a management plan that maintains
multiple use of Federal lands and protects our most precious
national treasures. This can best be accomplished by using the
legislative process, including the constitutionally mandated
system of checks and balances, when making decisions that
affect such large areas of land.
Over the past several weeks, many Utahns have contacted my
office to share their views about these national monuments and
about my proposed legislation, and I hope they continue to do
so.
Additionally, we are fortunate today to have several of
Utah's elected officials, including our great governor,
Governor Gary Herbert, here to give their perspective on how
these lands should be managed. And I would like to personally
thank him for his trip here today.
Congress is the portion of our Federal Government most
directly connected to the American people. It requires broad
consensus to put a new idea into law, and it is why we, as
Members of Congress, must act on this issue.
The bill we are discussing today will protect lands in
southeastern Utah, in my district, and it will do it the right
way. This bill will create the first-ever tribally co-managed
national monument. This changes the top-down management from
Washington, DC and installs those closest to the land who
understand it best as their stewards.
This bill empowers Utah's local tribes and community
leaders to properly manage these areas. This bill creates real
protection for important areas, above and beyond what any
president can achieve by creating a national monument using the
Antiquities Act.
The bill provides at least 10 law enforcement personnel at
each of these two monuments to protect important areas--right
now, this is taken care of by two BLM agents, imagine that--and
it creates an Archeological Resources Protection Unit to ensure
the safety of these important resources.
This bill has a mineral withdrawal from the original 1.35
million acre designation under President Obama. The bill is
about protecting areas, not opening mining, or oil and gas
development.
Perhaps most important, this bill creates long-term
certainty for my constituents. By using the legislative
process, this area will be protected for generations to come in
law, not subject to change by a stroke of a pen.
I look forward to coming together, finding common ground,
and working toward the shared goal of protecting the national
treasures we are blessed with in our great state of Utah.
And with that, I yield my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John R. Curtis, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today to testify on my
bill, H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek
National Monument Act.
I would like to thank the entire Utah delegation for supporting
this legislation, especially Chairman Rob Bishop and the Natural
Resources Committee staff, for their continued work on this issue. This
bill would not be possible without their many years of work and by the
work of those preceding me.
I would also like to thank Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member
Hanabusa for holding this hearing. While it is difficult to overstate
how politicized the creation and management of our national monuments
has become, I believe all sides of this debate share many common goals
where we can still work together to protect these areas for generations
to come.
These goals include a high priority on protecting and preserving
both antiquities and the natural beauty of the area, as well as
maintaining traditional uses of the land. I believe H.R. 4532 meets the
high standard of these expectations.
I also believe that moving swiftly to find solutions is critical.
The two presidential declarations have brought worldwide attention to
this area but have done little to put a plan in place or boots on the
ground to protect and preserve.
My bill seeks to create a management plan that maintains multiple
use of Federal lands and protects our most precious national treasures.
This can best be accomplished by utilizing the legislative process,
including the constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances,
when making decisions that affect such large areas of land.
Over the past several weeks, many Utahns have contacted my office
to share their views about these national monuments and about my
proposed legislation, and I hope they continue to do so.
Additionally, we are fortunate today to have several of Utah's
elected officials, including our governor, here to give their
perspective on how these lands should be managed.
Congress is the portion of our Federal Government most directly
connected to the American people. It requires broad consensus to put a
new idea into law and it is why we as Members of Congress must act on
this issue.
The bill we are discussing today will protect lands in southeastern
Utah, in my district, and it will do it the right way. This bill will
create the first-ever tribally co-managed national monument. This
changes the top-down management from Washington, DC and installs those
closest to the land who understand it the best as its steward.
This bill empowers Utah's local tribes and community leaders to
properly manage these areas. This bill creates real protection for
important areas, above and beyond what any president can achieve by
creating a National Monument using the Antiquities Act.
This bill provides at least 10 law enforcement personnel at each
monument to protect important areas, and creates Archaeological
Resources Protection Units to ensure the safety of important resources.
This bill also has a mineral withdrawal for the original 1.35
million-acre designation under President Obama. This bill is about
protecting areas, not opening mining, or oil and gas, development.
Perhaps most important, this bill creates long-term certainty for
my constituents. By using the legislative process, this area will be
protected for generations to come in law, not subject to change by the
stroke of a pen.
I look forward to coming together, finding common ground, and
working toward the shared goal of protecting the national treasures we
are blessed with in the great state of Utah.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. I would thank you for your testimony
and invite you to join the Subcommittee, and, again, thank you
for bringing your bill to us today.
If there are no questions of Mr. Curtis, and seeing none,
we will go right to the second panel.
We welcome our second panel, and are particularly honored
to have with us today the governor of the state of Utah, the
Honorable Governor Gary R. Herbert, who comes to us from Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Governor Herbert, we are very honored by your presence here
today. Thank you for joining us and you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY HERBERT, GOVERNOR, STATE OF
UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Governor Herbert. Thank you very much.
I am honored to be here. And Chairman McClintock and
Representative Lowenthal, thank you for inviting me here today
to offer input on H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument
and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
I also thank Chairman Rob Bishop and Representative John
Curtis for developing this legislation and moving so quickly to
hold this hearing.
I understand this is a contentious topic, and there are
well-meaning people on both sides of the debate with strong
feelings. The areas we are discussing in San Juan County and
southeastern Utah are beautiful and majestic. They deserve
protection. I believe that what we all want is to protect the
antiquities in this area, but the question is how and through
what means.
It will come as no surprise that I supported President
Trump's proclamation last month. But whether or not you agree
with a proclamation, we now find ourselves with a reset and the
opportunity to move forward with a legislative effort that
enhances and approves the processes whereby we protect the
area.
That is where I would like to focus my remarks today--
looking to the future and highlighting the reasons I think
Representative Curtis' bill helps us protect the antiquities in
this area by including those most impacted by land management
decisions, including the Native Americans, in the actual
stewardship of these lands.
Thomas Jefferson said that, ``the government closest to the
people serves the people best.'' That certainly applies to
management of public lands. I am pleased to see this
legislation move us in that direction with the innovative use
of management councils.
These councils exemplify the concept of cooperative
federalism, with seats on these councils mandated for Federal,
county, and tribal representatives who will work together to
develop management plans for the monuments.
In our experience, the looting and vandalism in the area is
not from lack of legal protections but from a lack of law
enforcement and appropriate education.
Utah's antiquities section coordinator, who is a neutral
and objective party in this debate, shared with me the
following: lines on a map do not protect archeological
resources. Protection comes from ongoing education for visitors
about respecting those treasures and enforcement of the laws
prohibiting looting and vandalism.
Unlike the original monument designation that protected the
name only, this bill provides for increased law enforcement.
Representative John Curtis' bill creates an Archeological
Resources Protection Unit for each monument and, additionally,
mandates that at least 10 law enforcement personnel be assigned
to each monument.
The bill also gives Utah the ability to exchange state land
within the monumental boundaries for lands elsewhere of equal
value. That is an important opportunity to consolidate our
trust lands so that we may generate needed funds for Utah's
schoolchildren.
It is important to note this bill precludes any type of
mining or development of oil or gas within the boundaries of
the 1.35 million acres of the original Bears Ears Monument.
This should put to rest any argument that the monument was
reduced in order to advance energy development.
I would also note that the lands within the original Bears
Ears National Monument proclaimed in December of 2016 by
President Obama were protected under a host of Federal
Government laws long before this proclamation. All those
Federal protections are still in effect today regardless of
monument status or arbitrary lines on a map.
A selection of the Federal laws governing and protecting
these historic lands include the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of
1979, Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act of
1990, and the Pathological Resources Preservation Act of 2009.
Moreover, the BLM's 2008 Monticello Resource Management
Plan includes dozens of environmental protections for these
lands, many of them drawn from the aforementioned laws, and
they are still in effect here today.
Despite these pre-existing protections, the current ones,
and newly proposed ones, I recognize that there will continue
to be controversy and debate over these remarkable areas. The
question is, does there really need to be this controversy?
Perhaps I am an idealist, but I hope that we can come
together and work in good faith, recognizing that we all want
these lands to remain public and that we all want to protect
their history, archeology, and unique nature.
We certainly want our children and grandchildren to be able
to enjoy them just as we do. I think if we will ascribe good
motives to each other, we will be more likely to have a
productive conversation and more likely to reach an optimal
solution for the use of our public lands that everyone can
agree to and live with.
Last, I would like to encourage the Committee's efforts to
reform the Antiquities Act. Like most of what Congress does,
the Antiquities Act of 1906 was well-intentioned, but it
requires updating and modernization.
I have long said it is not the use of the Antiquities Act,
but rather the abuse of the Antiquities Act by presidents of
both parties, that now requires Congress to carefully review
this law.
A great start would be Congressman Bishop's legislation
that requires more public input and local buy-in based on the
size of a proposed monument. I believe that this is a good bill
that deserves your consideration and support.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Governor Herbert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Gary R. Herbert, Governor of the State
of Utah
Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Hanabusa, thank you for
inviting me here today to offer input on H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa
National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act. I also thank
Chairman Rob Bishop and Representative John Curtis for developing this
legislation and moving so quickly to hold this hearing.
I understand this is a contentious topic and there are well-meaning
people on both sides of the debate with strong feelings. The areas
we're discussing in San Juan County in southeastern Utah are beautiful
and majestic. They deserve protection. I believe that what we all want
is to protect the antiquities in this area, but the question is how and
through what means.
It will come as no surprise that I supported President Trump's
proclamation last month. But whether or not you agree, we now find
ourselves with a reset and the opportunity to move forward with a
legislative process for protecting this area. And that is where I'd
like to focus my remarks today--looking to the future and highlighting
the reasons I think Representative Curtis' bill helps us protect the
antiquities in this area while also including those most impacted by
land management decisions in the actual stewardship of these lands,
including Native American tribes.
Jefferson said that ``the government closest to the people serves
the people best'' and that certainly applies to managing public lands.
I'm pleased to see this legislation move us in that direction with the
innovative use of management councils. These councils exemplify the
concept of cooperative federalism, with seats mandated for Federal,
county, and tribal representatives who will work together to develop
management plans for the monuments.
In our experience, the looting and vandalism in the area is not
from lack of legal protections, but from lack of law enforcement.
Unlike the original monument designation that protected in name only,
this bill provides for increased law enforcement. Rep. Curtis' bill
creates an Archaeological Resources Protection Unit for each monument
and, additionally, mandates that at least 10 law enforcement personnel
be assigned to each monument.
Additionally, this bill precludes any type of mining or development
of oil or gas within the boundaries of the 1.35 million acres of the
original Bears Ears Monument. This should put to rest any suspicion
that the monument was reduced in order to advance energy development.
Finally, the bill gives Utah the ability to exchange state land
within the monument boundaries for lands elsewhere of equal value.
That's an important opportunity to consolidate our lands and generate
funds for Utah's schoolchildren.
In conclusion, I'd like to encourage the Committee's efforts to
reform the Antiquities Act. Like most of what Congress does the
Antiquities Act of 1906 was well-intentioned, but it requires
modernization. I have long said it is not the use of the Antiquities
Act, but rather the abuse of the Antiquities Act--by presidents of both
parties--that requires Congress to carefully review this law. A great
start would be Congressman Bishop's legislation that requires more
public input and local buy-in based on the size of the proposed
monument.
I recognize there will continue to be controversy and debate over
these remarkable areas. The question is, does there really need to be?
Perhaps I am an idealist, but I hope we can come together and work in
good faith, recognizing that we all want these lands to remain public,
and we all want to protect their history, archaeology, and unique
nature. We certainly all want our children and grandchildren to be able
to enjoy them as we do. I think when we ascribe good motives to each
other, we'll be more likely to have a productive conversation and more
likely to reach an optimal solution for the use of our public lands
that everyone can live with.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'm happy to
answer any questions.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much for your
testimony, Governor.
Our next witness is the honorable Shaun Chapoose. He is the
Ute Tribal Business Committee member from the Ute Indian Tribe.
He comes to us today from Fort Duchesne, Utah. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHAUN CHAPOOSE, MEMBER, UTE TRIBAL
BUSINESS COMMITTEE, UTE INDIAN TRIBE, FORT DUCHESNE, UTAH
Mr. Chapoose. Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532. I am an elected member
of the Indian Tribe Business Committee. I am accompanied by a
Navajo Nation delegate, Davis Filfred. We are both Bears Ears
commissioners.
I would also like to recognize Navajo Nation President
Russell Begaye, and also Vice Chairman Councilman Tony Small,
who represents my tribe.
I am testifying on behalf of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition. The Coalition includes the Ute Indian Tribe, the
Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Zuni Tribe, and Hopi
Tribe. Our five tribes came together for Bears Ears National
Monument and to protect the hundreds of thousands of priceless
objects and sacred sites within the monument. It is important
that we understand we are all federally recognized tribes with
formal governments.
The Coalition strongly opposes the bill, and it improves
the President's unlawful action attempting to dismantle the
monument. The bill pours salt on a wound caused by the
President's action. Instead of this bill, the Subcommittee
should be holding a hearing on H.R. 4518, the Bears Ears
National Monument Expansion Act, introduced by Congressman
Gallego. H.R. 4518 has 98 co-sponsors. This bill only has three
co-sponsors.
At the minimum, today's hearing should have provided equal
time for both bills. Before I get into the problems with this
bill, it is important to recognize the number of tribes cut out
of this hearing. Our coalition is made up of five tribes,
federally recognized sovereign tribes with our own government-
to-government relationship with the United States.
This relationship was recognized in the Constitution long
before Utah became a state. But here, at this witness table,
our five tribes are forced onto one seat. Meanwhile, every
level of the state is here. You have the state government, a
private citizen from Utah, the San Juan County region, and the
Utah lobbying group.
The Subcommittee should provide a full hearing on the bill,
problems with all of the tribes affected. The bill's problem
can only be understood through the history of the Bears Ears
National Monument.
Our tribe and the Utah Dine Bikeyah, a local Utah Navajo
organization, worked for decades to study the hundreds of
thousands of objects and sites in the Bears Ears. To protect
these sites, we defined a 1.9 million acre monument. President
Obama reduced the monument by 30 percent to 1.35 and created
the Bears Ears Commission to manage the monument. This was by
far the smallest area possible as stated in the Antiquities
Act.
Then in an unprecedented and unlawful move, President Trump
attempted to dismantle the monument and create smaller isolated
monuments, including about 200,000 acres, an additional 85
percent reduction. This is no longer the smallest area
possible. Instead, this small area that the bill would enact
into law leaves most of the resource unprotected.
We need weeks for you to see and understand the hundreds of
thousands of objects and sites the bill leaves unprotected. I
brought photos of just a few. As all of these and thousands
more meet the requirement of the Antiquities Act and are in
need of protection, there is no legal or scientific reason to
exclude these objects and sites, only political reasons.
The politics are clear--not a single sovereign tribe was
consulted in this bill. Misleading statements from some in
Congress and the Administration forces me to say here that
talking with an individual tribal member is not government-to-
government consultation. This should be obvious.
The many problems with this bill demonstrate the lack of
consultation with actual tribal governments. First, the bill
violates the United States government-to-government
relationship with our tribes.
For example, we were shocked by the name Shash Jaa Tribal
Management Council. Nothing about this council is true tribal
management. Instead, the council is a return to the 1800s, when
the United States would divide tribes and pursue its own
objectives by cherry-picking tribal members it wanted to
negotiate with. It is up to the sovereign tribal government,
not the United States, to select our own representatives.
Second, under the bill, the true tribal management council,
the Bears Ears Commission, is required to filter its comments
through non-Federal, non-tribal, state representatives. Third,
the bill violates the exclusive Federal tribal relationship in
the Constitution by elevating state and county governments
above federally recognized tribes. Even worse, the bill equates
tribes as public stakeholders.
Finally, the bill impacts reservation lands by allowing
state exchanges within our reservation boundaries. I have only
scratched the surface. Under most circumstances, we would be
eager to work to resolve the problems with the bill. But in
this case, we cannot work in support of this bill that would
legislatively approve the President's unlawful actions
attempting to dismantle decades of collaborative work to
establish the Bears Ears National Monument.
Thank you for your opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapoose follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shaun Chapoose, Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition
introduction
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532,
the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
My name is Shaun Chapoose. I am an elected member of the Ute Indian
Tribe's Business Committee. I also serve as a member of the Bears Ears
Commission. Accompanying me today is Davis Filfred, Navajo Nation
Delegate, who is also a member of the Bears Ears Commission.
The Bears Ears Commission was formed to assist the Federal
Government in managing the Bears Ears National Monument. The
Commission's five members represent the five tribes who sought the
establishment of the Monument through the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition (Coalition). The Coalition includes: the Ute Indian Tribe,
the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, and
the Hopi Tribe. The Coalition represents a historic gathering of our
people and our tribal nations in support of the significant and
priceless resources making up the Bears Ears National Monument. I am
honored to testify today on behalf of the five tribes of the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition.
At the outset we ask that the Subcommittee recognize the number of
tribes that were cut out of this hearing. Each of the tribes making up
the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition is its own sovereign government.
Each of us have our own unique and negotiated relationship with the
United States. This relationship is highlighted in the United States
Constitution and began long before Utah became a state.
Yet, at this hearing, our five tribes are forced to share one seat,
while every level of the state of Utah is represented, including: the
state government, county government and a Utah stakeholder lobbying
group. We ask that the Subcommittee recognize its government-to-
government relationship with each of our tribes and provide a full
hearing of the impacts H.R. 4532 will have on our cultural, natural,
and sacred resources. Each of our tribes have our own unique concerns
and perspectives on H.R. 4532.
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition adamantly opposes H.R. 4532
and its attempt to legislatively confirm President Trump's unlawful
action revoking, replacing, and dismantling the Bear Ears National
Monument. Of course, we appreciate Congressman Curtis' recognition of
the significance of the cultural, natural, and sacred resources
included within the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek areas in his bill, H.R.
4532. However, in this context, the bill pours salt on the wound caused
by the President's unlawful action.
Instead of H.R. 4532, the Subcommittee should be holding a hearing
on H.R. 4518, the Bears Ears National Monument Expansion Act. H.R. 4518
was introduced by Congressman Gallego on December 1, 2017 and referred
to the Subcommittee on December 7, 2017. Despite being before the
Subcommittee for a longer period of time than H.R. 4532, no hearing has
been scheduled on H.R. 4518. In addition, H.R. 4518 has the broad
support of 98 co-sponsors, while H.R. 4532 has only garnered the
support of three co-sponsors. If the Subcommittee were following
regular order, there appears to be no basis for holding a hearing on
H.R. 4532 and not H.R. 4518. At a minimum, today's hearing should have
provided equal time for consideration of both bills.
H.R. 4518 would address the President's unlawful action by
expanding the Bear Ears National Monument to the 1.9 million acres
originally proposed by the Coalition. The Coalition and Utah Dine
Bikeyah, a local, nonprofit Utah Navajo organization, worked for almost
a decade to conduct an extensive ethnographic study documenting a vast
array of ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and
other objects of historic and scientific interest'' that have special
significance to our Tribal Nations and our ancestors. As required by
the Antiquities Act, that study showed that 1.9 million acres was the
``smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the
objects to be protected'' and that protection was needed under the
Antiquities Act. H.R. 4518, developed in consultation with tribal
governments, would expand the size of the Monument to its originally
proposed 1.9 million acres to ensure that all of its vital and sacred
resources are protected in accordance with the law.
In contrast, H.R. 4532 was developed without any tribal
consultation and includes a variety of serious problems that violate
basic tenants of Federal Indian law and the United States' treaty,
trust and government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes.
Problems include:
creating a tribal management council that is not governed
by tribes and is composed of many of the strongest
opponents to the Bears Ears National Monument;
imposing an inappropriate barrier between the tribes and
our Federal trustee by requiring the comments of the Bears
Ears Commission to be filtered through management councils
consisting of non-Federal and non-tribal representatives;
elevating the views of state and country governments above
the tribes, and ignoring and undermining the government-to-
government relationship between tribes and the Federal
Government by treating tribes as mere interest groups;
creating and imposing false divisions within our tribes;
and
including land exchange provisions that could affect
Indian reservation lands.
Under most circumstances we would be eager to work with Congressman
Curtis and the Subcommittee to address and resolve these problems with
H.R. 4532. However, we cannot work in support of a bill that would
legislatively confirm the President's unlawful action dismantling a
decade of collaborative work to establish the Bears Ears National
Monument.
the bears ears national monument
Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument was a decade long
collaborative effort to encompass and protect hundreds of thousands of
cultural, historic, and spiritual sites and features. As noted above,
the Coalition and Utah Dine Bikeyah worked for almost a decade to
conduct an extensive ethnographic study documenting sites and objects
across southeastern Utah. The 1.9 million acres originally proposed by
the Coalition was reduced by about 30 percent by Presidential
Proclamation No. 9558 to establish the 1.35 million acre Bears Ears
National Monument.
In this reduced area, there are no unimportant areas. In fact, the
Bears Ears National Monument is so rich, and the resources there are so
densely situated, that one cannot go more than one-eighth of a mile
without encountering the next site or ``object.'' If you remove any
part of the Monument from protection, it will necessarily damage
cultural, spiritual, archaeological, and paleontological sites of
paramount significance.
In addition to vast ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, and other objects of historic and scientific interest''
contained within the Monument, Bears Ears is a homeland to us. It
always has been and remains so. We continue to use Bears Ears to:
collect plants, minerals, objects and water for religious and cultural
ceremonies and medicinal purposes; hunt, fish and gather; provide
offerings at archaeological sites; and conduct ceremonies on the land.
In fact, Bears Ears is so culturally and spiritually significant that
some ceremonial use items can only be harvested within Bears Ears.
Moreover, some members of the Coalition's tribes continue to hold
grazing permits and allotments in the area.
Our cultures are everywhere within Bears Ears. The canyons and
forests hold many of our stories. Family gatherings, dances, and
ceremonies are held at special places within Bears Ears. Our tribal
members go to Bears Ears to gather roots, berries, pinon nuts, weaving
materials, and medicines. We go for healing. Stone cliff-dwellings,
rock art and trails, testaments to the Old People, have survived
thousands of years of wear and weather. Our ancestors are buried there,
and we can hear their songs and prayers on every mesa and in each
canyon.
The Bears Ears National Monument enjoys overwhelming popularity
nationally, extensive and passionate support in the state of Utah, and
support from locals who view the Monument as an economic development
opportunity. Businesses based on tourism, recreation, and respect for
the Monument's cultural resources provide long-term sustainable jobs
and local economic resources. This is in contrast to uranium and
fossil-fuel mining on Federal lands that provide temporary, dangerous
jobs that fund far off corporations, often destabilize local economies,
and leave behind pollution and a scarred landscape.
The President's attempt to eliminate or reduce the boundaries of
the Bears Ears National Monument is wrong on every count. Such action
is illegal, beyond the reach of presidential authority, and should not
be confirmed by H.R. 4532. Despite provisions of H.R. 4532 purporting
to withdraw portions of the Monument's lands from entry for mining
purposes, the Monument would still be subject to and affected by
existing claims and leases, potential expanded mining, and mining
related activities. In addition, grazing interests would be given
priority and damaging motorized vehicle use would be permitted.
Finally, ghastly looting and grave robbing continues to this day
throughout Bears Ears and would not be deterred by H.R. 4532.
Preventing and addressing these impacts were the primary reason
that the tribes sought monument status for this area. While we
recognize there are appropriate places for resource development,
including energy development, this is not one of those areas. This is
an area that must be preserved and protected for its cultural,
archeological, paleontological, and sacred. Without appropriate
protection, American citizens and the world would lose the opportunity
to enjoy one of the most remote and wondrous landscapes found anywhere.
We would also lose the opportunity to highlight, foster, and share our
traditional knowledge that is tied to Bears Ears.
the president's unlawful action and h.r. 4532
Despite its provisions purporting to protect important cultural,
natural, and sacred resources, H.R. 4532 can only be understood in the
context of the President's unlawful action revoking, replacing, and
dismantling the Bear Ears National Monument. On December 4, 2017, the
President issued Presidential Proclamation No. 9681 purporting to
``modify'' the Bears Ears National Monument and designating two
different, smaller, and isolated units called the Shash Jaa and Indian
Creek units. This drastic change actually revokes and dismantles the
Monument and replaces it with two new monuments. These two different
monuments consist of 201,397 acres, an 85 percent reduction in land
when compared to the original Monument, and leave hundreds of thousands
of priceless and significant cultural, natural and sacred objects
unprotected.
President Trump's unprecedented proclamation revoking Bears Ears
and replacing it with two new monuments violates the Antiquities Act
and exceeds the power delegated to the President by Congress. The
Antiquities Act authorizes presidents to designate Federal public
lands, such as Bears Ears, as national monuments to safeguard and
preserve landmarks, structures, and objects of historic or scientific
importance. The Antiquities Act does not authorize a president to
rescind or modify national monuments created by their predecessors, and
certainly does not authorize them to revoke and replace existing
monuments with smaller ones as has been attempted here. H.R. 4532 would
legislatively confirm this unlawful action.
H.R. 4532 would leave hundreds of thousands of priceless and
significant cultural, natural, and sacred objects unprotected. There
are too many objects, sites, and resources left unprotected to list
them all here. Not to mention the cultural practices and traditional
tribal intellectual knowledge that would be lost or diminished. A few
examples of objects and sites that would be unprotected are included in
Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 attached to our testimony.
Exhibit 1 shows an example of a dwelling and related rock art that
H.R. 4532 would leave unprotected. It shows the handprints and
dwellings of our ancestors whose burial sites and funerary objects have
been looted. Bears Ears includes a variety of dwellings and granaries
showing different construction methods and eras of building. The area
is unusual in that it shows contact between Mesa Verde and Chacoan
Ancestral Puebloans, including differences in construction of religious
structures. These ``objects of historic and scientific interest''
should be protected as a part of the Bears Ears National Monument under
the Antiquities Act.
Exhibit 2 shows rock art representing a cradleboard of Ute origin
that H.R. 4532 would leave unprotected. The artwork is unusual and
rare. It is located on a horizontal surface. Again, this is an ``object
of historic and scientific interest'' that should be protected as a
part of the Bears Ears National Monument under the Antiquities Act.
Finally, Exhibit 3 shows Basketmaker or Ancestral Puebloan
pictographs painted on a rock surface that would be left unprotected by
H.R. 4532. Bears Ears includes a wide variety of rock art of different
styles and from different time periods. Again, these are ``objects of
historic and scientific interest'' that should be protected as a part
of the Bears Ears National Monument under the Antiquities Act.
These are just a few of the ``objects of historic and scientific
interest'' that should still be protected under the Antiquities Act and
any legislation covering these resources. There is absolutely no
rational basis to exclude these sites and objects while including the
sites and objects that are within the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek areas
designated by President Trump and H.R. 4532.
Claims that these objects and sites can be protected under other
applicable laws like the National Historic Preservation Act or the
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 are a red herring. If
these laws provided adequate protections, there would be no need for
the protections included in President Trump's Proclamation No. 9681 or
H.R. 4532. Instead, these claims merely expose political decision
making behind Proclamation No. 9681 and H.R. 4532. Unfortunately, it is
clear that Proclamation No. 9681 and H.R. 4532 were not based on
scientific and ethnographic assessments of the resources that would be
impacted.
specific problems with h.r. 4532
Most important, H.R. 4532 was not developed in consultation with
the Indian tribes who hold these lands sacred and would be most
impacted. Misleading statements by some in Congress and the
Administration require us to emphasize that discussions with individual
tribal members are not government-to-government consultation. Let us be
clear, none of the elected tribal leaders making up the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition was contacted to advise, consult, or assist in
the development of H.R. 4532. In fact, not a single federally
recognized tribal government was consulted on the proposals in H.R.
4532. Specific problems with the bill demonstrate this lack of
consultation.
Time after time, H.R. 4532 undermines and violates the United
States' treaty, trust, and government-to-government relationship with
our tribes. For example, we were shocked by the name of Shash Jaa
Tribal Management Council. Nothing about this Council reflects true
tribal management. First, the Council consists of three representatives
who are not required to have any ties whatsoever to tribal governments.
Second, the tribal members on the Council are not required to be duly
elected or appointed representatives of tribal governments, which means
they will not be authorized tribal government representatives. Further
to that point, the President will appoint all of the members of the
Council as opposed to tribal governments. Third, the tribal members
must all be from only two of the five tribes with an interest in Bears
Ears whereas the five Coalition Tribes have already acknowledged our
shared and local interest in Bears Ears. Fourth, the Council is
required to consult with state and local governments, and the public,
but are not required to consult with the tribes who hold these lands
sacred.
Finally, the most shameful aspect of the bill, is that it
improperly predetermines the tribal representatives who would serve on
the Council. It is not up to the United States or Congress to select
who will represent our tribes. This is an inappropriate return to the
failed policies of the 1800s when the United States would divide tribes
and pursue its own objectives by designating for itself which tribal
representatives the United States would negotiate. It is up to
sovereign tribal governments, not the United States, to select our own
representatives.
These factors are even worse for the Indian Creek Management
Council where a single tribal representative serves with four
representatives from Federal, state and county governments. Again, the
tribal representative would be appointed by the President and not the
tribe, and would have to consider and incorporate the comments of state
and local governments and the public as opposed to the tribal
governments most affected. For both the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek
areas, the Bears Ears Commission, including the five tribes is reduced
to an advisory group.
These provisions attempt to treat Indian tribes as merely public
stakeholders and not as governments, and most certainly not as
governments with a direct sovereign-to-sovereign relationship with the
Federal Government. This violates fundamental principles of Federal
Indian law. The United States has a treaty, trust, and government-to-
government relationship with Indian tribes. As specified in the United
States Constitution, this relationship is exclusive and does not
include state governments. H.R. 4532 must be revised to reflect these
important principles of Federal law.
Title III of H.R. 4532 also needs revision. Title III allows the
state of Utah to exchange its school trust lands located inside the
Shash Jaa and Indian Creek areas for other lands within the state to
provide for resource development in support of public schools. However,
this provision must be revised to exclude lands within Indian
reservations to prevent impacts to on-reservation Indian resources.
Our cultural, natural, and sacred resources within our Indian
reservations are just as important as the resources within the Bears
Ears National Monument. Our reservation lands were reserved in treaties
and other agreements to provide a homeland for our tribes. In another
return to the failed policies of the 1800s, Title III of H.R. 4532
would allow another Indian land grab where Federal lands lie within our
reservations. The United States and Congress rejected these policies
long ago in favor of protecting and restoring Indian reservation lands.
H.R. 4532 and this extreme proposal should be soundly rejected.
conclusion
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition adamantly opposes H.R. 4532
which would legislatively confirm the President's unlawful action in
violation of the Antiquities Act. H.R. 4532 would dramatically affect
some of our most important cultural, natural, and sacred resources. We
ask that the Subcommittee provide a full hearing of H.R. 4532 and hear
from each of the five tribes who make up the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition. We also ask that the Subcommittee hold a hearing on H.R.
4518 which has broad support and would resolve many of the problems
raised today.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next witness is Mr. Matthew Anderson. He is the
Director of the Coalition for Self-Government in the West, of
the Sutherland Institute from Salt Lake City, Utah. Welcome to
the Committee.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR SELF-
GOVERNMENT IN THE WEST, SUTHERLAND INSTITUTE, SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH
Mr. Anderson. Good morning, Chairmen Bishop and McClintock,
and Ranking Members Grijalva and Lowenthal, and members of the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Thank you for the invitation to
speak.
San Juan County is a land of towering mesas, red rock
canyons, and unparalleled beauty. More impressive than this
landscape, however, are the people who call this place home.
For locals, public lands are about much more than outdoor
recreation. Their history, culture, and future depend on access
to public lands and the life-sustaining resources they provide.
Simply put, public lands are their whole world. For nearly
2 years, I have spent countless hours getting to know the
people of San Juan County, learning about their connection to
the land, and coming to understand why they overwhelmingly
opposed the Bears Ears National Monument.
Today, I would like to share with you the stories of three
San Juan County residents and how provisions of H.R. 4532
respects their history, promotes their culture, and preserves
their way of life.
First, I would like to tell you about Grandma Betty Jones.
Grandma Betty is a Utah Navajo and serves as a leader and
medicine woman in her community. I first got to know Grandma
Betty at a rally in Bluff, Utah. There she told me stories of
gathering traditional herbs and medicines along Elk Ridge,
herding sheep on the reservation, and explained the spiritual
nature of Bears Ears.
Grandma Betty also expressed her fear that a national
monument designation would restrict local tribes' access to the
land. Much of her concern centered on the reality that a
designation could limit firewood cutting and the heat it
provides Navajo homes during the long winter months.
After all, she and local Native Americans have seen
firsthand that national monuments restrict this type of
activity. Just a stone's throw away from the Bears Ears
National Monument is the Natural Bridges National Monument. The
words ``No wood cutting'' greet visitors in big, bold letters.
H.R. 4532 ensures that Grandma Betty, her family, and other
Utah Native Americans will have a prominent seat at the table
in determining how Bears Ears and the surrounding area will be
managed. This first-of-its-kind legislation will keep Utahns'
homes warm and protect against the whims of centralized
government.
Debbie Christiansen serves as president of the San Juan
County School Board. I spent an afternoon in her living room
getting to know her and listening to the educational struggles
that her county faces. You see, it costs nearly three times as
much to educate one student in San Juan County as it does in
other parts of the state due to its small size and large land
mass.
When you combine this with the fact that less than 8
percent of the county can be taxed to support education and the
rampant poverty in the region, it is no wonder that Debbie
opposes decisions that will put further strain on the limited
educational resources her county has. She viewed the Bears Ears
National Monument as an insurmountable hurdle that locked up
state trust lands and the funds they provide the region's
schoolchildren.
The land exchange in H.R. 4532 permits the State of Utah
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration to swap
parcels in the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek National Monuments
for mineral rich lands both within and outside of the county.
While clearly not the answer to all of San Juan County's
educational struggles, this bill will open up funding to
educate the county schoolchildren.
Zeb Dalton is a third-generation cattle rancher and makes a
living grazing his livestock in the shadow of the Bears Ears
Buttes. In the spring of 2016, I met him and his teenage son at
their corral to learn about ranching in southeastern Utah and
listen to his concerns about the then-proposed Bears Ears
National Monument.
From horseback, Zeb expressed his worry that a designation
would bring with it steeper regulations and decreased numbers
of grazing cattle. He cited the experience of his neighbors in
Kane and Garfield Counties where, despite President Clinton's
promise that grazing would remain at historical levels in the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the number of
actual use AUMs has declined by almost a third in less than 20
years.
For those ranchers left in the area, they face an uphill
battle. They struggle to extend or move water lines within
their allotments, fence riparian areas, maintain roads, or take
other necessary measures to ensure the health and safety of
their livestock.
This is slowly pushing cattle off the range and ranchers
off the land their families have worked for generations. Zeb
fears his business, cultural heritage, and family's future will
be next. H.R. 4532 helps safeguard Zeb's and other San Juan
County ranchers' way of life, allowing them to use the land as
they have for generations.
While Grandma Betty, Debbie, and Zeb all differ in how they
use public lands, they all stand in solidarity and they are
called to preserve, protect, and responsibly use the land.
After all, who knows this land and loves it more than those who
call it home.
Without congressional action and the sensibility of H.R.
4532, Bears Ears, Shash Jaa, and Indian Creek will be relegated
to nothing more than political footballs being punted back and
forth with each change of presidential administration. Nobody
wins in this scenario, not the archeological resources, not the
environment, and certainly not the people of San Juan County.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Anderson, Director of the Coalition for
Self-Government in the West, a project of Sutherland Institute
Good morning Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and
members of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, and thank you for the
invitation to speak.
San Juan County is a land of towering mesas, red rock canyons and
unparalleled beauty. More impressive than this landscape, however, are
the people who call this place home. For locals, public lands are about
much more than rock climbing, camping, and outdoor recreation. Their
history, culture, and future depend on access to public lands and the
life-sustaining resources they provide. Simply put, public lands are
their whole world.
For nearly 2 years, I have spent countless hours getting to know
the people of San Juan County, learning about their connection to the
land and coming to understand why they overwhelmingly opposed the Bears
Ears National Monument. While President Trump's decision to reduce the
monument was a bold first step, locals recognize that congressional
action alone is the only path that can secure their future.
Today, I would like to share with you the stories of three San Juan
County residents and how the provisions of H.R. 4532 respect their
history, promotes their culture and preserves their way of life.
First, I would like to tell you about Grandma Betty Jones. Grandma
Betty is a Utah Navajo and serves as a leader and medicine woman in her
community. I first got to know Grandma Betty at an anti-monument rally
in Bluff, Utah. There she told me stories of gathering traditional
herbs and medicines along Elk Ridge and herding sheep on the
reservation, and she explained the spiritual nature of Bears Ears.
Grandma Betty also expressed her fear that a national monument
designation would restrict local tribes' access to the land. Much of
her concern centered on the reality that a designation could limit
woodcutting and the heat it provides Navajo homes during the long
winter months. After all, she and other local Native Americans have
seen firsthand that national monuments restrict this type of activity.
Just a stone's throw away from Bears Ears is the Natural Bridges
National Monument. The words ``No Woodcutting'' greet visitors in big
bold letters. H.R. 4532 ensures that Grandma Betty, her family and
other Utah Native Americans will have a prominent seat at the table in
determining how Bears Ears and the surrounding area will be managed.
This first-of-its-kind legislation will keep Utahns' homes warm and
protect against the whims of centralized government.
Debbie Christiansen serves as president of the San Juan County
School Board. I spent an afternoon in her living room getting to know
her--listening to stories of raising her family in a small town,
discussing her love of the students she serves, and learning of her
hopes for the future of San Juan County. She shared with me the
educational struggles her county faces. You see, it costs nearly three
times as much to educate one student in San Juan County as it does in
other parts of the state due to its small population and large land
mass. When you combine this with the fact that less than 8 percent of
the county can be taxed to support education and the rampant poverty in
the region, it is no wonder that Debbie opposes decisions that put
further strain on the limited educational resources her county has. She
viewed the Bears Ears National Monument as an insurmountable hurdle
that locked up state trust lands and the funds they provide the
region's schoolchildren. Today's bill makes Debbie's job a little
easier by opening up funds to educate the next generation. The land
exchange in H.R. 4532 permits the State of Utah's School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration to swap parcels in the Shash
Jaa and Indian Creek National Monuments for mineral-rich lands both
within and outside of the county. While clearly not the answer to all
of San Juan County's educational struggles, this bill can have a
profound and lasting impact on the county's schoolchildren.
Zeb Dalton is a third-generation cattle rancher and makes a living
grazing livestock in the shadow of the Bears Ears Buttes. In the spring
of 2016 I met him and his teenage son at their corral to learn about
ranching in southeastern Utah and his concerns over the then-proposed
Bears Ears National Monument. From horseback, Zeb expressed his worry
that a designation would bring with it steeper regulations and
decreased numbers of grazing cattle. He cited the experiences of his
neighbors in Kane and Garfield counties, where--despite President
Clinton's promise that grazing would remain at historical levels in the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument--the number of actual use
AUMs has declined by almost a third in less than 20 years. Those
ranchers left in the area face an uphill battle. They struggle to
extend or move water lines within their allotments, fence riparian
areas, maintain roads, or take other necessary measures to ensure the
health and safety of their livestock. This is slowly pushing cattle off
the range and ranchers off the land their families have worked for
generations. Zeb fears his business, cultural heritage, and family's
future will be next. H.R. 4532 helps safeguard Zeb's and other San Juan
County ranchers' way of life--allowing them to use the land as they
have for generations.
While Grandma Betty, Debbie, and Zeb all differ in how they use
public lands, they all stand in solidarity in their call to preserve,
protect, and responsibly use the land. After all, who knows and loves
this area more than those who call it home? Without congressional
action, Bears Ears, Shash Jaa, and Indian Creek will be relegated to
nothing more than political footballs being punted back and forth with
each change of presidential administration. Nobody wins in that
scenario--not the archaeological resources, not the environment, and
certainly not the people of San Juan County.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony.
Our final witness is Ms. Suzette Morris. She is with the
White Mesa Ute community. She is a member of the Posey Band Ute
Tribe. She comes to us from Fort Blanding, Utah. Welcome to the
Committee.
STATEMENT OF SUZETTE MORRIS, WHITE MESA UTE COMMUNITY, MEMBER
OF POSEY BAND UTE TRIBE, SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Congressman
Lowenthal, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 4532.
My name is Suzette Morris, and I am a member of the Ute
Mountain Tribe from White Mesa, Utah. I am also the vice
president of the Stewards of San Juan County. Stewards of San
Juan County is a diverse working group made up of stakeholders,
advocates, and interested citizens who are working together to
determine how we can best maintain and enhance our land in San
Juan County.
I received a call Sunday evening asking if I would come
testify. I left my six daughters early the next morning, drove
2\1/2\ hours to the airport, took a plane to Dallas and another
plane here to Washington, DC, a place I have never been in my
life, because this is so important to me and my family.
I grew up in White Mesa. My family is from the area. From a
young girl, I was taught all about these lands. I was taught
where to go and also where not to go. In our communities,
public lands are our most valuable resource. We use the land
for hunting, wood cutting, gathering sage and medicinal herbs,
and for sacred ceremonies.
There is no one who cares for the land more than we do, the
local residents and Native people of San Juan County. It is the
people who live closest to the land that understand the land
best and should be the voice in how the lands are managed.
H.R. 4532 will finally empower the voices who have been
silenced in this debate, and those are the voices of the local
tribes who actually live in San Juan County. Our voices have
been silenced by special interest groups funded by Hollywood
actors, San Francisco boardrooms, and by tribes who do not live
anywhere near Bears Ears. Even the leaders of my own tribe in
Colorado don't know where Bears Ears is.
They decided to support the Obama monument in secret. They
did not talk to the White Mesa Utes to support it, because the
majority of us don't. By creating the first-ever tribal
management council, you are empowering local Native American
people with real authority to manage the land of their
ancestors. The Obama creation of the Bears Ears National
Monument never mentioned tribal management. It only created an
advisory committee that had no real power over the land.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge that Rebecca
Benally, the San Juan County Commissioner and a member of the
Navajo Tribe, was initially scheduled to testify today. Sadly,
she was unable to make it because of sickness and a hospital
visit. I would like to submit her testimony for the record and
read it in part:
``By supporting H.R. 4532, you are listening to a group
that has been silenced for too long. We all come from
different backgrounds, but we want the same results. We
want land that is well-managed and accessible to all
people. We support the language of H.R. 4532.''
Unfortunately, the Obama monument was done to us, not with
us. A national monument should be an honor to an area, not
something forced by a president thousands of miles away. The
Obama monument ignored the voices of locals. That is why I am
here.
It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for listening,
and I look forward to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Suzette Morris, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, White
Mesa, Utah
Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Congressman Lowenthal, and members
of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 4532.
My name is Suzette Morris and I am a member of the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe from White Mesa, Utah. I am also the Vice President of the
Stewards of San Juan County. Stewards of San Juan County is a diverse
working group made up of stakeholders, advocates, and interested
citizens who are working together to determine how we can best maintain
and enhance land in San Juan County.
I got a call Sunday evening asking if I would come testify. I left
my six daughters early the next morning, drove 2\1/2\ hours to the
airport, took a plane to Dallas and then another plane here to
Washington, DC, a place I have never been in my life, because this is
so important to me and my family.
I grew up in White Mesa. My family is from this area. From a young
age I was taught all about these lands. I was taught where to go, and
also where not to go. In our community, public lands are our most
valuable resource. We use the land for hunting, wood cutting, gathering
sage and medicinal herbs, and for sacred ceremonies. There is no one
who cares for the land more than we do, the local residents and Native
people of San Juan County. It is the people who live closest to the
land that understand the land best and should have a voice in how the
lands are managed.
H.R. 4532 will finally empower the voices who have been silenced in
this debate, and those are the voices of the local tribes who actually
live in San Juan County. Our voices have been silenced by special
interest groups funded by Hollywood actors, San Francisco boardrooms
and by tribes who do not live anywhere near Bears Ears. Even the
leaders of my own tribe in Colorado probably don't even know where
Bears Ears is. They decided to support the Obama monument in secret.
They didn't ask the White Mesa Utes to support it, because the majority
of us don't.
By creating the first ever Tribal Management Council you are
empowering local Native American people with real authority to manage
the land of their ancestors. The Obama creation of the Bears Ears
National Monument never mentioned tribal management, it only created an
advisory committee that had no real power over the land.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge that Rebecca Benally, the
San Juan County Commissioner and a member of the Navajo Tribe was
initially scheduled to testify today. Sadly she was unable to make it
because of a sickness and a hospital visit. I would like to submit her
testimony for the record and read it in part:
``By supporting H.R. 4532, you are listening to a group that
has been silenced for too long. We all come from different
backgrounds, but we want the same results. We want land that is
well-managed and accessible to all people. We support the
language of H.R. 4532.''
Unfortunately the Obama monument was done to us, not with us. A
national monument should be an honor to an area, not something forced
upon us by a president thousands of miles away. The Obama monument
ignored the voices of locals. That is why I am here.
It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for listening and I look
forward to your questions.
______
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much.
I, again, want to thank the panel for their testimony and
coming all the way here today to provide that testimony.
Questioning in this Subcommittee is done by seniority, but
that is often modified by unanimous consent at the request of
the Majority or Minority. We will make such a deviation right
now by recognizing the author of the measure, Mr. Curtis, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you very much. And thanks again to all of
our witnesses.
Governor Herbert, thank you for being here today. I was
feeling like you had made quite a sacrifice to be here until I
heard Suzette talk about her trip. Thank you, all of you, for
being here.
Governor, may I ask you for just a minute to put on your
county commissioner hat--many people may not realize that you
were county commissioner before you were governor--to talk
about the principle of local control and why that is so
important to us in Utah.
Governor Herbert. Well, again, I think most all of us
appreciate that government closest to the people tends to be
more reflective and more representative of the people's needs
and wishes and probably has a better understanding of what is
happening in their own backyard.
Certainly, as a county commissioner, in my responsibilities
there, I am kind of a bottom-up type of a guy as opposed to a
top down. As a county commissioner, I was concerned about those
above me, of the state mandating or dictating something that
really the people of my jurisdiction do not want.
I think we all understand the importance of local control
and local input, certainly as we have responsibilities. And in
this particular case, this ought to be a joint effort. It is
not one versus the other. It is really a collaboration we ought
to be looking for to get the right outcome. It will be optimal
for the benefit of the Americans that we represent and for the
people of Utah and for particularly the people there in the San
Juan County area.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
You alluded to this, but let me ask you to expand on it.
This issue that we have in Utah with Federal lands and the way
their schools are funded, could you elaborate on that a little
bit and talk about the burden on the state with the Federal
lands?
Governor Herbert. Well, in the public lands state--and,
again, I know this is foreign to some of you because we have
less than 1 in 4 acres of Utah that is privately owned, so we
are a public lands state. We will always be a public lands
state. But that seems to be the extent of where the rub comes
all the time.
And we have these townships, these sessions, rather, that
have been set aside when Utah became a state--we call them
school trust lands--designed to help fund education. These are
trapped inside of public lands and sometimes hard to develop.
But those areas are being developed by our SITLA people.
And the income that comes off that is put back into the public
education system to help fund our needed funding for our
schools.
We, in Utah, are the lowest funded people in the Nation. We
get a pretty good result for the amount of money, but we could
use more resources, and our school trust lands are really an
important asset to help us fund our schools properly.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Ms. Morris, thanks again for coming here today.
The bill includes a number of additional resources into the
area. Could you comment on how those are perceived, and are
they welcomed by the Native Americans in the area?
Ms. Morris. From my point of view, I think the land is
protected already and the resources that we have are there.
They are available, so I don't think a monument needs to be
there to protect the land.
The protection was already there from the beginning. There
are 14 laws that protect the land in that area, and I don't
think that making a monument is going to protect it anymore
than----
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
You live very close to the monument, 30 minutes. Is that
approximately right?
Ms. Morris. Yes, about 30, 45, depending on where you are
going in the area, but I live close.
Mr. Curtis. The two presidential declarations have brought
a lot of attention to this. Can you tell us just briefly what
you are seeing locally as far as additional people in the area?
Ms. Morris. With the monument designation?
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Ms. Morris. We go out in the area, like they mentioned. I
am a descendent of the Posey Band, and we have allotments out
there in Alan Canyon that is just a little ways from the Bears
Ears Monument.
We have seen a lot of suspicious activity where people are
out there, and when we come upon them they are taking off. They
are running through the stream so that we can't see their
footprints. It kind of opened a lot of doors to what the other
side is saying about the county looting.
And I think it is the outsiders. It opened a lot of doors
to people, they are fascinated with the area, so they are going
in and they are curious.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you very much.
I yield my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair is pleased to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Lowenthal, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to clarify to make sure I heard correctly some of
the comments that were made by members of the panel.
My first question is to Ms. Morris. You talked about the
importance, under H.R. 4532, of tribal management and that this
would allow for tribal management. Are you saying that the
tribal leadership coming from the Inter-Tribal Coalition will
choose who those members are, or will it be another example of
what took place in the 1800s, that the U.S. Government will
choose what Indians should be on that management? Who is going
to choose the management?
Ms. Morris. From my knowledge, it is going to be the
people. They are the ones that are going to choose those
individuals that sit on that committee.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. But I think you should read the
bill. It is not the people who will make that choice. Maybe you
can clarify that.
Mr. Chapoose, who will choose the tribal management?
Mr. Chapoose. Actually, in the bill itself it is up to the
President to select the representation of the sovereign tribal
governments. And it also is up to some of the local people to
make the same decision.
And I need to stress this--we need to go back to the simple
fact. We are federally recognized tribal governments. Under
law, we have the voice and the authority to represent our
perspective nations. But in this bill, it diminishes that.
I think there was a part, I think it was Section 3, as a
matter of fact, that talks about there are two particular
areas, the Shash Jaa and the Indian Creek. In one, more or
less, the President once again will pick who represents us, the
sovereign nations. And I think we are allowed a few seats.
In the other one, it even goes beyond that and diminishes
that and gives us one. So, I think the bill is ladened with
language that basically undermines the government-to-government
relationship that does exist with us, the federally recognized
tribes, and it also undermines our self-determination.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I also want to ask you, Mr. Chapoose, to clarify the
statement, when Mr. Anderson talked, in a very eloquent way,
about Grandma Betty and being concerned about President Obama's
proclamation of Bears Ears as a national monument that
traditional Native cultural uses would not be recognized such
as collection of medicines, berries, firewood, and other
vegetation. Is that true that that was limited by President
Obama?
Mr. Chapoose. No. Actually, part of what we have put forth
as a coalition enhanced not just the cultural aspect as far as
gathering but the learning capabilities of the Native American
tribes to develop and to better educate.
It is interesting that in the comments we talk about third
generations. My tribe, even though we are not there right now,
and everybody acts as if just the occupants at this time have a
claim. We need to be very cautious about that.
Part of the Antiquities Act talks about historical and
scientific evidence. It is evident that there were numerous
tribes before my tribe, before the Hopi, the Pueblo, and the
Zuni who have been in the region. And it is a known fact that
their remnants, their artifacts, their petroglyphs are there.
So, to basically make it sound like we are going to do
everything that the first bill did, there again, it is them
interpreting our intentions as tribal leaders. People need to
remember, we were the sovereign tribes representing our
interest in the original proclamation.
It came from us directly. It didn't come from my neighbor.
It didn't come from somebody who thinks they know what I want.
It came from us, the tribal leaders.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I want to follow up on this, Mr. Chapoose, that the
monument review carried out by Secretary Zinke that was
ultimately used to justify President Trump's elimination of
Bears Ears National Monument, claimed that a lot of the land
included in the original monument is not of scientific,
historic, or cultural interest.
That is why we are being asked today to support a bill that
only has 15 percent of the land from the original designation.
Can you speak to the cultural significance of the 85 percent
that we have left out?
Mr. Chapoose. In the photos, which were flashed earlier,
they were actually outside of the new monument. They are
petroglyphs. They are greeneries.
Mr. Lowenthal. It was outside?
Mr. Chapoose. Yes. They are actual reflections of what will
not be protected. I am not a rocket scientist, but that pretty
well shows me that it is under the criteria of the Antiquities
Act antiquities. There was a comprehensive study done when the
monument was declared the first time by the Utah Dine Bikeyah
plus a bunch of other groups, and that information was brought
forward to the President at the time and to people of Congress.
So, the valuation that was done most recently with
Secretary Zinke was, I show up, I fly down, let's have a PR
moment, go look at some of the more popular locations and call
it a day. Yet, the Utah Dine Bikeyah and the tribal leaders
requested for him to actually have grounds-on opportunities
with us, the tribal leaders.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I will start my 5 minutes and
begin with Governor Herbert.
Governor Herbert, I read the provisions of the Antiquities
Act that the Obama administration used to impose these
restrictions on 1.3 million acres of the land in Utah. It is
supposed to be confined to the smallest area compatible with
proper care and management of the objects to be protected. Do
you think that that Executive Order comported with the
requirements of the law?
Governor Herbert. No, I don't. In fact, the magnitude of
the monument is stunning. As you have mentioned already, it is
bigger than the state of Delaware. If you take our two
monuments that have been created, the Grand Staircase-Escalante
along with the Bears Ears, it is the same size.
And if you look on a map of Utah, of all of Utah County,
all of Salt Lake County, all of Weber County, and all of Davis
County, where over 80 percent of the people of Utah live, the
magnitude is stunning it is so large.
Mr. McClintock. I wonder if we imposed that kind of
restriction on Los Angeles County what we would be hearing from
the acting Ranking Member?
But let me go on. Did the Obama Executive Order have the
support of the government of Utah?
Governor Herbert. It did not.
Mr. McClintock. Did it have the support of the local
government?
Governor Herbert. No.
Mr. McClintock. The Ranking Member suggested that the state
was fully consulted in the designation of this region, and it
is a region as a national monument. Is that true?
Governor Herbert. There is discussion and dialogue that
went on. I have worked with Secretary Sally Jewell, in fact,
and had some discussions on this. She did come and visit Utah,
which I appreciated. We had no idea as far as what the size and
what the result was going to be, and certainly they did not
tell us in advance of what that was going to be.
And let me make one point that I think is salient. What
they did say is this should be done legislatively. The Obama
administration agrees with what we agree with. It should be
done legislatively. Rather than just a stroke of a pen and
somebody's arbitrary decision making, it should be done like we
are trying to do here today.
Mr. McClintock. Which is what the Constitution requires,
and as you point out, why we are here today.
Were any concerns expressed to the Obama administration
prior to the announcement?
Governor Herbert. We had a lot of discussion as far as
let's see if we couldn't get the PLI through. Congressman
Bishop made a significant effort, 18 million acres they are
trying to resolve. We have had the public land dispute and
sagebrush rebellions in the West for the last 100 years, under
Democrat as well as Republican governors, so this is an ongoing
issue.
It wasn't able to get marked up. It wasn't able to come out
for a vote. So, we ended up having a dictator approach of using
the Antiquities Act, which I----
Mr. McClintock. But, again, we have been told that you were
fully consulted and basically brought in as a partner as this
designation was being considered.
Governor Herbert. No. I think Suzette mentioned that the
feeling we have is it was done to us, not with us.
Mr. McClintock. I see.
Mr. Anderson, what restrictions are imposed on the public
use of these lands because of the monument designation?
Mr. Anderson. Well, Utah has a long and storied history of
national monuments. And I would like to respond to a comment
about wood cutting being guaranteed.
In President Clinton's designation of the Grand Staircase-
Escalante, as I mentioned, there was a promise that grazing
would remain at historical levels. So, it was in the
proclamation just as herb gathering and wood cutting were in
Obama's declaration.
However, grazing has declined, and we have seen a history
of broken promises when it comes to national monuments. Even if
it is in a presidential proclamation, it does not guarantee
access for the people of Utah. Congressional action is what is
needed to secure the future of the people of Utah.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Morris, what harm comes to the local community due to
the designation of 1.3 million acres as an archeological site?
Ms. Morris. There is no harm there. I know there are a lot
of archeological sites, but like the other side says, there is
a lot of looting. They don't live in the area. They are not
there every day. They don't know everything.
Mr. McClintock. Well, you do live in the area.
Ms. Morris. Yes, I live in the area.
Mr. McClintock. It is quite clear that the local people are
opposed to the expansive designation and supportive of this
measure. What I am trying to fathom is why? What harm did the
President's Executive Order do that this bill corrects?
Ms. Morris. Access. The access to the land. We would be
denied access to the land, and, like I stated before, we
wouldn't be able to cut the wood. We wouldn't be able to gather
the medicinal herbs, and a lot of our activity. We live there,
so we go out there every weekend.
Mr. McClintock. Well, the proponents say you can. But as
Mr. Anderson has pointed out, those are promises that have been
broken time and again, and we have certainly heard that song
before.
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much for your testimony. My
time has expired, and we will next go to Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me go back to a point. Ms. Morris, the implication in
your testimony is that Native American people do not support
Bears Ears National Monument. Am I correct that the sovereign
tribal governments of the Ute Mountain Ute, along with the
other four tribes of the Bears Ears Commission have all passed
official resolutions of support for Bears Ears National
Monument, Number one?
And further, they have all filed legal suits challenging
the elimination of 85 percent of the Bears Ears by President
Trump last month. Is that correct?
Ms. Morris. Yes, but with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, there
was no justification on the people.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. But the Stewards of San Juan County, when
were they funded, and what is your group's tax status?
Ms. Morris. It is the Stewards of San Juan County.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, but when were they founded? When did
they start?
Ms. Morris. Just last year.
Mr. Grijalva. And your tax status is what?
Ms. Morris. It is a non-profit.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. The group's registered agent, Mr. Phil
Lyman, who is, I think, also a county commissioner in San Juan,
is the registered agent in the business database in Utah. And
he is on record saying that Native Americans, ``lost the war
and therefore have no right to comment on public land
management decisions.'' Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Morris. I think what he is talking about are the
outsiders, the tribes that live outside of the area. And, yes,
they don't have----
Mr. Grijalva. Are you an elected member, a representative
of your people in any capacity?
Ms. Morris. Just a community member.
Mr. Grijalva. And you are authorized to speak on behalf of
the Mountain Ute?
Ms. Morris. I am speaking as a Ute Mountain Ute tribal
member.
Mr. Grijalva. But not for the government and their
representatives?
Ms. Morris. No. I didn't say I was talking for the Ute
Mountain Tribe.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Anderson, director of, I think, the
Coalition for Self-Government in the West, part of the
Sutherland Institute, can you tell me when Sutherland started
working with the Stewards of San Juan and how money was raised
for the ads that were run by Stewards against the monument?
Mr. Anderson. Absolutely. I first met a number of people
who started the Stewards of San Juan County in the summer of
2016. All the money that was run for the ads by Stewards of San
Juan County was raised from local funds, and it was paid for by
locals. What happened with the Sutherland Institute, all we did
was help in the production of the video, but all funds that
were used to pay for the commercial were paid for by local
people.
Mr. Grijalva. And the Descendents of K'aayelii, does the
Sutherland Institute provide funding to that group as well?
Mr. Anderson. No, we do not provide any funding, and we do
not provide any funding to the Stewards of San Juan County.
Mr. Grijalva. But you did send out a press release
announcing their website in 2016?
Mr. Anderson. Which was our website that we created. They
have their own separate website which they funded and created.
Mr. Grijalva. And this descendant group is pursuing
recognition of its own tribe separate from the Navajo Nation.
Does Sutherland support their effort?
Mr. Anderson. We believe that locals should have a voice in
all decisions. We haven't engaged in that issue.
Mr. Grijalva. Where does the Sutherland Institute get the
bulk of its funding? How much money did you get from the
DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund to provide what was
provided to Sutherland in 2016 and 2017?
Mr. Anderson. The vast majority of our funding comes from
our founding family in Utah. Most of our money comes from the
state of Utah, and we are in compliance with all 501(c)(3)
funding.
Mr. Grijalva. I know. But DonorsTrust gave $225,000 to
Sutherland in 2016. The most recent ones are still not
available. That is a Koch Brothers funding network, the dark
ATM as it has been categorized. So, do you feel that that
legitimizes your independence as the institute and working with
these organizations because the Koch Brothers are now paying
essentially organizations to interfere in the internal politics
of a sovereign nation, the Navajo Nation in this case.
Mr. Anderson. Sutherland Institute became engaged in this
issue because we saw local voices being drowned out by
environmental and corporate interests. Their voices were not
being heard. That is why we got involved. I spent time getting
to know these people. I spent time in their homes and in their
schools.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. My point is that this is
not a simple case of legislation. There are a lot of
motivations, a lot of things behind it, a lot of interest
behind it.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to all the
members of the panel for being here. I certainly don't want to
criticize you for exercising initiative as citizens, for
exercising that part of the Constitution of bringing your
petitions to Congress. I appreciate that you are doing that.
And, Ms. Morris, in particular, the last minute sacrifice, your
stepping in, is much appreciated. Ms. Morris, we have heard
testimony here today about tribes not having enough input into
this process. I am curious, whose idea was it to seek a
national monument in San Juan County? Was it a Ute Mountain Ute
or a member of one of the local tribes or perhaps another San
Juan County resident?
Ms. Morris. I think it was the environmentalists. None of
the Tribal Council, Ute Mountain Ute, Navajo Nation, they never
made a statement on why they wanted the monument. I think the
only ones that have been speaking about the importance of the
monument are special interest groups. And my opinion is, how
would special interest groups know how to protect the land when
we have Native Americans that are taught their traditions, that
are taught their culture and to be respectful, like they say
they want to protect this archeological site, but we are taught
not to go into that area. Somewhere it is all about greed; it
is all about money, getting money and using Native American
culture, using Native American history to promote this
monument. And it was not our own council. For me, I speak for
Ute Mountain in saying we never had a community meeting to say
why they wanted the monument.
Mr. Thompson. And you have actually personally addressed my
next question for you. Leading up to the designation by the
Obama administration, were local Native tribes consulted?
Ms. Morris. No.
Mr. Thompson. How about the tribal co-management that was
promised by the Obama administration? Was true co-management
ever achieved?
Ms. Morris. No. I think a true co-management would include
the locals. And this management that they talk about is all
outsiders, outsiders that don't know the land. But I think with
H.R. 4532, we are going to have that voice. We are going to be
able to voice what we want, how we want to protect the land.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Governor, I particularly enjoy Thomas Jefferson's quote
outlining the importance of government that is closest to the
people. And having a national forest in my congressional
district, I see when outsiders have their input considered more
heavily, more important than the people that live within that
area. So, the use of management councils would certainly
increase the presence and influence of local authorities. Can
you describe how these councils will be built and what their
role will entail? And how will this help the local communities?
Governor Herbert. I think all of us recognize that those
who live right next to it have a better understanding, probably
a better appreciation for what is the best practices for the
land in question. Again, it is not just a matter of outsiders;
it is really a matter of a collaborative effort. And these
councils are designed to make sure that we have representation
from the Federal Government, from the local community and the
counties, and the local tribes. And rather than just have a
suggestion box out there, if we really care about protecting
the antiquities and the archeological artifacts, if we really
care about giving the Native Americans co-management
responsibility, it has to be done legislatively. These councils
are a step in the right direction. Again, you can decide and
debate, which is the purpose of having a legislative approach
here, to get to the right outcome. But, clearly, having local
input ought to be considered and listened to, and really have a
better input rather than somebody from so far outside that just
comes in and feels like we are doing it to the people rather
than with the people.
Mr. Thompson. That is certainly a theme I have heard
repeated a number of times and makes a lot of sense to me, that
we need to do with and not for.
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for
taking the time to be able to be here today. I found it
interesting, Mr. Anderson, when you were talking about, and we
have had several comments in regards to education. The per-
pupil costs in San Juan County are higher than they are
elsewhere in Utah. And taking some of those trust lands out is
actually impacting the ability to be able to provide that
educational support. Can you maybe expound on that and perhaps
how this legislation might be able to help make sure that we do
have funding for the children and for schools?
Mr. Anderson. I would be happy to. In the state of Utah,
about 67 percent of our state is owned and managed by the
Federal Government. As such, our state cannot tax 67 percent of
the land within our state. That puts our children at a real
educational disadvantage. Sure, we have programs like receipt
sharing and PILT payments, but especially with PILT payments,
our counties don't know how much they are going to receive
every year in funding. The formula changes consistently. With
this bill, we are going to see our state trust lands be able to
transfer out of areas that already don't really have any
mineral resources. There is no oil or gas in the area. To quote
the Grand Canyon Trust: drilling has yielded little more than
dry holes in the Bears Ears region for so long. And what it is
going to do is allow us to find mineral-rich areas in other
parts of the state, hopefully within the county to keep the
resources there and the jobs there. I spoke with the State
Trust Land Administration, and they hope to keep the jobs
there. But there are other places within our state that hold
vast amounts of mineral resources that can go directly to
funding the students of the state of Utah and specifically the
people of San Juan County.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you for that.
Governor, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be
able to visit with you. I think that you are focusing in on
something that I believe is really critically important to be
able to address the multitude of issues which may come up in
the course of any type of designation, and that is being able
to have that legislative process to be able to go through. As
you have expanded visitation, there may be costs with the new
parking lot. If we don't have that discussion in advance, we
aren't going to be prepared for it. Can you maybe expound a
little more in terms of why we should be looking at the
legislative process? I don't know of anyone, Republican or
Democrat, who is opposed to making designations. We value those
public lands. But why is it important to go through that
legislative process?
Governor Herbert. Well, as you know, you can compare
legislation by initiative petition, where you have no ability
to modify and improve, or the legislative process that you
have, where you can have debates, you can have amendments, you
can make decisions and discussion, and improvement occurs over
the legislative process. The public lands issue is a complex
issue. And most of the states of America don't have the issue
in their backyards. It is us in the Near Mountain West and kind
of west of the Rockies that have this issue. I appreciate the
complexity. We have division in the ranks. We have Native
Americans on one side and Native Americans on the other side.
The people of Utah are divided. It requires a legislative
action, where we can in fact debate these issues, have
discussion, and find out what is the optimal place to be to
protect the artifacts? The monument is not going to be any
silver bullet to protect them. In fact, some people think that
the monument will attract people to come and increase looting.
If we don't have more law enforcement and education of people
that appreciate these wonderful things that we have out there
in our public lands, we are going to continue to have looting
and lose some of these artifacts as we attract people to come
there. If we really believe that these are sacred lands for the
Native Americans, we absolutely should give them some co-
management capabilities to preserve and protect what they think
is sacred. We have Native Americans say, ``Well, we want to
have a monument for tourism and travel. We want to increase the
economic opportunity.'' Other Native Americans say, ``No, these
are sacred lands, we don't want to have people come and trample
on our sacred lands.''
They are not compatible. That is why the legislative
process. And President Obama and Secretary Jewell all agreed
this should be done legislatively. You can argue all the
history of why we don't have it done legislatively, but we have
an opportunity to do it right now. And it is this Committee and
others of your body that need to take up the cudgel and say,
``Let's see if we can't do this right.'' And it can be done
right by doing it legislatively.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that. And just so that we have
some clarity, listening to some of the comments that we have
had on the panel, is it against the law right now to go in and
destroy petroglyphs on these public lands, with or without
designation, it is still against the law, isn't it?
Governor Herbert. It is. We mentioned earlier the different
protections that are there. This is BLM land. They can, in
fact, enhance protections at their own volition without any
additional help from Congress. These lands are protected, will
be protected, and can be enhanced by the BLM alone.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to all of you for your testimony today. As I
listen, where I am from in northern Michigan, we really don't
like people coming in and telling us how to do our business. We
manage our lands, we manage our lifestyles, and while we are
always interested in others' opinions, if you don't live in the
middle of it and you are not interested in conserving what you
have for the long haul--and as our tribes in our district will
tell you, we work together--but ultimately, we want the say,
and we want it individually. Ms. Morris, can you describe to
me, to the panel here, as an individual, the importance of
Shash Jaa to you and to the Ute Mountain Utes?
Ms. Morris. I speak for White Mesa because I live in the
community, but it is important to us to be able to have that
access because we have always had the access. It has been there
for hundreds of years, all these ruins, the archeological
sites. And it was just out of the blue that they wanted to make
it a monument. It has been protected. We have had no problems
in the past, maybe one or two incidents that occurred. But with
the designation of the monument, it has increased people, and
it is going to increase more vandalism and more looting. And
their respect for the land is not there because we, as San Juan
County residents, we respect the land. We know how to take care
of the land. We have been taught that. As a Native American, we
are taught to have that respect for the land. You give to the
land. You don't take from the land, or you don't get rich off
the land, and the land will take care of you.
Mr. Bergman. And I want to just reiterate what I thought
you said earlier, that with the passage of H.R. 4532, tribes
will still be allowed to use Shash Jaa for hunting, wood
cutting, gathering medicinal herbs, and for sacred ceremonies.
Am I correct?
Ms. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Bergman. OK. Thank you.
Governor Herbert, under this bill do you believe that the
public will have just as much access to the land in question?
Just as much?
Governor Herbert. Yes. And, again, there is not a lot of
change that is occurring. The national monument was really not
necessary, certainly at that magnitude. The BLM already is
restricting access to some of the artifacts and some of the
ancient ruins that are there on the property. And that is what
you want to do is to restrict traffic. If you really care about
preservation, the archeologists are telling us it is traffic,
it is people going there that is causing the problems. The BLM
has always had that ability to restrict, and they in fact do
that. We have resource management plans where we spent 7, 8
years working with all the stakeholders as far as what we can
do on these public lands.
Mr. Bergman. Do you think that there would be limitations
put in place by this bill that weren't in place before?
Governor Herbert. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Bergman. I have kind of noticed a pattern in the
testimony here today, and that is we all want and we have a
need for certainty and clarity, something that is currently
missing in the Bears Ears National Monument designation. Does
this bill, H.R. 4532, bring the certainty and clarity that you
state? Is that so?
Governor Herbert. That is true. That is what legislation
does. Let me just make one clarification. The limitation that
is put on in this bill of Congressman Curtis puts to rest any
idea that somehow this is being done to access energy. We have
people out there distorting the facts, misrepresenting the
truth, saying this is about oil and gas. That is not true.
There is really no oil and gas there in the monument itself.
But this is being codified now that there is going to be no
mining, no oil or gas accessibility inside the original Bears
Ears Monument. So, that is a restriction that is enhanced by
this bill.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Gianforte.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the Committee for your testimony today. I want
to start with Mr. Anderson, if I could. Many of the proponents
of the original Bears Ears National Monument would like us to
believe that it was really a grassroots effort that drove that
initiative, led by local voices. Can you explain to the
Committee why you testified today that that is not true? And,
further, can you talk to us about the impact and influence big
money environmentalists had in pushing the original
designation?
Mr. Anderson. I would be happy to. The idea for the Bears
Ears National Monument actually began in 2014 with a group of
environmentalists who met in San Francisco. This was undercover
reporting that was done by the Deseret News, which is our local
newspaper in Salt Lake City. They said in their meeting minutes
that, ``In order to get this Bears Ears National Monument
through, we are going to have to get tribes on board.''
And I have seen that firsthand. I remember going down and
seeing when Secretary Sally Jewell visited and seeing eight
busloads worth of people bussed in to try to drown out local
voices--they were all wearing blue shirts and during the
hearing, they were not required to say where they were from.
And locals, like Suzette, were looking around saying, ``Who are
these people? We have never seen these people before.''
They have really done a good job of drowning out these
voices. They have a lot of money, and they have a lot of power,
and the people of San Juan County do not. They are the poorest
county in the entire state, among the poorest in the country.
They don't have the money to push back against the false
narratives put out by corporate interests and environmental
groups.
Mr. Gianforte. Is it fair to say that the bill we are
discussing today is a much better reflection of the local
voices?
Mr. Anderson. Absolutely. Not just now, but moving forward.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Great.
Ms. Morris, thank you for being here on short notice. I
understand the difficulty in leaving a family behind and
traveling to a place you have never been. So, thank you.
I want to ask you about tribal management of this national
monument. This is going to create a new precedent for us, and I
am curious first to talk to you about the impact. We have heard
testimony today that in other monument designations, the
ability to collect firewood, the ability to collect medicinal
herbs has been constrained or restricted. If those things
happened in Bears Ears National Monument, what would that mean
to your family? Can you talk about the impact on your culture
and your people if that access was removed?
Ms. Morris. With the access being removed, it would create
a lot of animosity because we are used to going up there. We
are used to going on the dirt roads. Certain areas have the
sage or the cedar and we have to travel. If there was limited
access, it would create a lot of not being able to do our
traditional way of life, what we value, and our cultural, our
ceremonies that we do, we wouldn't be able to do that. We would
have to go out in other areas to pick that.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. And under this bill, there would be
representation from the local tribe. Can you talk a little bit
about what co-management means to you? And if you or someone
from your tribe was on that management, what would you be
looking to preserve?
Ms. Morris. Co-management to me is being able to hear the
local voices, being able to hear the local tribes. Our tribes,
they all differ. Our cultures, our traditions, they are all
different, so if we can come together, work together. From the
beginning, we were left out. All we want is to be able to have
a seat at the table to express our importance, to express our
values and our respect for the land, and not outside groups
coming in and telling us how to take care of our land.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you.
Governor, again, thank you for being here. In your
testimony, you talked about reform of the Antiquities Act. I
want to draw on your experience as a county commissioner. In
Montana, if I want to know what is going on, I always talk to a
local county commissioner. What impacts have you seen locally
from the Antiquities Act from a county commissioner perspective
that have been difficult that caused you to make that comment
about reform?
Governor Herbert. As I mentioned, it is not the use of the
Antiquities Act; it is the promise, the abuse of it. And
presidents have done it on both sides of the aisle. They do it
for political purposes. The most egregious example that I have
seen in my history was the Grand Staircase-Escalante. You know,
1.9 million acres that was designated when the president stood
in Colorado, lied to our congressional delegation, including
our Democrat Representative, Congressman Orton, at the time,
and did it, not because he was trying to protect antiquities,
but he wanted to make sure that nobody accessed the Kaiparowits
Plateau coal. He did it as a favor for his environmental
constituency. And even Democrats in Utah were upset and
appalled about that action. That is an abuse of the Antiquities
Act.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair next recognizes the Chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, Congressman Rob Bishop, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Before I ask my questions, I would
like to ask unanimous consent to introduce a couple of articles
into the record.
The first one is an article that was written by Alfred Ben,
who is from the Aneth Chapter, vice chairman there, about
sizing up the national monuments and their opposition to it
within the Aneth Chapter.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Sizing them up:
Utah rep. not Trump or Obama, meets Navajo needs on Bears Ears
The Hill
By Alfred Ben, Opinion Contributor
December 26, 2017
Among land management issues in the American West, Bears Ears National
Monument pushed to the forefront of public attention Native Americans's
land issues. President Trump's downsizing of Bears Ears and Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah forced out many opinions
on why Bears Ears should or shouldn't be a monument. One thing we all
can agree upon: the land should be preserved.
My ancestors have long-lasting ties to the area. I come from a great
Navajo leader, named K'aayelii. As descendants of K'aayelii, we have a
strong bond with the Bears Ears buttes. My ancestors lived on those
lands when no other tribes were there. We take immense pride knowing
our people never surrendered during the wars of the 1800s in which many
members of our tribe were held prisoner in Fort Sumner, New Mexico.
When President Obama designated more than 1.3 million acres in San Juan
County as Bears Ears National Monument in December 2016, my chapter of
the Navajo Nation, Aneth Chapter, closest to Bears Ears, passed
resolutions requesting that the president reverse his designation. Why
do you think so many Utah Native voices were against the designation?
For one thing, there already are 11 wilderness areas protecting this
area; therefore, a monument designation doesn't come with anything more
than the paper it was written on. Second, the idea was sold to the
public as though it was a ``celebrated,'' tribally-managed monument,
with decision-making at the offices of each tribal chairman/president.
The buck stops at each tribal leader? Not so.
All one needed to do was to view the Bears Ears National Monument
proclamation on the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) website to see what
a slap in the face its designation was to Native American tribes. The
proclamation gave each tribe named a less-than-advisory role in the
Bears Ears Commission. ``Tribal co-management,'' a term adamantly
pushed often by special interest groups and environmentalists, was
found nowhere in the original Bears Ears proclamation. Monument
decisions always were going to remain in the hands of faceless BLM and
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) officials.
The committee status of the Bears Ears Commission so far has not
included much, if any, input from Native Americans. If it holds
meetings they are held in secret, at unknown locations; the only
meeting I was ever aware of was held off-site of any reservation, in
Bluff, Utah, and controlled by non-elected special interest groups. To
this day, none of my constituents can even find a meeting agenda. How
are we supposed to have confidence in that process?
President Trump has reduced the size of the original monument
boundaries to 201,876 acres and designated two smaller monuments, Shash
Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument. Within the
original Bears Ears Monument boundaries lies the reason the Forest
Service was a main player in its management: the Manti-La Sal National
Forest. These 1.2 million acres of forested land cover six Utah
counties, but mostly San Juan County.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture website for the Manti-La Sal forest
leaves blank advisory roles and tribal relations. The website makes no
mention of the Aneth, Oljato, Red Mesa, and Navajo Mountain chapters.
Utah Navajo and Ute tribal members who actually use the Bears Ears
lands were extremely displeased with the lack of interest from our own
tribal governments.
Am I pleased that the Bears Ears Monument's boundaries were reduced?
Somewhat. Am I pleased there are two efficiently sized national
monuments where before there was only one? I can live with that. But
it's not enough.
What my Navajos would like to see are lasting protections for the area.
Obviously, presidential proclamations to designate monuments could be
modified back and forth until the end of time. The answer, then, lies
with Congress, which can pass laws that withstand the test of time and
presidents.
Our newest Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), elected last month, has Navajo
concerns on his mind. We are honored that his first official act as a
congressman was to introduce H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument
and Indian Creek National Monument Act, to create a truly Native
American management body with which the public can be involved. As a
duly elected official, chosen by the people, I stand with my Utah
congressman's legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. I would also like to ask to introduce one that
is written by Darren Parry, the vice chairman of the
Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation, up where I happen to
live, called the ``Great American lie that all tribes are for
Bears Ears National Monument.''
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
``Great American lie that all tribes are for Bears Ears NM''
By Darren Parry
Vice Chairman, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation
For thousands of years, our tribal elders would sit down with our young
children and tell them stories about our people. The stories were
always the same, never a word out of place. Our children were taught
life lessons that would help them transition to adulthood. Things have
changed.
No longer do we teach our children the old ways. Social media does that
now. No longer does our youth listen to and respect our elders. No
longer does our youth learn the sacred art of compromise, where the
thoughts and ideas of all groups are valuable and that all ideas should
be heard and respected.
Instead, our politicians have taught them that it is only important to
win at all costs.
This brings me to Bears Ears National Monument. It saddens my heart to
see the all or nothing attitudes from everyone involved. The BENM
movement has been in the works for a long time. This was discussed long
ago by Conservation groups that wanted to protect the lands that we
know and love.
They were hesitant at first to get tribes involved, according to their
minutes. After all, working with a variety of tribal sovereign
governments can be tricky. When their lobbying efforts in Washington,
DC stalled, a strategic decision was made to include the Navajo Nation,
but not without concerns.
This was a brilliant move on their part. For President Obama to support
a National Monument, the local tribes needed to be involved. Tribal
governments with the help of conservation groups came together and
started the Inter-tribal Coalition.
Since the tribes have gotten involved, they have been at the forefront
of this movement. But this was never their idea.
The conservationists have done a wonderful job of pushing the tribal
nations to the front to speak for their cause. The fact that the
President of the Navajo Nation had not heard of or could even tell you
where Bears Ears was located speaks volumes.
This land in San Juan County is sacred to our native people. There is
no question that those sacred Native sites need protection. What most
people don't understand is that the Native American cultural sites
within the monument were already protected under federal law.
Inviting the world to visit these pristine areas does not protect them
any better, but it will exploit them. Increasing popularity does not
increase protection.
This land has been used by my native brothers and sisters to gather
wood, pick plants that have healing and ceremonial purposes and enrich
their lives. This land at times has served as a burial ground and a
place to live.
This land has also been used by many local residents of San Juan
County, who are good people who work hard every day to make a living.
If you go there today, it is a beautiful and peaceful place. It has
been taken care of by all of us for the last 100 years, and we will
continue to do so.
Back in June of 2016, there was a councilman representing the
Northwestern Band of Shoshone who officially signed the Support for
Presidential Designation of the Bears Ears National Monument to Protect
Cultural, Historical & Natural Resources on Federal Lands in San Juan
County, UT under the Utah Tribal Leaders Association.
When the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation signed a resolution
supporting our tribal brothers and sisters, we did so because we are
family. We will always have unconditional love and support for each
other like families do.
However, the councilman did not have the blessing of the tribal
Council, nor did he speak on behalf of the Council. It has been
increasingly difficult to continue to support Bears Ears NM because all
sides, interests, and views are not being represented or heard.
The NW Band of Shoshone does not support the Bears Ears National
Monument. I disagree with environmental group's decision to utilize the
tribes inside the Inter-tribal Coalition.
This monument was inducted and accomplished without official
consultation and significant participation of the NW Band of Shoshone.
We believe this takes away the rights and freedoms of many to express
their beliefs and views.
This designation is not in the best interests and welfare of not only
Shoshone people, but of all Utahan's who love the land of their
heritage.
There is an old saying among my people that says, ``What if I told you
that the left wing and the right wing all belong to the same bird.''
It is my hope as a tribal leader, as a citizen of the most beautiful
state on earth, and as a steward of all things given to us by the Great
Spirit, that we can all come together and sit down as a group and make
a decision that is in the best interest of everyone.
I am currently working with other tribal leaders to help educate them
to the real issues that are involved. This is not a good deal for
tribes. They need to understand this. The great American lie is that
all tribes are for the Bears Ears National Monument. They are not!
______
Mr. Bishop. Let me just say one quote from what he said,
``The Bears Ears National Monument movement has been in the
works for a long time. This was discussed long ago by
conservation groups that wanted to protect the lands that we
know and love. They were hesitant at first to get tribes
involved, according to their minutes. After all, working with a
variety of tribal sovereign governments can be tricky . . .
This land in San Juan County is sacred to our Native people.
There is no question that those sacred Native sites need
protection. What most people don't understand is that the
Native American cultural sites within the monument were already
protected under Federal law. Inviting the world to visit these
pristine areas does not protect them any better, but it will
exploit them.''
The third is what was recently mentioned by Matt, the
article by Amy Joi O'Donoghue from the Deseret News called
``Big money, environmentalists and the Bears Ears story.'' I
would like that actually admitted into the record.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Mr. Bishop. If I can just say a couple of things from that
article. In October 2014, a group of people sat around a table
and discussed their campaign to bring a monument designation to
southeast Utah for the region they called Bears Ears. This
wasn't a group of Native American tribal leaders from the Four
Corners, but board members from an increasingly successful
conservation organization who met in San Francisco to discuss,
among other things, if it was wise to ``hitch our success to
the Navajos.'' Many Utah Navajo are against the monument
designation for Bears Ears, but the out-of-state tribal leaders
behind Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition who support it insist
their effort is one that is locally driven, locally supported,
and grassroots in nature. But the campaign is fueled in part by
$20 million in donations from two key philanthropic foundations
headquartered in California that cite environmental protections
as their key focus.
Then it also quotes Byron Clarke, who at the time was the
vice president from the Navajo Blue Mountain Dine, who at the
end of it simply said, of those coming in to talk about this
area, he doesn't believe tribal officials who support a
monument designation could name the landmarks at Bears Ears or
know if wood gathering is good at places like Babylon Flat,
Duck Lake, Little Dry Mesa, or Sweet Alice Springs. ``I'd be
met with blank faces.'' This is quoting Mr. Clarke, ``The
people who came here from a distance and will return to a
distance had to GPS the Bears Ears to get there. I've never had
to use GPS out there. Their idea of protection is to
essentially make it famous. How does making it famous and
putting it on the map for careless visitors protect it?''
And, finally, because one of the testimonies that was
given--Shaun, I am glad you are here, I didn't realize your
name is now Chapoose, but we will deal with that--criticized
the legality of it. I would also like to introduce for the
record a report from the American Enterprise Institute
entitled, ``Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National
Monument Designations,'' which it says it is actually a
legitimate part there.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
Mr. Bishop. When we had to do the PROMESA board, we had to
go through a lot of contortions to have presidential
designations for those board members.
Governor Herbert, I think it is interesting to note that
Governor Leavitt was here when we talked last time about the
Grand Staircase-Escalante. He was governor at the time that was
done. You are here with us this time to talk about Bears Ears
because you were governor at the time. This is a big deal for
Utah, and I appreciate you, as well as former Governor Leavitt,
actually being here to illustrate that. The lands we are
talking about here will be designated by the President because
they are public lands, aren't they, not reservation lands?
Governor Herbert. They are off reservation lands. They are
public lands, again owned by all of America, and certainly next
door to our local people there. That is why this should be a
joint discussion as far as how we manage them.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to try to do this very quickly. When
we talk about motorized access for wood gathering, how
significant it is, the Obama proclamation was silent as for
proposing or abandoning it. The Inter-Tribal Council, Mr.
Chapoose, simply said you wanted to enhance that. But in the
testimony that was given, you criticized this bill for actually
emphasizing that.
You have 19 seconds, Suzette. Why is it so important that
you have that protection, which is only done in Curtis' bill
and not in the proclamation?
Ms. Morris. Because, like I stated before, not all of the
medicinal medicine is just right there in the area. We have to
take the dirt roads to find the plants that we are looking for.
Mr. Bishop. Under 10 seconds. Under the Obama proclamation,
even if the Inter-Tribal Council wanted to enhance it, they did
not have the authority or power to do it. Under Curtis' bill,
they would have the authority or power to guarantee it would be
there, and that is why it is stated in the first place.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman's time has expired. We will
do a second round. I will begin and yield my 5 minutes to the
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let's go through this here.
Suzette, if I can come to you, there is the Northern Band
of the Utes, your band of the Utes, and the Ute Mountain Band
of the Utes. Your band actually formally endorsed Bears Ears,
but was there ever a question asked to the membership of your
band? Was it actually put to a vote or a public discussion by
them?
Ms. Morris. The band that you are talking about is the
Posey Band. They have no affiliation with the Ute Mountain. The
Posey Band was the one that was given the allotments. There
were 30, it was my direct ancestor that was given that land.
But it was not Ute Mountain at the time.
Mr. Bishop. Can you tell what happened when they were
trying to take petitions down to Monument Valley?
Ms. Morris. Yes. We went to a meeting in Monument Valley
where local Monument residents were there, and they were
signing papers, signing petitions--it was a petition for the
monument. But Navajo elders were denied translation. They
didn't understand what they were signing. And they were given
T-shirts in return for that. But they asked for translation and
were denied by fluent Navajo people.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Shaun, quick question. You showed us two exhibits outside
the boundaries of this new national monument. Do you know where
the first and third of them actually are?
Mr. Chapoose. Actually, the first one is that granary one,
right, a little draw. You want to flip them real quick. But the
one that is ironic is there is a cradle board, which is a Ute--
--
Mr. Bishop. Do you know where they are?
Mr. Chapoose. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Where are they?
Mr. Chapoose. In the Bears Ears region.
Mr. Bishop. Where?
Mr. Chapoose. Well, let me get out my little map for you,
Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Do you know where Fish Creek actually is?
Mr. Chapoose. Yes, I have actually been there. I have been
there recently.
Mr. Bishop. Do you know what those land designations are
right now?
Mr. Chapoose. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. What are they?
Mr. Chapoose. They were a monument first. They have been
rescinded, and now they are unprotected.
Mr. Bishop. No. Wrong again. Both of those, all of those
pictures that you put up there are already in wilderness study
areas, which has greater protection than a monument would give
to them.
However, Mr. Curtis, let me ask you, would you be willing
to talk about expansion of some of these other particular
areas, or would you also be willing to talk about expanding who
gets to have some input in the selection process?
Mr. Curtis. Absolutely. We have heard today a number of
positive comments about the legislative process. And one of the
points of the legislative process is that legislation gets
better as it goes through the process. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. One of the things I would like to also
illustrate is we were criticized in written testimony of having
no input or being allowed no process with it. What you see up
there is the picture from the bulletin out there with the Ute
Reservation. When I traveled out there to meet with the
business council, Shaun, you weren't there that day, but I met
with the others. The one other one is Representative Chaffetz,
who was down meeting with President Begaye. We did have those
kinds of conversations.
I would also like to introduce for the record three
letters.
The first one took place on November 2, 2016, in which our
staffs met with this Inter-Tribal Council as it was constituted
at the time and at which time Bill Hedden from the Grand Canyon
Trust said White House staff are convinced that the
proclamation itself cannot establish full collaborative
management and that they are thinking they might not do it
because it would disappoint or anger the tribes. That is why
what Mr. Curtis is doing is so significant.
But that was on November 2. On November 18, the delegation
from Utah then sent a letter to them asking a request for draft
legislative language that would implement an equitable co-
management system for the Bears Ears region.
Also, a letter from November 30 in which the response from
the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition on their stationery said
the Coalition is not prepared to provide additional draft
language, nor would they in the future, although they said they
were happy that we were actually talking to them.
[The information follows:]
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
November 2, 2016
Dear esteemed leaders of the Bears Ears Coalition:
We are committed to finding solutions to the various land
designation and management challenges facing the Bears Ears region of
San Juan County, Utah. Working together with tribal leaders, local
officials, and other land-user groups, we believe that a proposal can
be crafted that adequately designates the Bears Ears for conservation,
recreation, and tribal uses.
We would also like to work with tribal leaders on a co-management
proposal. It is widely known that co-management cannot be achieved
through an Antiquities Act designation. Only the congressional process
can craft a meaningful co-management plan in which the tribes are made
equal to other participants.
I f a national monument were to be designated at the Bears Ears,
co-management would not be part of the proclamation. In an October 2016
memo, Bill Hedden, Executive Director of the Grand Canyon Trust, wrote
to his Board of Trustees: ``White House staff are convinced that the
proclamation itself cannot establish full collaborative management . .
.'' He went on to write: ``The great danger to getting this done is
that the White House will decide that not designating a monument at all
is better than taking an action that will disappoint or anger the
tribes.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Grand Canyon Trust, Board of Trustees Meeting, 1-1, (Oct. 14,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, recent Secretarial Order 3342 issued by Secretary Sally
Jewell left much to be desired by tribal leaders looking for a seat at
the land-planning table. The Order, intended to boost tribal
involvement in the land planning process, was littered with caveats and
loopholes. The Department of Interior explicitly acknowledges: ``[T]he
Order does not address `co-management'.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Dept of the Interior, Secretarial Order No. 3342, Identifying
Opportunities for Cooperative and Collaborative Partnerships with
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the Management of Federal Lands
and Resources, Sec. 2(c)(3) (Oct. 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly the administration can give tribes coordination. But we all
know what that means. It means tribes can participate in all the
meetings. It means tribes can listen to the discussion. It means tribes
can even make recommendations. But at the end of the day, coordination
puts tribes in the role of an advisor. It doesn't have any real teeth
or authority.
______
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
November 18, 2016
To the Co-Chairmen and Members of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition:
The November 2, 2016 meeting involving the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition and our offices was very productive. We were grateful for the
time of the Coalition members who were able to attend. We look forward
to continued dialogue as proposals are put forward concerning the Bears
Ears region of Utah.
Following up on the conversations we had during our meeting, we are
writing to formally request draft legislative language that would
implement an equitable co-management system for the Bears Ears region.
It has been widely reported that co-management cannot be achieved
through an Antiquities Act designation. We believe the congressional
process can craft a meaningful co-management plan in which the Tribes
are made equal to other participants.
We are committed to finding legislative solutions to the various
land designation and management challenges facing the Bears Ears region
of San Juan County, Utah. Open dialogue and communication will ensure
that all points of view, options, and solutions are considered.
We look forward to hearing from you and stand ready to work
together.
Sincerely,
Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop,
United States Senator United States Representative
Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz,
United States Senator United States Representative
______
Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition
November 30, 2016
To Utah Congressional Delegation,
Thank you for hosting a meeting between tribal leaders from the
Bears Ears Coalition and Utah congressional staff earlier this month.
We sincerely valued the opportunity to hear directly from you and to
discuss some of our concerns with the Utah Public Lands Initiative
(PLI).
As you know, each Tribe that comprises the Bears Ears Coalition has
continually expressed an interest in collaboratively managing the Bears
Ears landscape. We are pleased that you might be willing to accept our
approach to collaborative management. After internal deliberation,
however, the Coalition is still not able to support the Public Lands
Initiative as drafted. As discussed at the meeting, some problematic
areas of the PLI include:
The failure to use the boundaries, encompassing 1.9
million acres, as proposed by the Coalition after years of
expert research and analysis of this area;
The removal of 100,000 acres of land from the Uintah and
Ouray Indian Reservation;
Amendments to the Utah Navajo Trust Fund absent
consultation with the Navajo Nation;
The long term consequences that the transfer of energy
permitting and regulatory authority to the State will have
on the landscape and nearby communities;
Provisions validating Utah's claimed ownership of PL 2477
rights of way;
Provisions allowing mining in much of the 1.9 million acre
area proposed by the Coalition.
These are only a few of the concerns that the Coalition has with
the PLI. Until adequately addressed, the Coalition is not prepared to
acquiesce to a draft bill by providing additional draft language.
Nonetheless, we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss these
issues with each of your offices.
Sincerely,
Alfred Lomahquahu, Carleton Bowekaty,
Bears Ears Co-Chair Bears Ears Representative
Hopi Vice-Chairman Pueblo of Zuni Councilman
______
Mr. Bishop. This idea that we did not have any of those
discussions is one of the most bogus claims that happens to be
there.
Mr. Chairman, on this, I think it would be good to actually
have another because there are so many inconsistencies in the
testimony that was presented, written by whomever, whatever
attorneys actually drafted it, that it would be nice to go
through some of that once again in detail. It would be nice to
talk about the actual number of lootings. I have 22 seconds.
Matt, do you know how many lootings have taken place in
like a 5-year span in this particular area?
Mr. Anderson. It is very few. In fact, I don't have an
exact number, but it is less than the Grand Staircase-Escalante
number of lootings during the same period.
Mr. Bishop. Twenty-five. Under the proclamation or the
Inter-Tribal Council, do they actually do anything about that?
Mr. Anderson. No.
Mr. Bishop. Once again, Mr. Curtis, what does your bill do
about that?
Mr. Curtis. This bill is a management plan that protects
the area.
Mr. Bishop. Puts money into it?
Mr. Curtis. Not just the President Trump designation, but
the broader 1.35 billion acres.
Mr. Bishop. Do you authorize money and manpower?
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. I am afraid my time has expired.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Bishop. You need to have more control of your time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I would like to make a comment
before I ask questions. There has been a lot of talk about
tribal management, the input of the tribes, questions have been
asked frequently to Ms. Morris about the input of the tribe. To
me, the input from the Inter-Tribal Coalition, the sovereign
nations that live there is deafening, the silence. They have
been excluded from this process, and not only is it
inappropriate, it is totally disrespectful of what is taking
place in this bill. That is where I am going to start.
I want to ask Mr. Chapoose, the bill establishes a tribal
management council for the Shash Jaa National Monument.
However, the positions on the council will be filled by
presidential appointment and reviewed by the Utah's
congressional delegation. I ask you, does the Utah delegation
speak for or represent sovereign tribal nations or tribal
governments?
Mr. Chapoose. There again, the agreements that exist in
this, the United States, are particularly direct to us, a
federally recognized tribe and the U.S. Government. It does not
include the state of Utah or the county. And while I have the
opportunity, I would like to point out, if we are going to go
through the motions and have theater, I mean, let's do it. But
we, as tribal leaders, have gone to this battle time and time
again, and all we have asked in this process is an opportunity
to represent ourselves. But throughout this process, all I have
seen is select individuals who have been determined by people
of power to speak on behalf of us, the tribal leaders. The
tribal leaders are sitting here right now. You have had comment
after comment talking about Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation
president is seated right behind me. If we are going to have a
conversation at a government-to-government level, it requires
us, the elected bodies, to be the ones putting forth that
information.
So, I find this rather interesting that I am sitting here
to assist you and help you, but if I am going to be basically
given history lessons too, I find that interesting also, since
I am part of the history that we are talking about.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to follow up. Are you
aware of any tribal governments that support President Trump's
action to eliminate the Bears Ears National Monument? Any
tribal government?
Mr. Chapoose. There again, I never have seen anybody come
forward and say anything. I have seen the articles they have
talked about, as the Congressman pointed out. We are talking
about a group of Shoshones who basically don't even own a chunk
of land and were able to work a deal with the state of Utah to
get a chunk of land.
Our tribes, the ones who are standing up, are old treaty
tribes. And this is very important that we understand this: we
pre-date the states. Our agreements exist with the U.S.
Government. They are treaties. And the boundaries, which the
county likes to point out, and as we have a local resident of
the area saying that none of us live there, they forget, it is
not that we don't live there, we were forced out of there.
Where we reside today is not the choosing of our respective
nations. They were the locations that were given and we were
placed on after all the lands, which were our aboriginal lands,
were taken from us.
So, I think before we have discussions on history, we
better make sure we are talking the proper history. But to my
knowledge, there is no tribe. If anything, I have received
letters from 20 treaty tribes from the northwest. I think we
gained support from NCAI, the National Congress of American
Indians, one of the oldest establishments in existence dealing
with issues in the Federal Government. And let it be known: The
Ute Tribe is one of the charter members of that organization,
which was founded to protect and make sure these types of
actions do not occur.
Mr. Lowenthal. So, if this bill goes forward, in your view,
Mr. Chapoose, will this bill lead to improved government-to-
government consultation with any of the five tribal governments
that make up the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition?
Mr. Chapoose. No, it will not. All this is going to do is
divide us further. What is pretty interesting in this, and we
have been to Congress quite a bit asking for other issues
involving Indian Country, we know there is a challenge in
court. It should be up to this body to do nothing further until
those avenues are exhausted. To push it through basically shuts
the door on the legal process, so this is not going to help
anybody. If anything, I guess we are going to draw our lines,
and we are going to start pushing harder and harder. But if we
are talking about working together, there again, I am an
elected person representing a Nation. The conversation you are
going to have with me may not be what you think, but it will be
an honest conversation based off a government-to-government
requirement and law that exists in the United States.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I would like to discuss just
briefly, and then ask a question, the difference between the
Bears Ears Commission and the co-tribal management. We have
talked a little bit about the Bears Ears Commission, and I want
to make clear the point that the Bears Ears Commission is kept
fully intact in this bill. And not only is it kept fully
intact, there is a requirement from the co-tribal management
that they actually consult the Bears Ears Commission as it was
conceived. And not only that, there is a requirement that if
they don't listen to that advice, that they provide a written
explanation about why they are not listening to that advice. I
think that is very important to demonstrate the respect that we
do have for the Bears Ears Commission and the work that was
done on that. There is a provision in the bill that requires
consultation with the Utah delegation from the President and to
who he selects on that committee. I would certainly consider it
a friendly amendment to add in that that is also in
consultation with the Bears Ears Commission, to make sure that
that input is respected and garnered as well.
Mr. Anderson, you may not have an answer to this question,
but let me try you on this. Are you familiar with the
requirements in the Constitution that require the President to
select who is on this committee? And if so, could you explain
why that requirement is in this bill?
Mr. Anderson. I don't have the history of the bill, but my
understanding is it will reflect that elections matter. While
there may be a Republican in today, I am sure there is going to
be a Democrat in the future, and so the selection of the
committee members will largely be a reflection of the elections
we have in this country. But I cannot speak to the history
specifically.
Mr. Curtis. OK. The Bears Ears Commission was simply
advisory. Under that situation, it is acceptable to not involve
the President in the selection because the co-tribal management
has decision-making authority, the Constitution actually
requires that to be selected by the President. But as the
author of this bill and this being my bill, I certainly would
entertain any opportunity to insert more from the Bears Ears
Commission into this that would give them the representation
that they are looking for.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chapoose, the first question or a comment, a reaction
to other comments, about the manipulation by outside
organizations relative to Native people and their involvement
and that they were pulling the strings and that the tribal
leadership that was involved, the five nations involved in
this, were merely puppets of that process--your reaction to
that?
Mr. Chapoose. Yes. First of all, apparently, they are
reading a different novel than I was participating in. When
this came about, it was actual tribal leaders that approached
us in our tribal headquarters. It was not non-Indians or
lobbyists. These were elected leaders, and they came to us with
a proposition, with a question. The request was, ``Look, we
know this place is significant. We all have cultural ties.
Nothing is being done to protect it. And it is going to require
us as tribal leaders to step up and do it. And as sovereign
governments, we have that right and authority.''
According to a lot of the testimony, apparently, they were
in the room, because I sure wasn't. But what we did as tribal
leaders was we gathered and we talked. We talked about how to
best protect this valuable resource, because we were not
getting any protection.
So, the whole assertion that the environmentalists and
everybody else is calling the shots here, I am not a puppet, I
am a tribal leader. And every one of us tribal leaders take our
jobs very seriously and have nothing but the best interests of
our respective nations in mind when we make our decisions, and
we will stand by the decisions we make.
Mr. Grijalva. If we are serious--and I agree with that--
about creating a tribally co-managed monument, we would want
to, I assume, consult with the tribes associated with Bears
Ears. You have mentioned that, in the development of this bill,
there was no consultation to begin with. The Ute Tribe does not
support Section 105, the tribal management council. Can you
explain the opposition to that?
Mr. Chapoose. Well, there again, consultation. If they
truly would have reached out and talked to us, the tribal
leaders, the sovereign tribal leaders, we probably would have
been able to assist them in a lot of it. But what happened
was--and I mean it has been stated--let's go find a citizen of
a tribe or a member of a tribe, and because of their basic
support of our agenda, we put them on a platform and say--look,
these are the tribal leaders. The optics happen like this all
the time.
But the Governor knows and the county should know who the
elected bodies are. They have an organization within the state
of Utah called the Utah Tribal Leaders. In there, it has a
list, and basically all the information required so that you
can reach out to the sovereign elected governments which are
within the state of Utah. So, when this comes about, we are the
last to hear, so we are in here objecting to provisions, we are
objecting to some of the language. But there, again, if they
would bother to talk to us. I think Congressman Curtis needs to
realize, I am also a private land holder in his district, just
like I am a private land holder in Congressman Bishop's
district. So, all I can say is the day that you realize that
sovereign tribes are there to assist you and you reach out to
them, I think you can avoid a lot of this. But if you are going
to continue to do this, I guess we will continue to have more
hearings and more discussion.
Mr. Grijalva. Again, let me follow up. Do you agree with
the assertion that the monument designation does nothing to
protect cultural resources, historic resources, sacred sites,
and that this bill is a better model if we really want to
protect those? That is question Number one. Number two, let's
not skim over the issue of sovereignty. Let's not skim over the
issue of consultation and trust responsibility, which I think
are integral parts of this whole discussion about this
legislation and the precedent that it sets on those issues.
Mr. Chapoose. I will answer this quickly as my time will
run out. First of all, this bill does everything in reverse of
what the initial monument did. And even though they make this
comment that you are in an advisory role, we are aware of what
our role was, because we were actually the participants who
made sure that we got what we asked for.
Second of all, consultation. This is the beginning of the
end. This is another basic, ``We are going to mandate, as in
the 1800s, what is best for the Native American tribes, make
the decisions here at the congressional level,'' and we once
again will suffer the consequences of it. We are the formal
governments. It is law that we have a government-to-government
relationship. And, hopefully, I am able to answer that so I
don't go over my time limit.
Mr. Grijalva. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
General Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you.
Mr. Chapoose, just one quick question here for point of
clarification. Is the land that we are talking about tribal
land?
Mr. Chapoose. No. That has never been the argument. It is
public land.
Mr. Bergman. Just a point of clarification here.
Chairman McClintock, what I would like to do is yield back
the remainder of my 5 minutes to Chairman Bishop if he would
like.
Mr. McClintock. Chairman Bishop is recognized.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Look, we are going to have the
continuous spins on this story going forward. But the key issue
is who actually makes decisions, who gets to sit there as a
nice advisory board that will be ignored by BLM when they don't
want to, and who can actually tell BLM how to manage this
particular property, which is on BLM lands, which is why the
President has to make those appointments. That is the law. The
only way it can be done is by legislation as well. If we are
giving them that kind of authority, it has to be done by
legislation. It cannot be done by proclamation or anything
else.
Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition did talk at one time
about this concept. And they said the effort to preserve Bears
Ears has always been premised on collaborative management
between tribes and the Federal Government. The problem is the
proclamation does not do that. The Commission is a fraud. It is
a sham. They get to advise, but the advice can easily be
rejected.
Which is why, Matt, I appreciate your testimony on what
happened at Grand Staircase-Escalante, which shows that land
managers have the ability to arbitrarily change things, and
there is nothing, nothing, the Commission can do about it.
However, if you actually go with what Representative Curtis
is proposing, by legislatively creating a body that actually
does have the ability to make those management decisions that
will then be carried out by BLM, that actually goes to what the
Inter-Tribal Coalition wanted in the first place but did not
get from the Obama proclamation and does not have now if the
Obama proclamation goes forward. Let me ask in the last couple
of minutes, Suzette, how far away do you live from this land?
Ms. Morris. Approximately 45 minutes.
Mr. Bishop. The Hopis, how long would it take one of them
to get there, that are part of the Commission?
Ms. Morris. Maybe 2 to 3 hours.
Mr. Bishop. Why is this land so important to you who lives
right next door to it?
Ms. Morris. We know the land, we love the land, and we
don't want--like Shaun stated, he is an elected official for
Ute Nation. Only in that area is he elected. With our elected
officials, the community is what elects them, so I think it
should have been a community effort. It should have been
brought to the attention of the community.
Mr. Bishop. How do you know what areas are sacred in Bears
Ears?
Ms. Morris. Because we were taught. We were taught that you
do not go into areas that are ruins because that was where
people lived. And we were taught if you go in there, then you
are disturbing them. That is the reason why those ruins were
left alone, because we were taught that.
Mr. Bishop. Let me say, that becomes the crux of what this
particular issue is to me. What we are talking about is, how do
we empower people who actually have a close tie, an ancestral
tie, a family tie to be able to make real decisions, not mock
decisions, but real decisions? And it can only be done
legislatively, and it can only be done in this particular
language. Our effort is to try to empower people like you, who
are tied by ancestry, family, grandparents to that particular
area. That is why in your particular area, they do not support
the proclamation. That is why the Aneth Chapter, which is the
largest Navajo chapter within the state of Utah, does not
support the proclamation, but they do support the Curtis bill.
Governor, does the state of Utah support the Curtis bill?
Governor Herbert. Well, you know----
Mr. Bishop. Let me rephrase that, you can't speak for the
state of Utah.
Governor Herbert. It is hard for me to speak--I support it.
Mr. Bishop. You support it.
Governor Herbert. But I can tell you that I think we tend
to look at history, we tend to look at who is to blame, we
point our fingers. We have a failure to communicate very well.
That blame goes around to everybody. I have great respect for
Councilman Chapoose, and President Begaye is a good friend of
mine, and others. We have different points of view on this. But
if we really care about solving the problem--or if we are going
to continue to fight and argue, we can be in court for the next
5 or 6 years--if we really care about actually treating the
Bears Ears with the reverence and respect it deserves and that
the Native Americans want it to have----
Mr. McClintock. Governor, I am going to interrupt for just
a moment. General Bergman's time has expired, but Congressman
Bishop now has 5 minutes in his own rights.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to ask you to finish it off.
Governor Herbert [continuing]. It needs to be done
legislatively. Everybody agrees that is the best way. You can
modify and improve it. Congressman Curtis has already said:
Hey, I hear some things here maybe we need to take a look at.
We have laws in the way that may prohibit it.
These are lands owned not by Utahns only and not by the
Navajos only or other Native tribes. These are owned by all
Americans. You, the Congress, are responsible for how we in
fact manage those lands through the Interior Department and
through the BLM. The only way we can resolve this to the
optimal benefit, respecting the differences of opinion, and
come together with resolution, is a legislative fix. Anything
else will continue to have us argue, fight in court, and never
get resolution of this issue. So, the challenge for this body
and the rest of your colleagues is to find a legislative
solution, getting input from all the stakeholders, and then
come up with legislation to resolve the issue.
Mr. Bishop. If we do the legislative approach and we go
forward, we can throw strikes, because home plate doesn't move.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. I want to thank our panel for a very
spirited discussion on a very important subject and look
forward to continuing that discussion, which is, as the
Governor has pointed out, the essence of the legislative
process, which is, once again, why the Constitution gives
Congress authority over these matters, not the President, so
that these voices can be heard. And because of the request for
an additional day of hearings under House Rule 11 clause 2(j)1,
we will reconvene to continue this discussion at a later date.
I would ask the Minority to provide the names and contact
information of their witnesses to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. today.
Without objection, the Subcommittee stands in recess
pending call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was recessed,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Rep. Bishop Submission
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Benally, San Juan County Commissioner
Thank you, Committee Chair and Ranking Member for inviting me to
testify in support of House Resolution 4532. My name is Rebecca
Benally, San Juan County Commissioner, a member of the Navajo Tribe. I
appreciate the opportunity for my voice and the community voice to be
heard.
In our community, public lands are our most valuable resource. The
land is our inheritance, handed down from generation to generation. We
treasure the land. We take care of the land.
H.R. 4532 is a step to create the first tribal managed national
monument. The Shash Jaa National Monument incorporates land within the
Bears Ears area. Unfortunately, the former Bears Ears proclamation
never mentioned tribal management just an advisory commission.
It is stated that, ``The purpose of the Shash Jaa National Monument
shall be to protect, conserve and enhance the unique important
historic, sacred, cultural, scientific, scenic, archaeological, natural
and educational resources of Shash Jaa National Monument.''
The purpose is only worthwhile if it truly serves the people. And
no group of people has more to lose or gain, than the local tribes. We
use the land for hunting, wood cutting, gathering medicinal herbs and
for sacred ceremonies. By creating the Shash Jaa Tribal Management
Council, you are giving the Native American people the opportunity to
manage the land of their ancestors and maintain access.
By supporting H.R. 4532, you are listening to a group that has been
silenced for too long and finally allowing us a seat at the table. We
all come from different backgrounds, but we want the same results. We
want land that is well-managed and accessible to all people. We support
the language of H.R. 4532. We agree that the land should be protected.
Currently there are 14 regulation and laws in place, such as:
-- 1935 Historic Sites Preservation Act
-- 1960/1974 Reservoir Act
-- 1964 Wilderness Act
-- 1966 National History Preservation Act
-- 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
-- 1974 Archaeological & Historic Preservation Act
-- 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
-- 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act
-- 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act
-- 1980 Amendment-Executive Order Protection & Enhancement of
Cultural Environment
-- 1990 Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act
-- 1996 Indian Sacred Site Protection Act
-- 2000 Consultation & Coordination with Indian Tribal Government
Act
-- 2003 Preserve American Act
Therefore, H.R. 4532 is a step in the right direction to create the
Shash Jaa Tribal Management Council that will benefit the local tribes
and groups to work together to manage the land.
It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for listening to the
local people, San Juan County, Utah. I also would like to thank the
Utah delegation for showing respect to the process and putting forward
a thoughtful and inclusive bill.
______
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
Prepared Statement of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) would like to
take this opportunity to share its views with the Subcommittee
regarding the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act (H.R. 4532). The ACHP is the independent federal agency
that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our
nation's historic resources. Created by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, the ACHP is charged with advising the
President and Congress on national historic preservation policy. In
that capacity the ACHP often provides its views to the Congress on
legislation under consideration that may affect the national historic
preservation program and the preservation of historic properties of
importance to the American people. In fulfillment of this duty, the
ACHP advises against enactment of H.R. 4532.
The ACHP has long supported the National Monument designation
system founded on the provisions of the Antiquities Act of 1906 as an
effective historic preservation protective process. In the ACHP's
legislative agenda for the 114th and the 115th Congresses, the
membership specifically included opposition to any legislative efforts
to undermine the authority of the President to designate National
Monuments under the Antiquities Act.
As recently as November 2017, the ACHP membership took a position
on H.R. 3990, the National Monument Creation and Protection Act, and
resolved that:
``The ACHP supports Presidential designation of National
Monuments as an important tool for the protection of historic
properties on federal land . . .'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The resolution in its entirety reads as follows:
``Whereas, the ACHP supports Presidential designation of national
monuments as an important tool for the protection of historic
properties on Federal land;
Whereas, the ACHP is concerned that the National Monument Creation
and Protection Act (H.R. 3990) makes extensive changes in the current
national monument designation process that would limit the types of
historic properties that could be protected and deemphasize protection
of cultural and natural resources in the designation process, thereby
undermining a preservation tool that has been effectively used for more
than a century to protect some of the nation's most iconic places; and
Whereas, the ACHP supports transparency and consultation with
affected governments and stakeholders in the designation process for
national monuments while respecting the role of the federal government
as a steward of these resources for the entire nation;
Now, be it resolved that the ACHP opposes H.R. 3990 as reported out
of committee and directs the chairman to advise the Administration and
the Congress regarding these concerns.''
It is from this perspective that the ACHP must express its concern
about a fundamental provision of H.R. 4532. Section 4 of the bill
declares null and void Presidential Proclamation 9558 that established
the Bears Ears National Monument. This National Monument was
established by the President following the statutory directive given to
him by the Congress in the Antiquities Act. It was an exercise of a
valid legal authority based on over a century of practice, conforming
to standards and procedures that have been thoughtfully evolved and
scrupulously followed to achieve reasoned determinations through the
objective application of professional standards and consideration of
national and local interests, needs, and priorities.
The ACHP readily acknowledges that the Congress possesses the
authority through legislative action to modify or rescind National
Monument designations made by the President. However, we would note
that the Congress has never, in the over century-long history of the
Antiquities Act, exercised that power to vacate a presidential action.
The ACHP opposes H.R. 4532 on those grounds, as the primary provisions
that follow to establish two new reconfigured and drastically reduced
National Monuments are premised on the abolition of the existing Bears
Ears National Monument.
The ACHP appreciates this opportunity to share its views with the
subcommittee. We value our longstanding and mutually beneficial
relationship in working with the Natural Resources Committee and look
forward to continuing to assist the committee in our shared goals to
preserve and protect the Nation's irreplaceable cultural heritage.
Please do not hesitate to call on me or my staff with any questions or
requests for assistance on these issues.
______
Sierra Club,
Washington, DC
January 9, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Member of Congress:
On behalf of our more than 3 million members and supports, the
Sierra Club strongly urges you to oppose the Shash Jaa National
Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act (H.R. 4532).
Late last year, President Donald Trump issued an unlawful order to
repeal the Bears Ears National Monument and replace it with two smaller
monuments, leaving nearly 85 percent of the original monument
unprotected. That same day, Representative John Curtis (UT-03)
introduced the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act to ratify Trump's illegal repeal of the Bears Ears and
make his unlawful order permanent.
These actions to eliminate parts of Bears Ears National Monument
are an affront to the sovereign Tribal Nations who worked tirelessly to
protect their cultural heritage for future generations. Bears Ears
National Monument was protected at the behest of five sovereign Tribal
Nations--Navajo, Hopi, Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni Tribes--with
strong historical, spiritual and cultural ties to these public lands.
Six out of seven Navajo Chapter Houses in Utah supported the
designation of Bears Ears National Monument. No Tribal government
opposed it.
The Bears Ears region, which was first identified for protection in
1936, holds more than 100,000 Native American and Mormon cultural and
archaeological sites that have been threatened by rampant looting and
grave robbing. The actions by President Trump and Representative Curtis
once again put these sacred sites and artifacts at risk.
Bears Ears has been targeted because it holds resource potential
that the oil and gas industry wants to access. Opening the monument to
development will threaten cultural and natural resources that can never
be replaced. Our national parks, public lands and waters protect a
shared history and culture that are worth more than the minerals
beneath them.
Furthermore, national parks, monuments, public lands and waters are
a critical part of the nation's economy--especially for rural and
Western communities that benefit from the tourism, outdoor recreation
and quality of life associated with healthy public lands. The Utah
Tourism Board, in fact, has touted Bears Ears Monument as a destination
for visitors to the state.
Regions surrounding national monuments like Bears Ears have seen
continued growth or improvement in employment and personal income, and
rural counties in the West with more federal lands had healthier
economies, on average, than their peers with less protected lands.
Outdoor recreation alone generates $887 billion and 7.6 million jobs
every year across the U.S. In Utah, outdoor recreation generates $12
billion for the local economy. And in 2016, National Parks saw a record
331 million visits nationally, contributing almost $35 billion to the
U.S. economy.
This attack on Bears Ears from the Administration and Congress sets
the stage for additional attacks on all of America's national parks and
public lands, and shows the willingness to ignore the law, science,
tribal sovereignty and the will of the American people. National parks
and protected public lands and waters help define who we are as a
nation. Attempts to rip apart the fabric of national monuments are an
assault on our nation's historical, cultural and natural heritage.
The Sierra Club strongly urges you oppose the Shash Jaa National
Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act (H.R. 4532), and any
attempt to weaken and destroy our public lands like Bears Ears National
Monument.
Sincerely,
Michael Brune,
Executive Director.
______
The Navajo Nation,
Window Rock, Arizona
January 19, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Clarification to Statements and Representations Made in the Hearing
on H.R. 4532--Regarding Consultation with the Navajo Nation
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The Navajo Nation wishes to clarify and correct an important
misrepresentation made at the Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4532 held on
Tuesday, January 9, 2018. Specifically, it was stated at the Hearing
that tribes were consulted with during the development of H.R. 4532.
This is incorrect. The Navajo Nation and the other tribes of the five-
tribe Bears Ears Inter-Tribal coalition were not consulted with prior
to the introduction of H.R. 4532, and we are not aware of any other
tribe that may have been consulted with on this Bill.
As support for the statement that tribes were consulted with on the
Bill, several images were put up on the screen. One of the images was a
picture of former Representative Jason Chaffetz with Navajo Nation
President Russell Begaye and Vice President Jonathan Nez. To be clear,
this picture was not taken during any consultation or meeting on H.R.
4532, and Navajo Nation leadership was not asked to provide any input
on the Bill before it was introduced. Representative Curtis, the
sponsor for H.R. 4532, was not even in office when the picture of
Representative Chaffetz and the Navajo leadership was taken. The
introduction of three letters from November 2016 to the record by
Chairman Bishop also pre-date Representative Curtis's election to
office by a full year. Those letters simply could not have related to
H.R. 4532 and certainly do not stand as proof of consultation with
tribes on the Bill.
As an additional point of clarification, the individual tribal
member witness (Suzette Morris) stated that tribes, and the Navajo
Nation in particular, ``never made a statement on why they wanted the
Monument.'' This is simply untrue. The Nation has issued numerous
official statements explaining why we support the 1.35 million-acre
Monument. For example, see our statements set forth in attached
Resolution No. NABIJA-O1-17, ``Relating to Naakik'iyati': Supporting
the Proclamation Establishing the Bears Ears National Monument by the
President of the United States Barack Obama and Oppose [sic]
Congressional Action to Reverse the Presidential Proclamation.''
Ms. Morris also definitively answered ``No,'' when questioned by
Representative Thompson whether local tribes were consulted in advance
of the issuance of the Obama proclamation. This too is incorrect. Not
only did we consult on the Monuments, we actively advocated for the
Monument designation. In that process, we met with the Obama
administration numerous times, often done in unity with the other
tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. When the proclamation
was finally issued, we were elated, as Resolution No. NABIJA-O1-17
suggests, and we remain committed to preserving the Monument, as our
complaint in Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, et al. v. Trump. et al.
suggests.
Finally, testimony was added to the record at the Hearing on behalf
of Alfred Ben, who serves in a community chapter capacity on the Navajo
Nation. As clarified by our Attorney General in the attached letter to
the Committee, dated January 9, 2018, Navajo law does not authorize
local government or chapter individuals such as Mr. Ben to speak on
behalf of the Navajo Nation. Accordingly, you should be clear in
understanding that Mr. Ben's testimony is submitted in his personal
capacity only.
The Navajo Nation is obligated to correct these misrepresentations
for the official record. The Navajo Nation definitively states that we
had no consultation on H.R. 4532, and we hereby reaffirm our opposition
to H.R. 4532. Indeed, on Tuesday this week, our Naabik'iyati' Committee
(the Navajo Nation Council committee of the whole) unanimously passed
Legislation No. 0015-18, ``An Action Relating to Resources and
Development Committee and Naabik'iyati' Committee Opposing H.R. 4532
Titled `Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument
Act'.'' Legislation No. 0015-18 formally sets forth the Nation's
official policy position in opposition to H.R. 4532. I will forward a
copy of the legislation to be added to the hearing record when the
final, official copy is available.
In closing, I ask that the Committee honor true facts, and honor
Navajo sovereignty. I also respectfully request that the Committee hold
a hearing on H.R. 4518, which the Nation was consulted on and strongly
supports. H.R. 4518 truly honors tribes and tribal sovereignty, and
ensures a meaningful role for us in managing the lands and cultural,
historical, and religious patrimony we seek to protect in the Bears
Ears region.
Respectfully,
Russell Begaye,
President.
______
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,
Towaoc, Colorado
January 10, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: The Official Representation and Position of the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe Regarding the Bears Ears National Monument
Dear Chairman and Honorable Representatives:
An individual tribal member purported to represent herself as a
representative of White Mesa and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe at the
congressional hearing on H.R. 4532, held on January 9, 2018. Contrary
to statements that she ``speak[s] for Ute Mountain'' and ``speak[s] for
White Mesa,'' Ms. Suzette Morris is not an elected official
representative of White Mesa, a community of Ute Mountain Ute tribal
members residing on Ute Mountain Ute lands within San Juan County,
Utah. The handpicking of an unelected tribal member, that serves the
agenda of anti-monument special interests groups, to speak on behalf of
White Mesa is a blatant violation of the unique sovereign to sovereign
relationship shared between the federal government and federally-
recognized Indian nations, as acknowledged in treaties, statutes,
federal common law, and the U.S. Constitution.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, not individual bands within the tribe,
is the federally-recognized tribal government entity that is owed a
fiduciary duty by the federal government. The seven-member elected body
that comprises the Ute Mountain Ute Tribal Council, which includes
Elaine Cantsee, the White Mesa council representative, is the
appropriate entity that officially speaks on behalf of the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe and all its communities, including White Mesa and Allen
Canyon. We ask that you respect and honor the laws of the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe that govern official representation on behalf of the Tribe.
By way of official resolutions, community meetings attended by
tribal leaders in White Mesa, and as a member of the Bears Ears Inter-
tribal Coalition, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has maintained an official
position advocating for the protection of the natural, cultural, and
archeological resources of our ancestral homelands through a national
monument designation, as contemplated in Presidential Proclamation
9558. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is also engaged in active litigation
challenging the legality of the current administration's attempt to
modify the Bears Ears National Monument. H.R. 4532 is an attempt to
legislatively confirm the improper action by the presidential
administration. As such, and for the reasons indicated in the statement
of the Bears Ears Inter-tribal Coalition which includes the Utah
congressional delegation's failure to consult with any of the Indian
nations, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe officially opposes H.R. 4532.
As trustees to Indian nations, we ask that the House Committee on
Natural Resources refrain from the shameful practice of using
individual tribal members that conveniently serves the narrative of
special interests groups or the Utah congressional delegation, and not
the official views of elected leaders from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
In all future dealings and matters concerning the interests of the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe we ask that you respect tribal sovereignty and the
trust relationship by engaging directly with the elected Tribal
Council.
Respectfully,
Harold Cuthair, Colleen Cuthair,
Chairman Vice Chairwoman
Elaine Cantsee, Marissa Box,
White Mesa Council
Representative Council Secretary
DeAnne House, Juanita Plentyholes,
Treasurer Tribal Council
Prisllena Rabbit,
Tribal Council
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Bishop Submissions
--American Enterprise Institute, ``Presidential Authority
to Revoke or Reduce National Monument
Designations,'' by John Yoo and Todd Gaziano, March
2017.
--Deseret News, ``Big money, environmentalists and the
Bears Ears story,'' by Amy Joi O'Donoghue, August
4, 2016.
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
--The Navajo Nation, Testimony by President Russell Begaye
and Council Delegate Davis Filfred.
--Outdoor Alliance, Letter addressed to Chairman Tom
McClintock and Ranking Member Colleen Hanabusa,
dated January 8, 2018.
--Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Letter addressed to
Representatives Bishop, Grijalva, McClintock and
Hanabusa, dated January 11, 2018.
--Resolution NABIJA-01-17 of the Naabik'iyati' Committee of
the Navajo Nation Council.
--Archaeology Southwest, Statement of William Doelle,
President and CEO, dated January 9, 2018.
--Access Fund, Testimony on The Shash Jaa National Monument
and Indian Creek National Monument Act, submitted
by Erik Murdock, Policy Director, dated January 12,
2017.
# # #
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4532, TO CREATE THE FIRST TRIBALLY MANAGED
NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SHASH JAA NATIONAL
MONUMENT AND INDIAN CREEK NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT''--PART 2
----------
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Thompson, Tipton,
Gianforte; Hanabusa, Tsongas, Lowenthal, Gallego, McEachin,
Gomez, and Grijalva.
Also present: Representative Curtis.
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order. This Subcommittee is reconvened at the request of the
Minority in accordance with Rule 11, to further consider the
Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument
Act that is introduced by Representative Curtis and co-
sponsored by the entire Utah delegation.
Mr. Curtis, I appreciate you being with us here today.
Nothing is official yet, but we have requested that you
actually eventually join this Committee, because we are down
one member. I hope that actually happens and I hope this is the
beginning of something that is going to be very permanent.
Mr. McClintock is the Chairman of this Subcommittee, and he
was kind enough to get sick. He is home, back in California, so
I have been temporarily empowered--actually, Mr. McClintock is
sick, and Mr. LaHood was the Vice Chairman, who is no longer on
the Committee--so I have been demoted to going backwards. I was
Chairman, I used to be both the Chairman of this Subcommittee
and the Ranking Member. Now I am officially the Vice Chairman
of this Committee. Thank you.
[Applause and laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. The options are just never-ending.
With that, I appreciate the witnesses who have taken the
time to be here. I appreciate you appearing before the
Committee. Thank you for the written testimony that you have
sent to us. That will be part of the record.
Because of the number of witnesses that are here, we have
reserved the first row. There will be one seat at the table. We
will call you up one at a time to give your oral testimony to
us.
For those who are new to the Committee--and I know many of
you have been here before--the microphone in front of you, you
are going to have to turn it on. The timer is there. You have
your written testimony, and anything you would like to add
afterwards will obviously be included in the record.
The oral testimony is going to be limited to just 5
minutes. With the number of witnesses we have, that is going to
be a significant chunk of time, anyway. So, please watch the
clock that is ahead of you. If the green light is on, you have
plenty of time. When it hits 1 minute left, that is yellow.
And, like in a traffic light, that is when you speed up so that
you can quit when it is red.
And because we have a number of people to go through, I
will try to be fair and arbitrary when I gavel you down. I
apologize. I will let you complete a sentence, as long as it is
not a run-on.
With that, let me first welcome to the witness table the
Honorable Jason Chaffetz. You look really familiar. I am not
quite sure why. But we appreciate you coming back here again.
Mr. Chaffetz used to be the Representative of this
particular area. Thank you for coming here and presenting your
testimony.
When he is done, he will take a seat back there and then we
will call the next witness up to that particular spot.
Questions will be done after all of you have had the chance to
speak.
I will also give one caveat, Mr. Chaffetz is also working
here today.
So, at any time, if you actually have to leave, we
understand, we appreciate you generously giving your time
already. Thank you for that. And it is good to have you back
here in this Committee room again.
So, Jason, you have 5 minutes, it is all yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER MEMBER OF
CONGRESS, UTAH'S 3RD DISTRICT, ALPINE, UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf
of H.R. 4532, introduced by the second-best Congressman to
serve from Utah's 3rd Congressional District in the 115th
Congress, Representative Curtis.
As you know, I previously sat on the Committee, as I was
honored to serve in the House of Representatives for 8\1/2\
years in Utah's 3rd Congressional District. Having represented
many parts of Utah, I am intimately familiar with the land, the
people, and the issues.
I live in Utah, I care about Utah. My wife and I raised our
children in Utah, and we intend to continue to live in Utah
throughout our lives. We enjoy the scenic outdoors, and
regularly take advantage of access we have to amazing land that
is just a short drive from our home. We enjoy all four
vivacious seasons, and want nothing more than continued access
and preservation of the beauty in this very unique part of the
world.
Unlike most states in our Union, nearly 70 percent of the
state of Utah is owned by the Federal and state government. It
puts tremendous pressure on local communities, of which I am
keenly aware. Most dramatically, it affects the way we are able
to educate our children.
In San Juan County, for instance, only 8 percent of the
county is private property. It is this private property that
generates property taxes to educate our children. This affects
all the residents of San Juan County, especially the children
of the Navajo Nation.
Personally, I have fought to improve the Federal commitment
to our schools, fighting for and securing an increase in
appropriations for rural school bus routes. And many of you on
this Committee supported this effort on both sides of the
aisle. Again, I thank you for the much-needed support on those
rural school bus routes.
Another major burden for the county government is the
emergency services needed to support such a massive amount of
land. In the case of San Juan County, they are expected to
provide first responder services on the Federal land with no
reimbursement by the Federal Government. With the millions of
acres in play, you could see how the search and rescue services
can put a massive financial burden on such a small county
budget. And, oh, by the way, San Juan County is roughly the
size of New Jersey. It is big, it is expansive, it is
beautiful, and it is remote.
The financial burdens for the counties is exacerbated by
the uneven and inconsistent funding of PILT, payment in lieu of
taxes, but we will have to tackle that subject another time.
The legislation before you today does not convert any
public land to private property. It does not solve the funding
problems and challenges. But it does address a challenge long
identified by Chairman Bishop and keenly recognized by
Representative Curtis.
I will be submitting for the record a couple of letters.
One is a letter dated February 22, 2013. And rather than read
that, I will just submit it into the record. But it was
essentially an invitation by Chairman Bishop to involve and
engage the local communities in this dialogue on how to deal
with our Federal lands.
Through the years, Rob Bishop and I, along with others with
very capable staff, conducted literally 1,200 meetings at every
level you can possibly imagine. Yes, 1,200. Our goal was to
achieve certainty for the local communities and state, move
beyond perpetual lawsuits, and maximize local input from a
broad cross-section of stakeholders. We called this approach
the Public Lands Initiative, or PLI.
There are 29 counties in Utah, but we limited the scope of
our work to 7 contiguous counties in southeastern Utah, and we
worked with every possible stakeholder. This effort included my
flying with San Juan County Commissioner Rebecca Benally to
Flagstaff, Arizona on August 18, 2015, to meet with the Navajo
Nation President Begaye, and to talk about our Public Lands
Initiative for Utah.
I brought up the so-called Bears Ears Monument. The
president had never heard of Bears Ears, nor did he have any
idea where it was located. His concern then was about access
for local Navajos, access that was not found within the
monument designation. We were convinced then, and I am
convinced today, that stakeholders identified in the bill
before you today maximizes input, allows for broad discussion,
makes the process transparent, and will give the public
confidence in its outcomes. The areas identified in the
legislation include no reservation lands.
I believe the bill put forward by Congressman Curtis is
fair, inclusive, and it is necessary. I appreciate the work he
has already invested in this important subject.
This new legislative effort puts all of us in the best
possible position to ensure the area is managed in a way that
truly takes into account perspectives of national and local
tribes, multiple stakeholders, and the interests of Utahans.
This corner of the world is one of the most beautiful on
Earth, and I hope some day you are able to visit it. The
culture of these public lands is rich in history, and I am sure
you will come to love the lands as our family has. It is vital
that we get the structure and management right, and the
approach by Representative Curtis, I believe, is the right way
to do this.
I thank the Committee for its consideration, and note that
I ended with 1 second to go.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaffetz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Chaffetz, a Former Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank you
for inviting me to testify today regarding H.R. 4532 introduced by the
second best Congressman to serve from Utah's 3rd Congressional District
in the 115th Congress.
As you know, I previously sat on this Committee as I was honored to
serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for 8\1/2\ years serving
Utah's 3rd Congressional District. Having represented many parts of
Utah, I am intimately familiar with the land, the people, and the
issues.
I live in Utah. I care about Utah. My wife and I raised our
children in Utah, and we intend to continue to live in Utah throughout
our lives. We enjoy the scenic outdoors and regularly take advantage of
the access we have within a short drive of our home. We enjoy all four
vivacious seasons and want nothing more than continued access and
preservation of this beauty in a very unique part of our world.
Unlike most states in our Union, nearly 70 percent of the state of
Utah is owned by the Federal and state government. This puts tremendous
pressure on local communities.
Most dramatically it affects the way we are able to educate our
children. In San Juan County, for instance, only 8 percent of the
county is private property. It is this private property that generates
property taxes to educate our children. This affects all the residents
in San Juan County, especially the children of the Navajo Nation.
Personally, I have fought to improve the Federal commitment to our
schools, fighting for and securing an increase in appropriations for
rural school bus routes. Many of you on this Committee supported this
effort, and I again thank you for the much needed support.
Another major burden for county government is the emergency
services needed to support such a massive amount of land. In the case
of San Juan County they are expected to provide first responder
services on the Federal land with no reimbursement by the Federal
Government. With millions of acres in play, you can see how search and
rescue services can put a massive financial burden on a small county
budget.
Oh, by the way, San Juan County is nearly the size of New Jersey.
It is big, expansive and beautiful.
The financial burdens for the counties is exasperated by uneven and
inconsistent funding of PILT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes), but we will
have to tackle this subject another time.
The legislation before you today does not convert any public land
to private property. It does not solve the funding problems and
challenges, but it does address a challenge long identified by Chairman
Bishop and keenly recognized by Representative Curtis.
I will be submitting to the record two letters from Chairman Bishop
dated February 22, 2013. Here is part of what he wrote to local tribal
leaders:
``After observing and participating in the public lands debate for
many years, I believe we are in the midst of a paradigm shift. There is
a growing consensus that a more reasonable, balanced use of the public
lands can be achieved in Utah. Through conversations with county and
state officials, tribal leaders, conservation groups, industry, non-
government organizations, and the public. I believe Utah is ready to
move away from the tired arguments of the past. We have a unique window
of opportunity to end the gridlock and bring resolution to some of the
most challenging land disputes in the state.
In order to strike an appropriate balance between conservation and
responsible development and use, and to create greater certainty for
the citizens of Utah and Indian Country, I am pleased to announce that
I am initiating a process to develop Federal legislation that seeks to
address many of the issues that have planned public land management in
eastern Utah.''
Through the years Rob Bishop and I, along with very capable staff,
conducted more than 1,200 meetings. Yes, 1,200. Our goal was to achieve
certainty for the local communities and state, move beyond perpetual
lawsuits, and maximize local input from the broad cross-section of
stakeholders. We called our approach the Public Lands Initiative or
PLI.
There are 29 counties in Utah but we limited the scope of our work
to 7 continuous counties in southeastern Utah. We worked with every
possible stakeholder. This effort included my flying with San Juan
County Commissioner Rebecca Benally to Flagstaff, Arizona on August 18,
2015 to meet with Navajo Nation President Begaye to talk about our
Public Lands Initiative for Utah. I brought up the so-called ``Bears
Ears'' monument. President Begaye had never heard of Bears Ears nor did
he have any idea where it was located. His concern then was about
access for local Navajos--access that is not found with a monument
designation.
We were convinced then, and I am convinced today, the stakeholders
identified in the bill before you today maximizes input, allows for a
broad discussion, makes the process transparent, and will give the
public confidence in its outcomes. The areas identified in the
legislation include no reservation lands.
I believe the bill put forward by Congressman Curtis is fair,
inclusive, and necessary. I appreciate the work he has already been
invested into this important subject. This new legislative effort puts
all of us in the best possible position to ensure this area is managed
in a way that truly takes into account the perspectives of national and
local tribes, multiple stakeholders, and the interests of Utahns.
This corner of the world is one of the most beautiful on Earth. I
hope someday you are able to visit. The culture of these public lands
is rich in history, and I am sure you will come to love these lands as
our family has. It is vital we get the structure of management right,
and the approach by Rep. Curtis is the right way to do this.
I thank the Committee for its consideration and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. You timed that wonderfully. Thank you,
Congressman. I appreciate it, and it is good to have you back
here again. Thank you very much.
All right, he can go back on the first row. We will call up
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk, who is a former Councilwoman of the Ute
Tribe, and also a former Co-Chair of the Tribal Coalition.
And you have been here before. We welcome you back again.
You know the drill. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REGINA LOPEZ-WHITESKUNK, FORMER UTE MOUNTAIN TRIBE
COUNCILWOMAN, FORMER BEARS EARS INTER-TRIBAL COALITION CO-
CHAIR, UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL, TOWAOC, COLORADO
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Chairman, Ranking Member Hanabusa,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify on H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument and
Indian Creek National Monument Act. My name is Regina Lopez-
Whiteskunk. I am a former Councilwoman for the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe, and a former Co-Chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition. I am duly authorized and appointed by official
resolution to speak on behalf of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian
tribe with reservation lands in Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Tribal lands in Utah include the White Mesa community and
various trust allotment lands along Allen Canyon.
Bordering these tribal lands are the ancestral homelands of
the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe that extend far into the Bears Ears
region. Traces of our ancestors remain in these sacred spaces,
and deserve protection from looting, off-road vehicles, and
ongoing efforts to expand uranium mining.
Protection for thousands of cultural and natural resources
is warranted and one of many reasons why the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe, along with the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Indian
Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni, have joined in forming the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is concerned about uranium
mining within and near the Bears Ears region, which poses
particular threats causing concern for the health and well-
being of tribal members, water and air resources, plants and
wildlife, and other natural and cultural resources. We,
therefore, sought and achieved protection of the Bears Ears
landscape, including the withdrawal of future mineral leasing
and entry under the mining laws, through a national monument
designation, as afforded by Presidential Proclamation 9558.
Each Indian nation knows well that mere consultation, as
provided by the National Historic Preservation Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Archeological Resource Protection
Act, and numerous other Federal laws, are inadequate for
managing the cultural landscape and protecting our ancestors.
We, therefore, sought collaborative management of the national
monument by crafting the Bears Ears Commission.
We were successful in acquiring what we strived for. Each
tribe, as sovereign entities, appropriately had the opportunity
to designate an official of their choosing to sit on the Bears
Ears Commission to provide traditional knowledge and expertise
on how to best manage the lands. This was respectful of tribal
sovereignty.
Introduced in tandem with Presidential Proclamation 9681,
H.R. 4532 legislatively confirms President Trump's improper
reduction of the Bears Ears National Monument boundaries by 85
percent. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe was not consulted in the
drafting of H.R. 4532, nor was the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
afforded an opportunity to testify at the January 9, 2018
hearing on H.R. 4532.
Instead of allowing testimony from each sovereign tribal
government comprising the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, an
individual tribal member that supported the views of the Utah
delegation was hand-picked, to give the impression that local
tribes support the bill. That display is actually far from the
truth. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe adamantly opposes H.R. 4532.
Among numerous reasons, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe opposes
H.R. 4532, especially with the conception of the tribal
management council. Nothing about the tribal management council
would reflect the needs, interest, and expertise of the
federally recognized Indian tribes holding close cultural ties
to the Bears Ears landscape. In place of officials duly
appointed by Indian nations, the tribal management council
would consist of Federal and state officials and hand-picked
individual tribal members.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe would be precluded from
designating an official or tribal leader, or a knowledgeable
practitioner of the Ute Mountain Ute customs and culture of its
own choosing. Rather, the task of appointing the individual Ute
Mountain Ute tribal member to serve on the tribal management
council would fall on the President after consultation with the
congressional delegation from the state of Utah. Such
legislation prevents the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and other
Indian nations to self-determine their own destinies, and
amounts to the failed Federal Indian policies of the 1800s.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe opposes H.R. 4532.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. The Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe is especially appreciative to the Democratic
members of the Committee in providing this opportunity for us
to state our position. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
introduction
Chairman McClintock. Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532,
the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
My name is Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk. I am a former councilwoman for the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the former co-chair of the Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition. I am duly authorized and appointed by official tribal
resolution to speak on behalf of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe
with reservation lands in Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado. Tribal lands
in Utah include the White Mesa community and various trust allotment
lands along Allen Canyon. Bordering these tribal lands are the
ancestral homelands of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe that extends far into
the Bears Ears region. Historically, during the winter months various
bands of Utes would descend from the mountains into the warmer regions
of the Bears Ears landscape. Traces of our ancestors remain in those
sacred spaces and are deserving of protection from looting, off-road
vehicle use, and ongoing efforts to expand uranium mining.
Protection for the thousands of cultural and natural resources is
warranted and one of many reasons why the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, along
with the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Indian Tribe, and the Pueblo of
Zuni, joined in forming the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. For the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, uranium mining within or near the Bears Ears
region poses a unique and particular threat, causing concern for the
health and well-being of tribal members, water and air resources,
plants, wildlife, and other natural and cultural resources. We,
therefore, sought and achieved protection of the Bear Ears landscape,
including the withdrawal of future mineral leasing and entry under the
mining laws, through a national monument designation, as afforded by
Presidential Proclamation 9558.
Each Indian nation knowing well that mere consultation, as provided
by the National Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental
Policy Act, Archeological Resources Protection Act and numerous other
Federal laws, was inadequate for managing the cultural landscape and
protecting our ancestors, we therefore sought collaborative management
of the national monument by crafting the Bears Ears Commission. Through
countless meetings between the tribes and numerous trips to meet with
Federal staff, we labored meticulously in arranging for how the Bears
Ears Commission would contribute to managing the monument. We were
successful in acquiring what we strived toward. Each tribe, as
sovereign entities, appropriately had the opportunity to designate an
official of their choosing to sit on the Bears Ears Commission to
provide traditional knowledge and expertise on how to best manage the
lands.
Despite the Bears Ears Commission's efforts to effectively
structure and govern its activities, including hiring staff, creating
by-laws and developing working relationships with Federal staff,
accomplishments were disrupted by the President's unlawful action in
purporting to modify the Bears Ears National Monument by instituting
Presidential Proclamation 9681. Consequently, the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe, along with other Indian nations, is engaged in active litigation
to justly restore protections to over 1 million acres of our ancestral
homelands.
Introduced in tandem with Presidential Proclamation 9681, H.R. 4532
legislatively confirms President Trump's improper reduction of the
Bears Ears National Monument boundaries by 85 percent. The Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe was not consulted in the drafting of H.R. 4532, nor was the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe afforded an opportunity to testify at the
January 9, 2018, hearing on H.R. 4532. Instead of allowing testimony
from each of the sovereign tribal governments comprising the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition, an individual tribal member that supported the
views of the Utah delegation was handpicked to give the impression that
``local tribes'' support the bill. That display is actually far from
the truth. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe vehemently opposes H.R. 4532.
Among the numerous reasons the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe opposes H.R.
4532, we are especially concerned with the conception of the Tribal
Management Council. Nothing about the Tribal Management Council would
reflect the needs, interests, and expertise of the federally-recognized
Indian tribes holding close cultural ties to the Bears Ears landscape.
In place of officials duly appointed by Indian nations, the ``Tribal''
Management Council would consist of Federal and state officials, and
handpicked individual tribal members. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe would
be precluded from designating an official, or a traditional leader, or
a knowledgeable practitioner of Ute Mountain Ute customs and culture,
of its own choosing. Rather, the task of appointing an individual Ute
Mountain Ute tribal member to serve on the Tribal Management Council
would fall on the President, after ``consultation with the
congressional delegation from the state of Utah.'' Such legislation
prevents the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and other Indian nations to self-
determine their own destinies and amounts to an egregious return to the
failed Federal Indian policies of the 1800s.
Under H.R. 4532, the duties of the Bears Ears Commission, along
with ``affected Indian tribes'' that are excluded from participation on
the Tribal Management Council, would be merely advisory to Federal and
state interests. Instead of the Bears Ears Commissioners working with
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture ``on the
development and implementation of management plans and on management of
the monument,'' as prescribed in Presidential Proclamation 9558, the
Bears Ears Commission, under H.R. 4532, would inappropriately have to
engage with state interests, namely San Juan County Commissioners, in
regards to tribal concerns and expertise on managing Federal lands.
This arrangement runs afoul of the unique legal and political
relationship between Indian nations and the Federal Government.
Contrary to statements by Utah Representative John Curtis that his
bill empowers tribes, H.R. 4532 does the opposite. We cannot stress the
importance of affording Indian nations the opportunity to
collaboratively manage the lands where our ancestors rest and where
ceremonies are conducted. H.R. 4532 would effectively deprive Indian
nations of that opportunity by vesting that authority with a management
council that specifically lacks involvement of tribal officials duly
appointed by their respective sovereign tribal governments. H.R. 4532
would also remove protections for over 1 million acres of the Bears
Ears cultural landscape. The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe cannot support a
bill that would legislatively confirm the President's unlawful action.
Accordingly, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe opposes H.R. 4532.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. The Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe is especially appreciative of the Democratic members of the
Committee in providing this opportunity to state our position.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Jason, she beat you, she had 4 seconds remaining.
Next, we have Tony Small, the Vice Chairman of the Ute
Business Committee.
Tony, glad to have you here. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF TONY SMALL, VICE CHAIRMAN, UTE BUSINESS COMMITTEE,
UTE INDIAN TRIBE, FORT DUCHESNE, UTAH
Mr. Small. Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532. I am Vice Chairman of the
Ute Tribal Business Committee. With me is Business Committee
member Ed Secakuku.
The Ute Indian Tribe is a federally recognized tribe. Our
ancestral lands include the Bears Ears region. We became a
member of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition to promote our
cultural and sacred resources with Bears Ears National
Monument.
The Ute Tribe strongly opposes H.R. 4532, the bill that
approves Trump's unlawful action attempting to reduce the
monument by 85 percent.
The bill also eliminates our role in the management of the
monument, while promoting the State of Utah and San Juan County
Board of Commissioners.
We are thankful to the Subcommittee's Democratic members
for requesting the second hearing on the bill. At the last
hearing, all five tribes were forced onto one seat. The tribes
are committed to working together, but it is important for the
Subcommittee to hear from each sovereign tribal government.
At the last hearing, Utah had three witnesses and is well
represented again. The focus of these hearings on Utah's state
and county governments, Utah private citizens, and Utah
lobbying groups makes clear that the purpose of the bill is to
eliminate tribes in the protection of Bears Ears and its
sacred, priceless resources. We support and adopt the testimony
provided by the Inter-Tribal Coalition at the last hearing. The
testimony opposed the bill and described its many problems.
At today's hearing, we need to address the untrue and
misleading statements being made by supporters of the bill.
First, the local tribes, which are the five tribes here
today, oppose the bill. Any suggestion otherwise is not true.
In a recent Salt Lake Tribune article, Congressman Curtis
falsely claimed the local tribes support the bill. This is not
true. He cherry-picked individual tribal members for their
support of the bill. These are private citizens and do not
represent the federally recognized tribal government of the
real local tribes.
Even worse than being untrue, his actions attempt to
disrupt and undermine our tribal government. His actions make
no sense, given the U.S. policy of tribal self-determination.
This is an attack on our sovereignty, and violates the U.S.
treaty trust, and government-to-government relationship with
Indian tribes. How would you like it if Russia or France went
around the U.S. Government to negotiate with private citizens?
[Slide.]
Mr. Small. As you can see on the map, we have a long-
standing legal connection to the Bears Ears region. The pink
area in the southeast corner of the map to the north of San
Juan River is Royce Map 515, and includes Bears Ears. This is
one of the Royce maps published by the United States in 1899 to
show tribal treaty and ancestral lands. The United States
recognized that Royce Map 515 includes our treaty and ancestral
lands.
Second, Congressman Curtis falsely claimed that his
management council empowers the tribes. His so-called
management council does not even include the Ute Indian Tribe.
Cutting us from the management council is not empowering.
Third, Congressman Curtis claimed that his bill does not
affect the Bears Ears Commission. This is also misleading.
Instead of being a primary land manager, the Commission is
buried under the management council. The bill also limits the
Commission to an area that is only 10 percent of the original
monument.
Finally, at the last hearing, Chairman Bishop used the
photo for the Ute Tribe bulletin newspaper to claim that he met
with us to discuss the bill and Bears Ears. This is also not
true. The date of the bulletin in his photo was July 17, 2015.
This was more than 2 years before the bill was introduced and
more than 2 years before Trump unlawfully rescinded the
monument. In 2015, we met Chairman Bishop to discuss Utah's PLI
initiative. At that time, we were focused on his proposal to
take 100,000 acres of our tribal lands and give them to the
state. We did not discuss any proposal for Bears Ears.
In addition to countless archeological resources, the Bears
Ears National Monument was intended to honor tribal voices,
cultures, and sacred sites. The monument promoted well-being in
our tribal communities, southeastern Utah, and the United
States. This bill attacks those purposes and diminishes our
voices, attacks our governments, and leaves our sacred and
cultural sites unprotected.
The Ute Indian Tribe opposes H.R. 4532, and I ask the
Subcommittee to take up H.R. 4518, which would expand the
monument to all these areas needing protection. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Small follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tony Small, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and
Ouray Reservation
introduction
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532,
the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
My name is Tony Small. I am elected member of the Ute Indian Tribe's
Business Committee and serve as Vice Chairman of the Business
Committee.
The Ute Indian Tribe is a federally recognized tribe. Our 4.5
million-acre Uintah and Ouray Reservation is in northeastern Utah. Our
ancestral lands, cultural resources and sacred sites extend into
central and southern Utah and western Colorado. We became a member of
the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (Coalition) to help protect these
lands and resources through the establishment of the Bears Ears
National Monument.
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition includes: the Ute Indian
Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Pueblo of
Zuni, and the Hopi Tribe. The Coalition worked with Utah Dine Bikeyah,
a grassroots tribal organization, for nearly a decade for the
designation of the Bears Ears National Monument and the protection of
its sacred and priceless cultural and natural resources. We proposed
that a 1.9 million acre monument be established.
Ultimately, a 1.35 million acre Bears Ears National Monument was
designated by President Obama on December 28, 2016 through Presidential
Proclamation No. 9558. However, on December 4, 2017, President Trump
issued Presidential Proclamation No. 9681 unlawfully revoking and
dismantling the Monument and replacing it with two new monuments. These
two monuments include about 201,397 acres. This is an 85 percent
reduction that leaves hundreds of thousands of priceless and
significant cultural, natural, and sacred objects and resources
unprotected.
The Ute Indian Tribe remains adamantly opposed to H.R. 4532 which
would legislatively confirm President Trump's unlawful action. We first
testified on H.R. 4532 as a part of the Coalition at a Subcommittee
hearing on January 9, 2018. As noted at that hearing, H.R. 4532 would
also diminish tribal voices in the management of these cultural and
natural resources while promoting the voices of Federal agencies, the
state of Utah and the San Juan County Board of Commissioners. Most
important, H.R. 4532 attempts to take a monument designated to protect
and preserve tribal cultural and natural resources and turn it into a
multi-use area for uranium mining, increased motorized vehicles, and
increased grazing that would damage these sensitive resources.
We appreciate the efforts of the Subcommittee's Democratic Members
to seek this second hearing on H.R. 4532 to provide an opportunity for
all five of the Coalition tribes to testify. The Coalition represents a
historic gathering of our tribal nations in support of the significant
and priceless resources making up the Bears Ears National Monument.
While we are committed to working together, it is important for the
Subcommittee to hear and understand the views of the five independent
and sovereign tribes making up the Coalition.
At the January 9, 2018 hearing on H.R. 4532, the five tribes were
forced onto one witness seat while every level of the state of Utah was
represented, including: the Utah state government, a Utah private
citizen and a Utah lobbying group. At today's hearing the state of Utah
is well represented again, including Utah's San Juan County
Commissioners and another opportunity for the Utah state government.
The focus of these hearings on the state of Utah, its government
subdivisions, its private citizens and its lobbying groups are a clear
indication of the purpose of H.R. 4532--to eliminate tribal voices in
the protection of Bears Ears National Monument and its sacred and
priceless resources.
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition's January 9, 2018 testimony
provided a thoughtful and well-reasoned discussion of the problems with
H.R. 4532 and why the Subcommittee or Committee should not approve the
bill. The Ute Indian Tribe incorporates and adopts that testimony here.
In the reminder of our testimony, we will address issues that have
arisen since the first hearing.
claims that h.r. 4532 empowers local tribes are misleading and false
Chairman Bishop and Congressman Curtis as well as other supporters
of H.R. 4532 continually make misleading and false claims that they are
supporting ``local tribes'' or empowering the voices of ``local
tribes.'' Congressman Curtis most recently made these claims in a
January 20, 2018 Salt Lake Tribune opinion piece. Nothing could be
further from the truth. This distortion of the Federal Government's
treaty, trust, and government-to-government relationship with Indian
tribes is offensive and damaging.
The ``local tribes'' Chairman Bishop and Congressman Curtis are
referring to are individual tribal members cherry-picked by the
Congressmen for their support of H.R. 4532. These ``local tribes'' are
simply private citizens expressing their opinion. They do not represent
the views of federally recognized tribal governments--including the Ute
Indian Tribe and the other Coalition tribes.
Even worse, Chairman Bishop and Congressman Curtis' actions are an
attempt to disrupt and undermine our tribal governments by negotiating
with individual tribal members. This is an attack on our sovereignty,
conflicts with the United State's policy of tribal self-determination,
and violates the Federal Government's treaty, trust, and government-to-
government relationship with federally recognized tribes. This is an
inappropriate return to the failed policies of the 1800s when the
United States would divide tribes and pursue its own objectives by
designating for itself which tribal representatives the United States
would negotiate. These short-sided and damaging actions stand in the
way of progress that benefits Bears Ears, the region, and the state of
Utah. We would expect the full Congress to reject these actions and the
bill.
During the January 9, 2018 hearing, Chairman Bishop also falsely
claimed that a photo from our Ute Bulletin newspaper proved that he had
met with us to discuss H.R. 4532 or more generally the Bears Ears
National Monument. The date of the Ute Bulletin shown in his photo was
July 17, 2015. This was more than 2 years before H.R. 4532 was
introduced and more than 2 years before President Trump unlawfully
rescinded and dismantled the Monument.
On July 17, 2015, Chairman Bishop met with a few members of the Ute
Indian Tribe's Business Committee, not a quorum, to discuss his Utah
Public Lands Initiative, not H.R. 4532. While the Public Lands
Initiative included a proposal for Bears Ears, the July 2015 meeting
focused on our proposal for trust restoration of lands within our
Uncompahgre Reservation. Restoration of these lands to trust status
would provide for local decision making and increased energy
development in a proven oil field. Unfortunately, Chairman Bishop did
not include our proposal in his Public Lands Initiative bill and
instead used the bill to seek the first Indian land grab in more that
100 years. The meeting did not include any discussion of H.R. 4532 or
legislative proposals for Bears Ears.
Let us be clear, Chairman Bishop and Congressman Curtis never
contacted the Ute Indian Tribe's Business Committee, the tribe's
governing body, to advise, consult, or assist in the development of
H.R. 4532. In fact, not a single federally recognized tribal government
was consulted on the proposals in H.R. 4532. Claiming that they are
promoting the voices of ``local tribes'' is a disgrace. It is up to
sovereign tribal governments, not the United States, to select our own
representatives.
the ute indian tribe and the bears ears inter-tribal coalition are the
local tribes
During the January 9, 2018 hearing, Chairman Bishop sharply
questioned whether the Ute Indian Tribe and the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition had a strong and ongoing relationship to the lands and
resources contained within the Bears Ears National Monument. Chairman
Bishop's line of questioning misunderstands our long-lasting and vital
connection to these lands. Our Uintah and Ouray Reservation is in
northeastern Utah, but we have lived, worked, and prayed in the area
around Bears Ears for all time. Today we maintain strong cultural
connections to Bears Ears and its surrounding lands including ongoing
uses.
Our connection and legal standing to the lands and resources in the
area around Bears Ears was long recognized by the Federal Government
even before the Bears Ears National Monument was designated. In 1899,
the Government Printing Office published a schedule of Indian land
cessions by Charles C. Royce including 67 maps outlining those land
cessions as the second part of the two-part 18th Annual Report of the
Bureau of American Ethnology--1896-1897, Vol. II. Part 2 was also
printed as House Document No. 736 of the U.S. Serial Set, 56th
Congress, 1st Session. This report was part of a series of annual
reports on Native American issues produced by the U.S. Bureau of
American Ethnology for the Smithsonian Institution.
Today, the Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies
use these ``Royce Maps'' to legally determine which tribes will be
contacted when a site is discovered under the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and for government-to-
government consultation on Federal actions that may impact Indian
resources. The Royce Map for the state of Utah is attached to our
testimony as Exhibit A. Bears Ears and its surrounding lands and
resources is located in the southeast corner of this map, to the north
of the San Juan River, and included within Royce Map 515. Royce and
Interior's National NAGPRA Program identify Royce Map 515 as including
the ancestral lands of the Ute Indian Tribe and a number of other
tribes.
The Bears Ears National Monument was designated, in part, to
celebrate and protect our lasting connections and ongoing uses to the
lands and resources around Bears Ears. Bears Ears includes our
ancestral homelands, resources, and spiritual sites that are as
important to our culture and identity as they ever were. These are both
legal and cultural connections. The Ute Indian Tribe and the tribes
making up the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition are the local tribes.
In designating the Bears Ears National Monument, President Obama
recognized this truth.
the shash jaa tribal management council does not promote tribal
management
We were shocked by the name of Shash Jaa Tribal Management Council.
Despite Congressman Curtis' claims in his January 20, 2018 opinion
piece, nothing about this Council reflects actual tribal management.
First, the Council does not include the Ute Indian Tribe. Instead, only
two of the five tribes making up the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition
are represented on the Council. Second, the Council consists of three
representatives who are not required to have any ties to tribal
governments. Third, the tribal members on the Council are not required
to be duly elected or appointed representatives of tribal governments,
which means they will not be authorized tribal government
representatives. Further to that point, the President will appoint all
of the members of the Council as opposed to tribal governments. Fourth,
the Council is required to consult with state and local governments,
and the public, but is not required to consult with the tribes who hold
these lands sacred.
Finally, the most troubling aspect of this ``tribal management
council,'' is that H.R. 4532 attempts to improperly predetermine the
tribal representatives who would serve on the Council. It is not up to
the United States or Congress to select who will represent our tribes.
This is, again, an inappropriate return to the failed policies of the
1800s when the United States would divide tribes and pursue its own
objectives by designating for itself which tribal representatives the
United States would negotiate. It is up to sovereign tribal
governments, not the United States, to select our own representatives.
Curtis also claimed that the original Bears Ears Commission is left
intact in his bill. However, H.R. 4532 would bury the Commission under
his so-called ``tribal'' management council that is dominated by
Federal and state interests. H.R. 4532 would limit and drown out the
voice of the Bears Ears Commission.
All of these provisions attempt to treat Indian tribes as merely
public stakeholders, not as governments with a direct sovereign-to-
sovereign relationship with the Federal Government. This violates
fundamental principles of Federal Indian law. The United States has a
treaty, trust, and government-to-government relationship with Indian
tribes. As specified in the United States Constitution, this
relationship is exclusive and does not include state governments. H.R.
4532 must be revised to reflect these important principles of Federal
law.
uranium mining, motorized vehicle use, and increased grazing would
damage cultural and natural resources
Despite provisions of H.R. 4532 purporting to withdraw portions of
the Monument's lands from entry for mining purposes, the Monument would
still be subject to and affected by existing claims and leases,
potential expanded mining, and mining related activities. In addition,
grazing interests would be given priority and increased motorized
vehicle use would be permitted. Finally, ghastly looting and grave
robbing continues to this day throughout Bears Ears and would not be
deterred by H.R. 4532 which only protects a very small portion of the
cultural and sacred resources in the area.
Preventing and addressing these impacts were the primary reason
that the Ute Indian Tribe and the Coalition sought monument status for
this area. While we recognize there are appropriate places for resource
development, including energy development, this is not one of those
areas. This is an area that must be preserved and protected for its
cultural, archeological, paleontological, and sacred. Without
appropriate protection, American citizens and the world would lose the
opportunity to enjoy one of the most remote and wondrous landscapes
found anywhere. We would also lose the opportunity to highlight,
foster, and share our traditional knowledge that is tied to Bears Ears.
there is no scientific or reasonable basis for eliminating monument
protections
H.R. 4532 would leave hundreds of thousands of priceless and
significant cultural, natural, and sacred objects unprotected. There
are too many objects, sites, and resources left unprotected to list
them all here. Not to mention the cultural practices and traditional
tribal intellectual knowledge that would be lost or diminished. There
is absolutely no rational basis to exclude these sites and objects
while including the sites and objects that are within the Shash Jaa and
Indian Creek areas designated by President Trump and H.R. 4532.
Claims that these objects and sites can be protected under other
applicable laws like the National Historic Preservation Act or the
Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 are a red herring. If
these laws provided adequate protections, there would be no need for
the protections included in President Trump's Proclamation No. 9681 or
H.R. 4532. Instead, these claims merely expose political decision
making behind Proclamation No. 9681 and H.R. 4532. Unfortunately, it is
clear that Proclamation No. 9681 and H.R. 4532 were not based on
scientific and ethnographic assessments of the resources that would be
impacted.
Instead of H.R. 4532, the Subcommittee should be holding a hearing
on H.R. 4518, the Bears Ears National Monument Expansion Act. H.R. 4518
would address the President's unlawful action by expanding the Bear
Ears National Monument to the 1.9 million acres originally proposed by
the Coalition. As required by the Antiquities Act, that study showed
that 1.9 million acres was the ``smallest area compatible with the
proper care and management of the objects to be protected'' and that
protection was needed under the Antiquities Act. H.R. 4518, developed
in consultation with tribal governments, would expand the size of the
Monument to its originally proposed 1.9 million acres to ensure that
all of its vital and sacred resources are protected in accordance with
the law.
indian reservations must be excluded from state land exchanges
Title III of H.R. 4532 also needs revision. Title III allows the
state of Utah to exchange its school trust lands located inside the
Shash Jaa and Indian Creek areas for other lands within the state to
provide for resource development in support of public schools. However,
this provision must be revised to exclude lands within Indian
reservations to prevent impacts to on-reservation Indian resources.
Our cultural, natural, and sacred resources within our Indian
reservations are just as important as the resources within the Bears
Ears National Monument. Our reservation lands were reserved in treaties
and other agreements to provide a homeland for our tribes. In another
return to the failed policies of the 1800s, Title III of H.R. 4532
would allow another Indian land grab where Federal lands lie within our
reservations. The United States and Congress rejected these policies
long ago in favor of protecting and restoring Indian reservation lands.
H.R. 4532 and this extreme proposal should be soundly rejected.
conclusion
The Ute Indian Tribe adamantly opposes H.R. 4532 which would
legislatively confirm the President's unlawful action in violation of
the Antiquities Act. H.R. 4532 would dramatically affect some of our
most important cultural, natural, and sacred resources. Instead, the
Subcommittee should hold a hearing on H.R. 4518 which has broad support
and would resolve many of the problems raised today.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
*****
Exhibit A
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Next, we will call up Mr. Carleton Bowekaty--and you are
going to have to help me if I don't put the right emphasis
there--Councilman in the Pueblo of the Zuni Nation from New
Mexico. Was I even close to the pronunciation of your name?
Mr. Bowekaty. Chairman--Vice Chairman, it is Bowekaty.
Mr. Bishop. I wasn't even in the same zip code. I
apologize.
Mr. Bowekaty. I was in the military. I have heard all
variations of my last name.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you for being here. You are
also recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARLETON BOWEKATY, COUNCILMAN, PUEBLO OF ZUNI,
ZUNI, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Bowekaty. Thank you. Vice Chairman Bishop, Ranking
Member Hanabusa, and respected members of the Subcommittee, I
am Carleton Bowekaty, an elected member of the Zuni Tribal
Council, and the Zuni Tribe's appointed representative on the
Bears Ears Commission. On behalf of the Zuni Tribe, I want to
thank you for holding this second hearing on H.R. 4532, and for
inviting me to testify.
The Zuni Tribe has almost 13,000 members, the vast majority
of which live on tribal lands in far western New Mexico. Our
reservation contains 600,000 acres. However, our aboriginal
lands, as well as those of our 18 sister pueblos in New Mexico,
encompass a far greater area.
In addition to the lands that we aboriginally exercise
control over, there are other lands that are part of our
history and culture that even today play an integral role in
our traditions and religious ceremonies. Bears Ears is one such
area, and a very important one. It, along with neighboring Mesa
Verde, is part of the Colorado plateau, the region where our
ancestors lived before migrating southward into present-day New
Mexico.
Zuni has been actively involved in the Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition since its inception. It is a unique coalition,
one that has remained focused on our mutual interest in
ensuring that the remarkable cultural and natural resources
found on these formerly tribal lands are protected and
preserved. It was, therefore, entirely appropriate for the
presidential proclamation creating the Bears Ears National
Monument, referred to as the Obama proclamation, to have
established a Bears Ears Commission with representation from
each of the five tribes so that they can provide guidance and
recommendations on the development and implementation of
managed plans and on management of the monument.
In contrast to the Obama proclamation's respect for the
tribes' historic and strong connections to Bears Ears and the
balance it provides to ensure that other interested parties
have a voice in management issues, H.R. 4532 contains what we
view as a radical provision giving local politicians effective
control of management and use decisions.
The Bears Ears lands, though once controlled and used
exclusively by tribes in the Southwest, are now Federal lands
owned by all Americans. So, while no disrespect is intended to
our local government officials, most of whom work hard to
better their communities, we recently saw in Oregon and Nevada
what happens when local residents think they should control
Federal land for their own benefit in disregard of Federal
laws.
I want to avoid repeating the testimony of the tribal
leaders from the other four coalition tribes, but I do want
this Subcommittee to know that we stand united, and that Zuni
supports their substantive testimony.
We also know that the tribal witnesses here today are the
duly designated representatives for the five tribes, unlike the
handful of individuals who have been portrayed as representing
one or more of the coalition tribes. Differences of opinion on
major issues like this are inevitable. But let's be honest
about our differences, and not misrepresent the issues, the
positions of affected tribes, or those who speak for those
tribes.
We are, of course, well aware of the fact that H.R. 4532
was introduced by Representative Curtis because not everyone
agrees with the Obama proclamation designating the 1.35 million
acres of Federal lands as the Bears Ears National Monument. But
I encourage all to carefully read the Obama proclamation, as it
presents a thorough, accurate, and compelling justification for
the establishment of the monument, and provides a balanced
approach for its future use and management.
The Zuni and the other tribes that are part of the Inter-
Tribal Coalition had, frankly, hoped for the protection of a
significantly larger area, 1.9 million acres, but accepted the
reduced area as a reasonable compromise. However, we cannot
support a further congressional reduction in the area of the
monument, much less the drastic reduction proposed by H.R.
4532, nor can we support legislation that fails to adequately
recognize the strong historical and cultural interest of tribes
in the Bears Ears National Monument. Any legislation to modify
the Bears Ears National Monument should not reduce its acreage
or diminish the management and policy role of the Bears Ears
Commission.
Zuni is not a wealthy tribe, and we don't come to
Washington often. I am here today at the direction of our
government and tribal council and at the tribe's sole expense.
I am here because our people care enormously about the Bears
Ears National Monument. I am standing united with the tribes
represented before you today, along with our sister pueblos in
New Mexico and throughout our country, to express our adamant
opposition to executive or legislative efforts to abolish or
reduce Bears Ears.
I also understand that the organization known as the
Council of Governors, which includes governors from all 19 of
the New Mexico Pueblos, will provide the Committee with a
resolution that recently passed which supports the Bears Ears
National Monument, opposes President Trump's proclamation
purporting to rescind the Obama proclamation, and opposes H.R.
4532.
Finally, while the Zuni Tribe is appreciative of this
opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532, we also respectfully urge
Subcommittee members to schedule a hearing on a much different
bill concerning Bears Ears, H.R. 4518.
Thank you for inviting me to testify, and for your
consideration of my testimony on behalf of the people of Zuni.
[Speaking Native language.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowekaty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carleton R. Bowekaty, Councilman, Zuni Tribe of
the Zuni Indian Reservation
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and respected members
of the Subcommittee, I am Carleton Bowekaty, an elected member of Zuni
Tribal Council and the Zuni Tribe's appointed representative on the
Bears Ears Commission. On behalf of the people of the Zuni Tribe, I
want to thank you for holding this second hearing on H.R. 4532 and for
inviting me to testify.
The Zuni Tribe has almost 13,000 members, the vast majority of
which live on tribal lands in far western New Mexico. Our reservation
contains 600,000 acres. However, our aboriginal lands, as well as those
of our 18 sister Pueblos in New Mexico, encompass a far greater area.
In addition to the lands that we aboriginally exercised control over,
there are other lands that are part of our history and culture, and
that even today play an integral role in our traditions and religious
ceremonies. Bears Ears is one such area, and a very important one. It,
along with neighboring Mesa Verde, is part of the Colorado Plateau, the
region that our ancestors lived before migrating southward into
present-day New Mexico.
the bears ears inter-tribal coalition and the bears ears national
monument and h.r. 4532
Zuni has been actively involved in the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition since its inception. It is a unique Coalition, one that has
remained focused on our mutual interest in ensuring that the remarkable
cultural and natural resources found on these formerly tribal lands are
protected and preserved. It was therefore entirely appropriate for the
presidential proclamation creating the Bears Ears National Monument
(the ``Obama Proclamation'') to have established the Bears Ears
Commission, with representation from each of the five tribes, so that
they can ``provide guidance and recommendations on the development and
implementation of management plans and on management of the monument.''
In contrast to the Obama Proclamation's respect for the tribes'
historic and strong connections to Bears Ears, and the balance it
provides to ensure that other interested parties have a voice in
management issues, H.R. 4532 contains what we view as a radical
provision giving local politicians effective control of management and
use decisions. The Bears Ears lands, though once controlled and used
exclusively by tribes in the southwest, are now Federal lands, owned by
all Americans. While no disrespect is intended toward local
governmental officials, most of whom work hard to better their
communities, we recently saw in Oregon and Nevada what happens when
local residents think they should control Federal land for their own
benefit in disregard of Federal laws.
I want to avoid repeating the testimony of the tribal leaders from
the other four Coalition tribes, but I do want this Subcommittee to
know that we stand united, and that Zuni supports their substantive
testimony. We also note that the tribal witnesses here today are the
duly designated representatives for the five tribes, unlike the handful
of individuals who have been portrayed as representing one or more of
the Coalition tribes. Differences of opinion on major issues like this
are inevitable, but let's be honest about our differences and not
misrepresent the issues, the positions of affected tribes, or who
speaks for those tribes.
We are, of course, well aware of the fact that H.R. 4532 was
introduced by Representative Curtis because not everyone agrees with
the Obama Proclamation designating the 1.35 million acres of Federal
lands as the Bears Ears National Monument. But I encourage all to
carefully read the Obama Proclamation, as it presents a thorough,
accurate, and compelling justification for the establishment of the
Monument, and provides a balanced approach for its future use and
management. Zuni and the other tribes that are a part of the Inter-
Tribal Coalition had frankly hoped for the protection of a
significantly larger area (1.9 million acres), but accepted the reduced
area as a reasonable compromise. However, we cannot support a further
congressional reduction in the area of the monument, much less the
drastic reduction proposed by H.R. 4532, nor can we support legislation
that fails to adequately recognize the strong historical and cultural
interests of tribes in the Bears Ears National Monument. Any
legislation to modify the Bears Ears National Monument should not
reduce its acreage or diminish the management and policy role of the
Bears Ears Commission.
conclusion
Zuni is not a wealthy tribe and we do not come to Washington often.
I am here today at the direction of our Governor and Tribal Council,
and at the Tribe's sole expense. I am here because our people care
enormously about the Bears Ears National Monument and stand united with
the tribes represented before you today, along with our sister Pueblos
in New Mexico and throughout our country, to express our adamant
opposition to executive or legislative efforts to abolish or reduce
Bears Ears. I also understand that the organization known as the All
Pueblo Council of Governors, which includes governors from all 19 of
New Mexico's Pueblos, will be providing the Committee with a resolution
supporting the Bears Ears National Monument, opposing President Trump's
Proclamation purporting to rescind the Obama Proclamation, and opposing
H.R. 4532.
Finally, while the Zuni Tribe is appreciative of this opportunity
to testify on H.R. 4532, we also respectfully urge Subcommittee members
to schedule a hearing on a much different bill concerning Bears Ears--
H.R. 4518.
Thank you for inviting me to testify, and for your consideration of
my testimony on behalf of the people of Zuni.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I am going to mess up this
name, as well. Once again, I will apologize in advance. I am
given a phonetic pronunciation of your name, but that still
doesn't help.
So, Clark Tenakhongva, if you will help me on that
pronunciation, I would appreciate it. You are all the way here
from Arizona. Thank you for being here. You are a part of the
Hopi Tribe, on the Hopi Tribal Council. Sir, what is the
correct pronunciation of your last name?
Mr. Tenakhongva. Tenakhongva.
Mr. Bishop. I am still getting the emphasis in the wrong
part of that, but thank you very much. We appreciate you being
here. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CLARK TENAKHONGVA, VICE CHAIRMAN, HOPI TRIBAL
COUNCIL, THE HOPI TRIBE, KYKOTSMOVI VILLAGE, ARIZONA
Mr. Tenakhongva. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning,
Vice Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
H.R. 4532, Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek
National Monument Act. I am Clark W. Tenakhongva, a member of
the Rabbit Tobacco clan, U.S. Army veteran that served in
Grenada, and Vice Chairman for the Hopi Tribe. I am also the
Hopi Tribe's Commissioner for the Bears Ears Commission.
The Hopi Tribe is a sovereign nation recognized by the
United States. Our reservation is located in northeastern
Arizona and occupies parts of Coconino and Navajo Counties. Our
lands are more than 1.5 million acres, and are comprised of 12
villages on three mesas.
Our ancestral lands, cultural resources, and sacred sites
extend into central and southern Utah, western Colorado, and
New Mexico. We became a member of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition to help protect these lands and resources throughout
the establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument.
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Council includes the Hopi
Tribe, Pueblos Ute Indian Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe. We have worked with our traditional leaders
and grassroots organizations for over a decade for the
designation of the Bears Ears National Monument to always
protect its sacred and priceless culture and natural resources.
We, the people, asked that a 1.9 million-acre monument be
established. In the end, President Obama designated the 1.35
million-acre Bears Ears National Monument on December 28, 2016
through Presidential Proclamation 9558. To our dismay,
President Trump issued a proclamation on December 4, 2017,
which cuts the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument
by 85 percent from the 1.35 million acres to 200,000 acres,
dismantling the Bears Ears National Monument.
H.R. 4532 seeks to codify this action. The Hopi Tribe
opposes H.R. 4532 because the bill would, Number one, totally
exclude the Hopi from the new management councils it creates;
it diminishes the area that it protected; and it opens it up to
grazing and motorized vehicles which would detrimentally impact
this sacred landscape. H.R. 4532 takes away the Hopi Tribe's
voice at the Bears Ears National Monument and puts our sacred
sites at risk.
To the Hopi people, the Bears Ears National Monument is a
spiritually occupied landscape. For example, the two towers
near Bluff are called Pokanghoyat, two twin warrior gods. This
land is a testament of Hopi stewardship evidenced by thousands
of years of footprints of our ancestral villages, sacred
springs, migration routes, pilgrimage trails, artifacts,
petroglyphs, and the physical remains of our buried Hisatsinom,
our people of long ago, all of which are intentionally left to
mark the land as proof that Hopi have fulfilled their covenant.
Hopi migration is intimately associated with the sacred
covenant between the Hopi people and Maasaw, the earth guardian
and creator, in which the Hopi people made a solemn promise to
protect the land by serving as stewards of the earth. In
accordance with this covenant, the following clans--Katsina,
Badger, Flute, Parrot, Bow, Greasewood, Bearstrap, Snake,
Tobacco, and Rabbit--traveled and settled on lands in and
around southeastern Utah during their long migration to
Tuuwanasavi, the center of the Earth.
We, the people of these clans, reside on Hopi today,
practicing our religion, singing our songs, and living our
culture, just as our ancestors did at Bears Ears. This sacred
landscape must be protected and cherished.
H.R. 4532 would diminish and dissolve the current
protections that the Bears Ears National Monument provides,
while also silencing the Hopi Tribe's voice.
Thank you--[Speaking Native language]--again, for the
opportunity to testify today. I invite each and every one of
the Committee to visit the Hopi Reservation and Bears Ears, and
to hear from our people. [Speaking Native language.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tenakhongva follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clark W. Tenakhongva, Vice-Chairman of the Hopi
Tribe
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4532,
the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
I am Clark W. Tenakhongva, the elected Vice-Chairman of the Hopi Tribe
and the Hopi Tribe's Commissioner for the Bears Ears Commission. The
Hopi Tribe appreciates this opportunity to testify to provide the
Committee with an understanding of our undisputable connection to the
Bears Ears National Monument, and to object to the new proposed
management of the Bears Ears National Monument through the December
Presidential Proclamation and H.R. 4532.
The Hopi Tribe is a sovereign nation, recognized as such by the
United States, located in northeastern Arizona. The Hopi Reservation
occupies part of Coconino and Navajo Counties in Arizona, encompasses
more than 1.5 million acres, and is made up of 12 villages on three
mesas. Our ancestral lands, cultural resources, and sacred sites extend
into central and southern Utah and western Colorado. We became a member
of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition to help protect these lands
and resources through the establishment of the Bears Ears National
Monument.
The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition includes: the Hopi Tribe,
Pueblo of Zuni, Ute Indian Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe. The Coalition worked with a grassroots tribal
organization for nearly a decade for the designation of the Bears Ears
National Monument and the protection of its sacred and priceless
cultural and natural resources. We proposed that a 1.9 million acre
monument be established. Ultimately, a 1.35 million acre Bears Ears
National Monument was designated by President Obama on December 28,
2016, through Presidential Proclamation No. 9558.
The Hopi Tribe opposes H.R. 4532. A representative of the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition first testified on H.R. 4532 at a
Subcommittee hearing on January 9, 2018. As noted at that hearing, H.R.
4532 would diminish tribal voices in the management of these important
places. Further, H.R. 4532 emphasizes multi-use management including
increased motorized vehicle use and increased grazing that would put
these sensitive places at risk. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition's
January 9, 2018, testimony provided a discussion of the problems with
H.R. 4532 and why the Subcommittee and Committee should not approve it.
The Hopi Tribe agrees with that testimony.
hopi connection to bears ears
To Hopi people, the Bears Ears National Monument is a spiritually
occupied landscape. For example, the two spires near Bluff are
Pokanghoyat, ``War Twins.'' This land is a testament of Hopi
stewardship through thousands of years, manifested by the
``footprints'' of ancient villages, sacred springs, migration routes,
pilgrimage trails, artifacts, petroglyphs, and the physical remains of
buried Hisatsinom, the ``People of Long Ago,'' all of which were
intentionally left to mark the land as proof that the Hopi people have
fulfilled their Covenant.
Hopi migration is intimately associated with a sacred Covenant
between the Hopi people and Maasaw, the Earth Guardian, in which the
Hopi people made a solemn promise to protect the land by serving as
stewards of the Earth. In accordance with this Covenant, the Hopi
Katsina, Badger, Flute, Parrot, Bow, Greasewood, Bearstrap, Snake,
Tobacco, Rabbit, and Deer Clans traveled through and settled on lands
in and around southeastern Utah during their long migration to
Tuuwanasavi, the Earth Center on the Hopi Mesas. The people of these
clans still reside at Hopi today.
The Hopi Tribe claims cultural affiliation to ancestral Puebloan
cultural groups in the Bears Ears National Monument and the Hopi Tribe
has continually supported the identification and avoidance of
prehistoric archaeological sites. We consider the prehistoric
archaeological sites of our ancestors to be ``footprints'' and
Traditional Cultural Properties. Attached to this testimony are
pictures of some of the places in the Bears Ears Region that are
immensely important to us. For instance, the first two pictures are
pictures of what is known as the ``Perfect Kiva.'' The well-maintained
kivas from the Hisatsinom--the People of Long Ago--exemplify the
important cultural and spiritual connection that specific objects
within Bears Ears provide to the Hopi, among others. Ancestral kivas,
like those of today, were entered by a ladder stretching from the roof
down to the center of the floor. Kivas are still used in ceremonies
today, and one merely has to compare our Tribal Seal to these two
pictures to understand that we are connected to this place. It is our
understanding that the ``Perfect Kiva'' will no longer be included
within the new monument boundaries as proposed by H.R. 4532, and thus
lose that protection. The other attached pictures are also sites that
show our connection to this important region.
The Hopi Tribe is fully aware that over the last few decades the
archaeological, natural, and geographic resources in the region have
been severely impacted by looting, industrial development, and
increased motorized and recreational access, including inappropriate
all-terrain vehicle use. As a result of that and the importance of this
region, in 2014 the Hopi Tribe sent a letter to the President
supporting action to designate the greater Cedar Mesa area as a
National Monument and the Hopi Tribe participated in the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition that developed the Bears Ears National Monument
Proposal.
The purpose of the Antiquities Act is to set aside and preserve
places like the Bears Ears National Monument for generations to come
and protect them from destructive exploitation. Through a Hopi Tribal
Council Resolution in March, 2016, the Hopi Tribe formally supported
the establishment of Bears Ears National Monument and later in that
year, the Bears Ears National Monument was established.
Since then, the Hopi Tribe has participated with the Bears Ears
Tribal Commission and Federal agencies in the collaborative management
of the Monument. The Hopi Tribe's participation in the management of
the Bears Ears National Monument through the Hopi Commissioner is
critical to maintaining Hopi culture and tradition, as well as to
protecting and managing Hopi cultural resources, our footprints, and
our ancestors.
The Proclamation dated December 4, 2017, cut the boundaries of
Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent, from 1.35 million acres to
201,876 acres, revoking, replacing, and dismantling the Bears Ears
National Monument. H.R. 4532 seeks to codify this action.
H.R. 4532 creates new management councils that are not composed of
tribally elected representatives and excludes the Hopi Tribe
altogether. As you heard at the hearing on January 9, to which the Hopi
Tribe was not invited and one tribal spokesperson was forced to testify
on behalf of five tribes, the Hopi Tribe is a member of the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition that adamantly opposes H.R. 4532. H.R. 4532
would drastically affect some of our most important cultural resources
and leave us out of the newly proposed management councils.
The Hopi Tribe leads the litigation known as Hopi Tribe et. al. v.
Trump, showing the importance of Bears Ears to us. And therefore, we
also lead the choir urging you not to legislatively reduce the
boundaries in any way, and to move ahead on developing the management
plan for the Bears Ears National Monument with the contributions of the
Bears Ears Commission of Tribes as originally envisioned by the Hopi
Tribe and the Inter-Tribal Coalition. The Hopi Tribe cannot work in
support of a bill, H.R. 4532, that would legislatively confirm the
President's action dismantling a decade of collaborative work to
establish Bears Ears National Monument.
We appreciate the tribal, congressional, and the public support to
protect Bears Ears National Monument and to maintain the current
boundaries. Therefore, the Hopi Tribe supports H.R. 4518, Bears Ears
Monument Expansion Act and Durbin/Udall Senate bill that would expand
the Bears Ears Monument.
We invite you to come to Hopi to sit down, eat with us, and meet
our people. The Hopi people are a people of peace. And so we invite you
to Hopi to come in and eat, and we can explain to you in more than 5
minutes the responsibilities of being Hopi and why this place is so
important to us.
conclusion
The Bears Ears region is immensely important to the Hopi Tribe. It
is a part of our history and who we are as a people. We have worked
since time immemorial to uphold our sacred covenant to protect the land
by serving as stewards of the Earth, and continue to do so today in
opposing any efforts to abolish and reduce the Bears Ears National
Monument. We stand united with the tribes represented before you today,
to express our adamant opposition to this effort to abolish or reduce
Bears Ears.
ATTACHMENTS
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Hanabusa to Mr. Clark W.
Tenakhongva, Vice-Chairman of the Hopi Tribe
Question 1. H.R. 4532 leaves three of the five major tribes
connected to the original Bears Ears National Monument designation as a
part of the new management council, which would result in the exclusion
of the Hopi Tribe.
You shared with the Committee the significance of the Kivas within
the President Obama's Bears Ears National Monument designation,
specifically the one known as the ``Perfect Kiva'' which would no
longer be within the Bears Ears boundaries if H.R. 4532 were to be
signed into law. These Kivas serve as a holy place for the Hopi to pray
and conduct ceremonies, all practices of which were in existence long
before European colonization. In addition, you have stated that the
Hopi people have strong ties to this area through thousands of years of
stewardship along with it being used as migration routes and pilgrimage
trails for the Hopi people.
Mr. Tenakhongva, you expressed your concerns regarding the
religious rights of the Hopi and how the exclusion of these Kivas
disrupts your right to practicing your religion. Considering that the
Hopi tribe would no longer be represented in the management and
oversight of the new Bears Ears National Monument boundaries in
addition to losing the protection for the ``Perfect Kiva,'' where does
that leave the Hopi Tribe in regards to the number of places in which
they can go to practice traditional ceremonies and still have a
presence in the Utah community?
Answer. This is in response to your question following the
testimony on January 30, 2018 of the Hopi Tribe before the Committee on
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands Legislative Hearing on
H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act.
Your correspondence states that ``H.R. 4532 leaves three of the
five major tribes connected to the original Bears Ears National
Monument designation as a part of the new management council, which
would result in the exclusion of the Hopi Tribe.''
Please find enclosed our letter dated February 9, 2018 to
Representative Curtis regarding another meeting on February 12, 2018
that states, ``meetings should be held in our communities so you can
hear from our people about the importance of Bears Ears.'' Removing the
Hopi Tribe from an integral role in the management of these important
areas puts western development and beliefs over the beliefs of the Hopi
people, contrary to the thoughtful process that was originally created
under the Obama Proclamation. It gives non-Hopi people, that are not
representatives of the United States, a veto on exactly how these
places will be managed, without providing the Hopi people with a
meaningful government-to-government response. When the United States
abdicates its government-to-government relationship to local
individuals, it demeans the Hopi Tribe and the historical relationship
the United States has with the Hopi Tribe, which includes an obligation
to protect the sovereign rights of the Hopi Tribe.
Hopi migration is intimately associated with a sacred Covenant
between the Hopi people and Maasaw, the Earth Guardian, in which the
Hopi people made a solemn promise to protect the land by serving as
stewards of the Earth. In accordance with this Covenant, ancestral Hopi
clans traveled through and settled on the lands in and around the Bears
Ears National Monument--during their long migration to Tuuwanasavi, the
Earth Center on the Hopi Mesas. The land is a testament of Hopi
stewardship through thousands of years, manifested by the
``footprints'' of ancient villages, sacred springs, migration routes,
pilgrimage trails, artifacts, petroglyphs, and the physical remains of
buried Hisat.sinom (the ``People of Long Ago''), all of which were
intentionally left to mark the land as proof that the Hopi people have
fulfilled their Covenant.
The Hopi ancestors buried in the Bears Ears National Monument
continue to inhabit the land, and they are intimately associated with
the clouds. These clouds travel out across the countryside to release
the moisture that sustains all life. This area has been a sacred
destination for religious pilgrimages since time immemorial. ``The
clouds, our fathers are calling us,'' the Hopi people say, ``The
clouds, the spring, the shrine, up above, there's a mesa where they're
calling us from.''
The Hopi footprints and clouds in the Bears Ears National Monument
are part of a living, sacred landscape that nourishes and sustains Hopi
identity. This landscape is steeped in cultural values and maintained
through oral traditions, songs, ceremonial dances, pilgrimages, and
stewardship. As a cultural landscape, the archaeological sites and
physical terrain of the Monument situates the Hopi people in time and
space, providing a geographical conception of history and religion that
connects the past, present and future.
The landscapes, natural features, place names, archeological sites,
sacred sites, plants, animals, minerals, and artifacts found in these
locations are connected to the Hopi people through ceremony,
traditional histories, and oral traditions. As such, these ethnographic
resources give meaning to the Monument. Hopi history and cultural
values associated with ancestral sites and landscapes are deep and
abiding.
In response to your question, ``where does that leave the Hopi
Tribe in regards to the number of places in which they can go to
practice traditional ceremonies and still have a presence in the Utah
community,'' enclosed please find our letter dated August 7, 2017, to
the state of Utah regarding our claim for repatriation and reburial of
Hopi ancestral human remains in the custody of the state of Utah. We
have had no response from the state of Utah regarding this claim and,
therefore, we hereby request the Subcommittee's assistance in inquiring
of the state of Utah to this ``presence in the Utah community.'' This
is one example of how the local government treats the traditional
beliefs of the Hopi Tribe. By removing protections from many important
places, and giving a veto to local state and county interests over
those of the sovereign tribes that have historical and ongoing ties to
this area, the Curtis Bill would clearly signal to all involved that
the traditional beliefs and practices of the Hopi Tribe are to be
relegated to an afterthought.
Therefore, we reiterate that the Hopi Tribe opposes H.R. 4532 and
we reiterate that it cannot be improved by amendments because it is
fundamentally flawed in that it would legislatively confirm the
President's action dismantling a decade of collaborative work to
establish Bears Ears National Monument. The original monument
proclamation valued the beliefs and practices of the sovereign tribes
that have ties to this area, including the Hopi Tribe. We cannot assist
you in its destruction.
However, we also reiterate our willingness to answer any other
questions you may have and our invitation to any member of the
Committee to the Hopi Reservation to sit down, eat with us, and spend
more than 5 minutes and one question listening and learning about why
Bears Ears is so important to the Hopi people. We welcome you!
*****
ATTACHMENTS
The Hopi Tribe,
Kykotsmovi, Arizona
February 9, 2018
Hon. John R. Curtis
2236 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Curtis:
We have received the February 8 invitation to meet on February 12,
2018 to discuss H.R. 4532. Thank you for the invitation, but the Hopi
Tribe will not be able to send a representative to this meeting.
As an initial matter, I am Vice-Chairman of the Hopi Tribe, I
served as the designated representative to testify at the January 30
hearing in Washington, DC, and I am the Tribe's representative to the
Bears Ears Commission. Therefore, please direct all future
correspondence on H.R. 4532 or any issue related to Bears Ears directly
to me. In addition, please copy my Chief of Staff, Troy Honahnie, Jr.
at [email protected], to ensure a prompt reply.
Second, the Tribe objects to the extremely short notice for the
meeting, namely two business days for a meeting that would require
travel. The Tribe is engaged in a great number of important matters at
this time and cannot rearrange all other pending business to
accommodate the last-minute request. This challenge is compounded by
the fact that I would have to travel, again at the Tribe's expense.
During the January 30, 2018 hearing, I invited you and any member of
the Committee to the Hopi Reservation to sit down, eat with us, and
spend more than five minutes listening and learning about why Bears
Ears is so important to the Hopi people. We would welcome you.
Third, the tribe objects to the characterization in your invitation
that San Juan County is ``the community most affected by this ongoing
debate.'' On the contrary, Hopi people have been associated with Bears
Ears for thousands of years and as we have stated numerous times, we
maintain very close cultural and spiritual ties to Bears Ears. From
that perspective, the Hopi--and indeed all five Tribes in the
Coalition--are the communities most affected by this ongoing debate.
Meetings should be held in our communities so you can hear directly
from our people about the importance of Bears Ears.
Finally, as Shaun Chapoose stated on behalf of the tribes in the
first hearing on January 9, and as I reiterated again during the
January 30 hearing, the Tribe opposes H.R. 4532. It cannot be improved
by amendments because it is fundamentally flawed in that it would
legislatively confirm the President's action dismantling a decade of
collaborative work to establish Bears Ears National Monument. It would
remove protection from 85% of the area that the Tribe advocated to
protect. We cannot assist you in its destruction.
I remain willing to answer any questions you may have, but our
views on H.R. 4532 have not changed and will not change.
Sincerely,
Clark W. Tenakhongva,
Vice-Chairman
Hopi Representative
Bears Ears Commission
______
The Hopi Tribe,
Kykotsmovi, Arizona
August 7, 2017
Shirlee Silversmith, Director
State of Utah, Division of Indian Affairs
250 North 1950 West, Suite A
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
Dear Director Silversmith:
Thank you for your correspondences dated April 4, 2017, regarding
Official Notification of the Discovery and Analysis of Native American
Human Remains, Nos. 17-04, 17-05, 17-06 and 17--07.
Pursuant to Hopi Tribal Council Resolution, H-70-94, the Hopi Tribe
claims cultural affiliation to prehistoric the Paleoindian, Archaic,
Basketmaker, Anasazi, and Fremont prehistoric cultural groups in Utah.
The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office supports the identification and
avoidance of prehistoric archaeological sites, and we consider the
prehistoric archaeological sites of our ancestors to be ``footprints''
and Traditional CulturaI Properties. Therefore, we appreciate the State
of Utah, Division of Indian Affair's continuing solicitation of our
input and your efforts to address our concerns.
The Hopi Cultural Preservation Office has reviewed the enclosed
Antiquities Section Reports. Regarding Official Notification of the
Discovery and Analysis of Native American Human Remains, No. 17-04, the
enclosed Analysis of Human Remains AS-299 states the remains are from
Escalante, were found on an ATV trail on private property by the
landowner, and ``It is likely that the skull was not original to the
location but had been left by someone after being removed from a
different location.'' The analysis included radiocarbon dating, and the
remains date to the Pueblo II period. They have been determined to be
culturally affiliated to the Ancestral Puebloan or Anasazi culture and
``the modern Puebloan groups should be afforded an opportunity to
submit claims on these remains.''
Therefore, the Hopi Tribe claims cultural affiliation to the human
remains designated AS-299 and hereby requests the support of the Pueblo
of Zuni to jointly claim these remains for repatriation and reburial on
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Regarding Official Notification of the Discovery and Analysis of
Native American Human Remains, No. 17-05, the enclosed Analysis of
Human Remains AS-318 and 319 states the remains, a tooth and cranial
fragment, were transferred from the Hutchings Museum in Lehi subsequent
to being found in unprocessed collections presumed to be from Ute
County. The remains are determined to be culturally unidentifiable, and
likely originated within aboriginal lands of the Ute Tribe. Therefore,
we defer to the Ute Tribe for the repatriation and reburial of these
remains.
Regarding Official Notification of the Discovery and Analysis of
Native American Human Remains, No.17-06, the enclosed Analysis of Human
Remains AS-305 states the partial remains of a child were recovered
while excavating site 42WS2232, described as Pueblo II Virgin Anasazi,
on private land in St. George. The remains were buried with three
associated funerary objects including a ceramic jar and two canteens.
The cultural affiliation section states ``The Virgin Anasazi likely
ultimately became the Uto-Aztecan Puebloan people of the historic
period.''
Hopi people are the Uto-Aztecan people of the historic period.
However, we also acknowledge the Paiute traditional association or
cultural affiliation to the Virgin Anasazi earlier identifiable group
and so we have collaborated with the Paiute bands for the repatriation
and reburial of culturally unidentifiable remains from Zion National
Park. Therefore, because these remains were recovered from lands known
to be aboriginal land of the Southern Paiute, we support the Paiute
Tribe of Utah for their repatriation and reburial.
Regarding Official Notification of the Discovery and Analysis of
Native American Human Remains, No. 17-07, the enclosed Analysis of
Human Remains AS-301 states the remains were discovered eroding out of
the side of a wash on private land in Kanab and ``It is clear that the
remains had been reburied in this location and were not in their
original burial location.'' The remains were subjected to radiocarbon
dating and stable isotope analysis resulting in a Pueblo II/III time
period and maize diet results. They have been determined to be
culturally affiliated to the Ancestral Puebloan or Anasazi culture and
``the modern Puebloan groups should be afforded an opportunity to
submit claims on these remains.''
Therefore, the Hopi Tribe claims cultural affiliation to the human
remains designated AS-30l and hereby requests the support of the Pueblo
of Zuni to jointly claims these remains for repatriation and reburial
on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
We have long reiterated our dissatisfaction with the burial vault,
and our request that the State of Utah identify a location where human
remains and their associated funerary objects in the custody of the
State of Utah can be reburied and protected in perpetuity. We have
explained that the Hopi Tribe culturally believes Ancient Human Remains
of migrating Ancient Ancestral Puebloan People should be reburied as
close as possible to the locations from which they were removed.
Therefore, in the enclosed letter dated June 12, 2017, and pursuant
to our enclosed April 17, 2017 intent to repatriate letter, with the
Bureau of Land Management and Bears Ears National Monument Commission,
the Hopi Tribe claimed human remains and any associated funerary
objects designated AS-182, AS-183, AS-236, AS-246, AS-248, AS-249, AS-
250, and AS-303 on behalf of the modern Pueblo groups and the Bears
Ears National Monument Commission, for repatriation and reburial on
Bears Ears National Monument.
In addition, we requested to be provided with a complete inventory
of all the other Ancestral Puebloan remains in the burial vault at
Emigration Canyon, and stated our intent to claim all these Ancestral
Pueblo remains from southeastern Utah on behalf of the modern Pueblo
groups and the Bears Ears National Monument Commission, for
repatriation and reburial on Bears Ears National Monument.
We appreciate you prompt assistance in addressing our requests for
repatriation. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact Terry Morgart at the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office
at 928-734-3619 or [email protected]. Thank you again for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director,
Hopi Cultural Preservation Office
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir. Now I am going to call to the
witness stand, with great pleasure, the Honorable Russell
Begaye, who is President of the Navajo Nation. President, I
appreciate the last time we had a chance to talk, and we are
very honored to have the President of the Navajo Nation joining
us here from Window Rock, Arizona.
So, President, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSSELL BEGAYE, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION,
WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
Mr. Begaye. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Members of
the Committee. My name is Russell Begaye. I am the President of
the Navajo Nation, and I am also accompanied by Davis Filfred,
who is the elected council delegate for a majority of the Utah
chapters.
One hundred and fifty years ago, Navajo Nation leaders sat
with Federal officials at Fort Sumner, New Mexico, and signed a
treaty with the U.S. Government that ended our exile and
confinement of the Long Walk period. Some of our people,
however, never went on the Long Walk, and instead took refuge
at Bears Ears. These people included some of my ancestors. I
acknowledge that I have learned much about Bears Ears since
2015. Like many Navajos, I am proud of my connection with Bears
Ears, and I want the landscape, the burial sites, the cultural
patrimony preserved for future generations.
That is why I am here today before Congress, 150 years
after our people signed a treaty with the Federal Government. I
am here because 150 years later we must continue to fight to
honor our treaty, our landscape, and our cultural patrimony for
future generations. Thank you for holding this hearing on H.R.
4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act.
We stand united. The Navajo Nation stands united with other
tribes at the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition in opposition
to this bill. The Navajo Nation was never consulted on H.R.
4532. Nevertheless, the bill uses our language in its title. In
addition to providing a misleading bill name to suggest that
the Navajo Nation supports the bill, H.R. 4532 also
misleadingly states that its purpose is to create the first
tribally managed national monument.
In fact, the monument created by the bill would be managed
by appointees of President Trump, made in consultation with the
Utah congressional delegation, and the management council will
be composed of only a fraction of tribal members. No tribe
would have an input on the members appointed to the management
council. The tribal management in this bill is tribal in name
only.
In the Antiquities Act, I am the one that selected, with
approval of the Navajo Nation Council, the person that sits
today on the Commission. I will not have that opportunity in
this bill. The Navajo Nation Council unanimously adopted the
resolution formally opposing H.R. 4532 for several reasons,
including that.
The bill was created over the five tribes' clear and united
position to protect the original monument designation. The bill
stifles the tribal voice in monument management, and the bill
eliminates protection for our cultural patrimony, which has
already been under attack. We want to preserve our cultural
patrimony for future generations.
It is important to note that the original monument
designation was a compromise between inter-tribal proposal and
the Utah Public Lands Initiative proposal. The Utah delegation
and county commissioners received most of what they sought in
their advocacy for the PLI. The final map for the monument
reflects almost exactly the map the Utah delegation proposed in
the PLI. Why Utah and county officials now disclaim any
ownership of the original monument design is mystifying.
I attended this bill's first hearing and there are some
statements that I am going to set straight.
First, one non-Navajo individual stated that the Navajo
Nation was not consulted prior to the original proclamation.
This is false. The Navajo Nation was consulted. I, as
President, was consulted. The Navajo Nation Council unanimously
supports the original monument.
Also, at the last hearing, an individual stated that the
original designation was pushed by special interests from
outside the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Tribes, our Indian
tribes, and was therefore not an initiative of the Navajo
people. This is not the case. The Navajo leadership and our
grassroots community fully supported and advocated for the
original designation.
The only special interests that concern me are those of
uranium mining interests.
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Committee members.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Begaye follows:]
Prepared Statement of President Russell Begaye of the Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation appreciates the courtesy of the Committee members
and staff in providing Navajo leadership and the leadership of the
other tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (the
``Coalition'') the opportunity to speak on H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa
National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act. We stand
united with the other tribes of the Coalition on the subject of this
hearing.
The Navajo Nation was never consulted on H.R. 4532, but the bill
nevertheless uses the Navajo language in its title. In addition to
providing a misleading bill name to suggest that the Navajo Nation
supports the bill, H.R. 4532 also misleadingly states that its purpose
is to ``create the first tribally-managed national monument.'' In fact,
the miniature monuments created by the bill would be managed by
appointees of President Trump made in consultation with the Utah
congressional delegation, and would be composed of only a fraction of
tribal members. Incredibly, no tribe would have any input on the tribal
members appointed to the management councils and those individuals
would not be required to be elected or appointed representatives of the
five tribes' governments. In essence, this bill's ``tribal-management''
is tribal in name only.
For years, our nation, along with the other Coalition tribes,
advocated strongly for the protection of the Bears Ears region and its
unmatched cultural and archaeological resources. The original monument
the tribes advocated for that was designated by President Obama (the
``Original Monument'') accomplished much of what we sought. It was
therefore very disappointing to see and hear the representations made
at the previous hearing without being provided the chance to address
them directly to the Committee. So again, thank you for this
opportunity.
The Navajo Nation opposes H.R. 4532. On January 18, the
Naabik'iyati' Committee (the Navajo Nation Council committee of the
whole) unanimously passed Legislation No. 0015-18, ``An Action Relating
to Resources and Development Committee and Naabik'iyati' Committee
Opposing H.R. 4532 Titled `Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek
National Monument Act'.'' (Attached as Exhibit A). Legislation No.
0015-18 formally sets forth the Nation's official policy position in
opposition to H.R. 4532. The legislation specifically objects to H.R.
4532 for six reasons:
1. The bill would codify President Trump's illegal attempt to revoke
and replace the original Bears Ears National Monument;
2. The reduction in size of the monuments by over 1.1 million acres
will leave unprotected countless cultural, natural, and
sacred objects;
3. The composition of the proposed two management councils may
create difficulty in monument management;
4. The role of the state of Utah in the monument management will
eliminate meaningful government-to-government relations
between the Federal Government and the Navajo Nation
facilitated previously by the current collaborative
management relationship between the Bears Ears Commission
and the Federal agencies facilitated by the original
proclamation;
5. The bill divides the five tribes by not including members of each
nation in the management councils and by naming the Shash
Jaa monument in only one tribal language;
6. The bill includes a Federal-state land exchange provision that
could affect tribal reservation lands and only allows for
tribal consultation as an avenue for objection to land
exchanges.
the navajo nation's interest in the bears ears region
The Bears Ears region holds special cultural and historical
significance for the Navajo people. We believe that the towering spires
in the Valley of the Gods are ancient Navajo warriors frozen in stone,
and that the Bears Ears peaks are the top of the dismembered head of a
bear that stands guard to culturally important Changing Bear Woman.
Many traditional Navajo ceremonies, practiced since time immemorial,
continue to take place in the Bears Ears region protected in President
Obama's Monument. These ceremonies draw on the plants, soils, and other
items that can be harvested only from the area. For example, certain
soils from the region possess special protection and empowering
qualities when harvested and administered in the proper way. The Bears
Ears landscape also has seminal importance in Navajo songs, prayers,
and healing ceremonies that have unique and close ties to the Bears
Ears region, its flora and fauna, and its historical and spiritual
qualities, including the Hozhooji (Blessingway), which seeks to restore
and revitalize hozho (harmony, beauty, and balance) for the individual
for whom the ceremony is performed.
In addition to its current spiritual significance, Bears Ears has
great historical significance to the Navajo people. For example, the
White Canyon region, known as ``Nahoniti'ino'' (hiding place) to the
Navajo people, is revered because it was a place of refuge in the
summer of 1864, when Colonel Kit Carson marched over 9,000 Navajos at
gunpoint 350 miles to Fort Sumner in east central New Mexico as part of
his scorched earth campaign against the Navajo. Hundreds of Navajos
died of hunger, exhaustion, or abuse along the journey. Those who
survived were held as prisoners of war at Bosque Redondo until 1868
when Navajo leaders negotiated the release and return of their people
to their homelands pursuant to a treaty. Many Navajos evaded removal
and conquest by hiding in the Bears Ears region.
Bears Ears is also home to important figures in Navajo history,
including Chief Manuelito, (born in the Headwaters Region of Bears
Ears, north of Cedar Mesa) who was a key figure in the resistance
against the Long Walk and signatory to the Treaty of 1868. Many
Navajos, including myself, are also proud to be descended of Navajo
bands who eluded capture from the U.S. army by hiding in the canyons of
the Original Monument.
Navajo people continue to camp in the area and continue to hunt for
wild game--including elk, mule deer, wild turkeys, and rabbits--as they
have done since time immemorial. Other Navajo people access the lands
to forage for native plants such as pinon nuts, wild potatoes, wild
onions, spinach, turnips, and sumac berries. Navajo people also
continue to gather firewood, grasses for traditional basket-weaving,
and logs for traditional structures. Navajo medicine people also
harvest soils and medicinal plants such as sage, juniper and mountain
tobacco, all of which are important in numerous Navajo ceremonial
practices. These uses create a connected, living landscape. The many
uses of the Bears Ears region support the traditional Navajo way of
life, not only for those that came before us, but also for Navajos
today while we strive to protect the land for our future generations.
We know the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Zuni Tribe, and the
Ute Indian Tribe similarly revere the Bears Ears. We have fought
together to protect this landscape because within it lives our peoples'
histories and our futures.
The original President Obama designation of the Bears Ears region
as a National Monument reflected the many hours our five nations spent
working with executive branch staff to explain the significance and
extent of tribal resources in the Bears Ears region. The Original
Monument assured us that many of our cultural and historic sites and
objects would finally receive proper protection. While the monument
boundaries were not as large as we had advocated for, the Bears Ears
landscape remained largely intact despite the compromise the Obama
administration made between what we sought and what the Utah delegation
sought in the failed Public Lands Initiative (``PLI''). Indeed, the
Utah delegation and the San Juan County Commissioners received most of
what they sought in their advocacy for the PLI as can be seen in the
final map for the Monument, which reflects almost exactly the map the
Utah delegation proposed in the PLI (maps attached as Exhibit B). Why
Utah and County officials now disclaim any ownership of the Original
Monument design is mystifying.
We were also encouraged that the Navajo Nation and the other
Coalition tribes would obtain a meaningful role in managing the
Original Monument, thus restoring our connection to those lands. We
were extremely disappointed when Secretary Zinke provided his lop-sided
inquiry into the Monument (granting unfettered access to the Utah
delegation and County officials, and providing little over an hour to
the tribes, in sharp contrast to a 4-day excursion the Secretary had
with the San Juan County Commissioners). We were even more disappointed
when President Trump ignored our requests to meet with him regarding
Bears Ears to explain its significance to the Navajo people, and
barreled forward with a proclamation to shrink Bears Ears National
Monument to an appalling 15 percent of its original size--all while
being aware that the Navajo Nation opposed any reduction in the size of
the Monument. This was an act of great disrespect to the importance of
the Bears Ears region to the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people.
h.r. 4532
The bill being considered today, H.R. 4532, is a threat to the
Bears Ears landscape equivalent to President Trump's proclamation. This
is not a bill designed to help protect the lands for the tribes; it is
a bill that provides near-exclusive control of these Federal lands in
the state and local counties' hands and gives only lip service to
tribal interests. This bill appears to be an opportunity for the state
to control natural resources on Federal lands rather than a sincere
effort to include tribes in land management. Indeed, it was a bill
developed with no consultation from our tribal governments, yet, it is
being touted as providing tribal co-management.
During the first hearing on H.R. 4532 and while Chairman Bishop was
speaking, several images were put up on the screen to suggest tribes
were consulted during the drafting of the bill. One of the images was a
picture of former Representative Jason Chaffetz with Navajo Nation
President Russell Begaye and Vice President Jonathan Nez. This picture
was not taken during any consultation or meeting on H.R. 4532, and
Navajo Nation leadership was not asked to provide any input on the bill
prior to its introduction. Representative Curtis, the sponsor for H.R.
4532, was not even in office when the picture of Representative
Chaffetz and the Navajo leadership was taken.
Also during the first hearing on this bill, two other
misrepresentations were raised that must be refuted. First, one non-
Navajo individual stated unilaterally that the Navajo Nation was not
consulted prior to the original proclamation. This is false. The Navajo
Nation was consulted, I was consulted, and our Navajo Nation Council
unanimously supported the Original Monument designation even prior to
the issuance of the original proclamation. In fact, the Navajo Nation,
along with the other four tribes advocated for an even larger monument
designation prior to designation.
Second, that individual stated that the original designation was
pushed by ``special interests'' and was therefore not an initiative of
the Navajo people. Again, this is not the case. The Navajo Nation
elected leadership and our grassroots community fully supported and
advocated for the original designation. Attached to this testimony are
resolutions in support of the Original Monument from the Navajo Nation
Council, the Naabik'iyati' Committee, and the Navajo Utah Commission
(Exhibit C). The Original Monument designation was supported by the
Navajo Nation and our Utah chapters.
Broadly, H.R. 4532 retains the same failing as the Trump
proclamation: it does not protect the Bears Ears landscape in a way
that is meaningful and lasting, and it leaves the landscape as a
disconnected web of management parcels. For example, the Original
Monument designation protected the Valley of the Gods area from
extractive development--H.R. 4532 does not for the period between the
Trump Proclamation and passage of the bill. H.R. 4532 allows for
extensive uses and development of land between the small, protected
areas, greatly increasing the risk to cultural sites, traditional use
areas, and, more generally, a healthy Bears Ears ecosystem, from the
activities that may occur between these areas. It is no defense that
some of these lands that fall outside of the protections of H.R. 4532
may remain in protected status because these protections are limited in
area and in scope. Just as it was critical to protect the greater
Yellowstone area to retain the character of that landscape--not just
the individual geysers or hot springs--the Bears Ears region should be
protected as a whole landscape or we risk losing the character and
spiritual significance of it.
Further, the legislation gives only passive attention to the
interests of the Navajo Nation and the other Coalition tribes in
monument management. The Original Proclamation established the Bears
Ears Commission, a group made up of representatives from and chosen by
the five tribes, charged with assisting directly the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture with management recommendations for the
monument. But rather than utilize the Bears Ears Commission's expertise
in a similar capacity, H.R. 4532 would subordinate the Bears Ears
Commission input below new management councils chosen without any
tribal government input. These councils would be made up of individuals
appointed by the President, including one Federal agency official, two
members of the San Juan County Commission of Utah, and hand-picked
tribal members (not tribal officials). The four tribal representatives
on the Shash Jaa Tribal Management Council would be limited to only two
tribes, not the five represented on the Commission, and would make up
just over half of the Council. The one tribal representative on the
Indian Creek Management Council would not have to be from any of the
five tribes represented on the Commission, and would be only \1/5\ of
the Indian Creek Management Council. Importantly, the tribes would not
have a say in who was appointed to the management councils to speak on
behalf of the tribes. To call these Councils ``tribal,'' and the
monuments they would manage ``the first tribally managed national
monuments,'' is an affront to tribal sovereignty and an insult to the
intelligence of anyone who has read the bill. The Navajo Nation hoped
that modern Federal Indian policy would have rejected, not endorsed,
such practices.
To be very clear, H.R. 4532 is not a tribal co-management bill
because none of the tribes with cultural and historic ties to the Bear
Ears region support the bill nor is there a mechanism for their
participation in the monuments' management councils. The management
structure of this bill buries the input of the Bears Ears Commission--
the true voices of the five tribes, chosen by the five tribes--under a
monument management council likely chosen to be hostile to the
Commission's interests. The original Bears Ears framework honored
tribal sovereignty by providing the Commission direct government-to-
government communication with the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture, the tribal trustees, to effectuate monument management.
Here, H.R. 4532 would charge not cabinet-level government officials
with this important duty, but hand-selected county commissioners, non-
specific Federal officials, and non-specific individual tribal
citizens. This does not reflect a true commitment to tribal sovereignty
and it concerns the Navajo Nation that this Congress is willing to even
consider an abdication of the trust relationship in this bill to a
primarily non-tribal and non-Federal council.
Although H.R. 4532 relies on the original Obama Proclamation to
provide important consultation rights to tribes--such as ``regularly
and meaningfully engaging'' with the Bears Ears Commission, in
``carefully and fully'' considering the Commission's expertise, and
soliciting information and proposals from tribes ``to integrate Native
American traditional and historical knowledge and special expertise
into the management plan''--implementation of the tribes'
recommendations relies on the discretion of the monument management
council appointed by the President in coordination with the Utah
congressional delegation, both fierce opponents of the monument's
designation.
conclusion
The Navajo Nation respectfully opposes H.R. 4532 because it fails
to honor the five tribes that worked to establish the Bears Ears
National Monument. Additionally, the bill fails to reflect a
fundamental understanding of tribal sovereignty and instead reflects a
disregard for the cultural, historical, and religious patrimony we seek
to protect in the Bears Ears region.
*****
EXHIBIT A--2018 NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NABIJA-05-18
RESOLUTION OF THE NAABIK'IYATI' STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE
23RD NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL--Fourth Year, 2018
AN ACTION
RELATING TO RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND NAABIK'IYATI'
COMMITTEE OPPOSING H.R. 4532 TITLED ``SHASH JAA NATIONAL MONUMENT AND
INDIAN CREEK NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT''
WHEREAS:
A. The Navajo Nation established the Resources and Development
Committee (``RDC'') as a Navajo Nation Council standing
committee and as such empowered RDC with oversight of land,
environmental protection and cultural resources and
authority to review and recommend resolutions to the
Naabik'iyati' Committee and Navajo Nation Council to
accomplish or impact the Committee purpose. See 2 N.N.C.
Sec. Sec. 164(A)(9), 500(C), 501(B)(4)(a) (2015); See also
CO-45-12.
B. The Navajo Nation established the Naabik'iyati' Committee as a
Navajo Nation Council standing committee and as such
empowered Naabik'iyati' Committee to coordinate with all
committees, Chapters, branches and entities concerned with
all Navajo appearances and testimony before Congressional
committees, and departments of the United States
government. See 2 N.N.C. Sec. Sec. 164(A)(9), 700(A),
701(A)(8) (2015); See also CO-45-12.
C. The Navajo Nation has a government-to-government relationship
with the United States of America, Treaty of 1868, Aug. 12,
1868, 15 Stat. 667.
D. In Proclamation 9558 of December 28, 2016, President Barack
Obama exercised his authority under section 320301 of Title
54, United States Code (the Antiquities Act), and
established the Bear Ears National Monument located in the
state of Utah. The Proclamation reserved approximately 1.35
million acres of federal land to be protected and managed
by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management and Department of Agriculture's United States
Forest Service. The Proclamation also acknowledged the
centuries of habitation of the area by indigenous peoples,
the protection it provided to Navajo people during the Long
Walk to Fort Sumner, and the profound sacredness of the
land encompassing the Bears Ears National Monument to the
Navajo Nation and other surrounding Native American tribes.
In addition to the historical and cultural importance of
the area, the Proclamation also established the Bears Ears
National Monument for the protection of including but not
limited to, various vegetation, geology, topography and
ecology found within. The Proclamation also established the
Bears Ear Commission, comprised of tribal leaders, to
provide guidance and recommendation in the development and
implementation of the Monument's management plans. See
Proclamation No. 9558, 82 Fed. Reg. 3, 1139 (Jan. 5, 2017)
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
E. In Proclamation 9681 of December 4, 2017, President Donald Trump
unlawfully attempted to revoke the Bears Ears National
Monument established in Proclamation 9558 and attempted to
create two new smaller monuments at Indian Creek and Shash
Jaa that combined equal only 15 percent of the original
1.35 million-acre landbase of the Bears Ears National
Monument. See Proclamation No. 9681, 82 Fed. Reg. 235,
58081 (Dec. 8, 2017) attached hereto as Exhibit B.
F. On December 4, 2017, H.R. 4532 titled ``Shash Jaa National
Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act'' was
introduced to the House of Representatives. H.R. 4532 seeks
to void and nullify Presidential Proclamation 9558 by
President Barack Obama. See H.R. 4532, 115th Cong. (2017)
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
G. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition is comprised of various
Indian tribes including the Navajo Nation, represented by
The Honorable Davis Filfred, The Hopi Tribe, The Ute Indian
Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Zuni Tribe.
H. The Navajo Nation recognizes that the area known as Bears Ears
National Monument is of great significance to other Indian
tribes such as the Hopi, Zuni, and Ute.
I. The Navajo Nation has historical, cultural, and economic
connections to the area known as the Bears Ears National
Monument that predate Utah statehood in 1896. Association
with the Bears Ears area by the Navajo people is evidenced
by oral histories, ruins, and the continued utilization of
the resources located within the vicinity of Bears Ears.
J. The Navajo Nation opposes H.R. 4532 for the following reasons:
1. The Act will codify the unlawful actions set forth in
Presidential Proclamation 9681 and thereby reduce the landbase
of the Bears Ears National Monument by more than 1,121,000
acres as established by President Barack Obama in Presidential
Proclamation 9558 to approximately 142,337 acres for the
``Shash Jaa National Monument'' and approximately 86,447 acres
for the ``Indian Creek National Monument'';
2. The reduction of the Bears Ears National Monument will
leave countless cultural, natural, and sacred objects
unprotected;
3. The Act will create a management council composed of
both proponents and opponents of the Bears Ears National
Monument thereby creating potential imbalance and gridlock to
any successful coordination of management of the national
monument;
4. The Act will eliminate meaningful government-to-
government relations between tribes and the federal government
facilitated by the Bears Ears Commission by imposing the State
of Utah as a significant barrier between the two;
5. The Act will impose a division between affected tribes
as evidenced in the imbalance of tribal representation on
management boards and the use of one indigenous language over
the others in the naming of the national monument;
6. The Act includes a land exchange provision that has the
potential to affect tribal reservation lands and only allows
for tribal consultation as an avenue for objection to land
exchanges between the federal government and the State of Utah.
See The Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act: Hearing on H.R. 4532 Before the U.S. House of
Representatives Comm. on Natural Resources, 115th Cong. (2018)
(Testimony of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition) attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
A. The Navajo Nation hereby opposes H.R. 4532 titled ``Shash Jaa
National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act''
because H.R. 4532 seeks to congressionally nullify
Presidential Proclamation 9558 and reduce the landbase of
the Bears Ears National Monument.
B. The Navajo Nation hereby authorizes the President of the Navajo
Nation, and the Navajo Nation Washington Office, and their
designees, to advocate the Navajo Nation's opposition to
H.R. 4532 titled ``Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian
Creek National Monument Act'' and to advocate for
acknowledgment of the lawful designation of the full 1.35
million acre-monument established in Presidential
Proclamation 9558, as well as swift implementation of the
collaborative management approach described therein.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly considered by
the Naabik'iyati' Committee of the 23rd Navajo Nation Council at a duly
called meeting in Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona), at which a
quorum was present and that the same was passed by a vote of 12 in
Favor and 00 Opposed, on this 18th day of January, 2018.
LoRenzo C. Bates, Chairperson
Naabik'iyati' Committee
Motion: Honorable Leonard H. Pete
Second: Honorable Jonathan Perry
Chairperson Bates not voting
*****
EXHIBIT B
Bears Ears National Monument and other proposals for
protecting the Bears Ears area
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EXHIBIT C
NABIMA-13-15
RESOLUTION OF THE NAABIK'IYATI' COMMITTEE OF THE
NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
23rd Navajo Nation Council--First Year 2015
AN ACTION
RELATING TO THE RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE
NAABIK'IYATI' COMMITTEE; SUPPORTING THE UTAH DINE BIKEYAH CONSERVATION
PROPOSAL FOR THE FEDERAL DESIGNATION OF BEAR'S EARS NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA/NATIONAL MONUMENT IN SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH, TO
PROTECT NATIVE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS ON FEDERAL LANDS FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS
WHEREAS:
1. The Navajo Nation Council is the governing body of the Navajo
Nation. 2 N.N.C. Sec. 102(A). All powers not delegated are
reserved to the Navajo Nation Council. 2 N.N.C.
Sec. 102(B). The Navajo Nation Council shall supervise all
powers delegated. 2 N.N.C. Sec. 102(C).
2. The Naabik'iyati' Committee is one of five standing committees
of the Navajo Nation Council and is comprised of all
twenty-four members of the Navajo Nation Council. The
Committee is authorized to assist and coordinate all
requests for information, appearances and testimony
relating to proposed county, state and federal legislation
impacting the Navajo Nation. 2 N.N.C. Sec. Sec. 180 and
701(A)(6).
3. The Navajo Nation includes communities in San Juan County,
Utah; these communities depend on federal lands and
resources within San Juan County, Utah; a copy of a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Utah Dine Bikeyah,
A Utah Non-Profit Corporation and the Navajo Nation
Division of Natural Resources is attached as Exhibit B; and
4. The Navajo Nation members occupy a special status as both U.S.
citizens and members of the Navajo Nation whose ancestral
lands encompass all of San Juan County; and
5. Bear's Ears area within San Juan County, Utah, is part of the
proposed National Conservation Area/National Monument to
consist of 1.9 million acres and would include additional
Wilderness units within and outside of its boundary. This
region is the ancestral home of many Southwestern Native
American Tribes, including the Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Acoma,
Zia, and Jemez Pueblos along with the Ute Mountain,
Southern, and Uintah Ouray Utes, the San Juan, Kaibab, and
Utah Paiute Tribes and the Jicarilla Apache Tribes which
assert their affiliation, occupation and enduring use of
these lands. The Bear's Ears region is also the birthplace
of Navajo Headman Manuelito; and
6. The proposed National Conservation Area/National Monument is
bordered on the west by the Colorado River and on the south
by the San Juan River and the Navajo Nation; the proposed
National Conservation Area/National Monument is
characterized by prodigious topographic diversity and
striking landforms containing intricately rich ecological
systems; the Navajo and other Tribes depend upon the land
within the proposed National Conservation Area/National
Monument to sustain their traditional livelihoods and
cultural practices. Cedar Mesa, the proposed National
Conservation Area/National Monument's centerpiece, offers
sprawling vistas of Comb and Butler Washes, and extends
beyond to Moki, Red, Dark, Grand Gulch, and White canyons
that each support verdant ribbons of riparian habitat.
Desert bighorn sheep grace the lower desert lands while the
11,000 foot Abajo Mountains host forests of ponderosa pine,
spruce, fir and aspen, providing a home to mule deer, elk,
black bear and mountain lion, sacred icons of the mesa's
original peoples. Paramount for the Navajo, the majority of
the regions inhabitants, is the proper management of the
proposed National Conservation Area/National Monument's
native plants and wildlife that are food, shelter and
medicine and its cultural sites that are central to their
spiritual practices; and
7. This region contains unsurpassed cultural and paleontological
resources; the proposed National Conservation Area/National
Monument is world renowned for the integrity and abundance
of its archaeological resources. Six cultural special
management areas are within the proposed National
Conservation Area/National Monument boundaries: Alkali
Ridge National Historic Landmark, the Hole-in-the-Rock
Historical Trail and the Grand Gulch, Big Westwater Ruin,
Dance Hall Rock, Sand Island Petroglyph Panel, the
Newspaper Rock Petroglyph Panel, and the Butler Wash
Archaeological District National Register site. Also
occurring in the proposed National Conservation Area/
National Monument's 19 distinct geologic units are
scientifically significant vertebrate and non-vertebrate
paleontological resources that are particularly abundant in
the Cedar Mountain, Burro Canyon, Morrison, and Chinle
Formations; and
8. The proposed National Conservation Area/National Monument has
been inhabited for more than 12,000 years by multiple
indigenous cultures, which crossed, and built civilizations
on these lands. At the Lime Ridge Clovis site is evidence
of Paleoindian occupation and the archaeological record
indicates widespread use between 6000 B.C. and A.D. 100 by
Archaic Peoples. Possessing numerous Archaic Period sites
of varying size and complexity are Cedar Mesa, Elk Ridge,
and Montezuma Canyon. While other notable sites include
Alkali Ridge, Cowboy Cave, Old Man Cave, and Dust Devil
Cave. The heaviest occupation of the proposed National
Conservation Area/National Monument lands was perhaps by
the Formative Period Peoples (AD 100-AD 1300) who left very
large numbers of archaeological sites ranging from small
lithic scatters to large highly complex village sites; and
9. The proposed National Conservation Area/National Monument
includes Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas
and lands with Wilderness Characteristics and U.S. Forest
Service Roadless Areas. Vast, remote desert mesas cut by
sheer walled serpentine canyons provide unparalleled
solitude and scenic quality that is comparable to or
exceeds those found in nearby national parks and monuments,
such as Canyonlands, Arches, Grand Staircase, Natural
Bridges, Hovenweep, and Mesa Verde; and
10. Priority Management values to protect within the proposed
National Conservation Area/National Monument are:
archaeological, wildlife, natural and scenic resources. An
essential aspect of the proposed National Conservation
Area/National Monument's management is to better protect
these resources and to ensure their ongoing and sustainable
use; and
11. Native Americans have unique and important cultural and
historical ties to the land, its wildlife and other natural
resources; and the Navajo people have traditional ties to
this particular landscape for hunting, medicinal herbs,
food gathering, firewood gathering and the grazing of
livestock; and
12. Native Americans have shown quality and excellence in managing
lands and natural resources to protect the cultural
integrity of the homeland of Native peoples; and
13. These areas are under constant threat of cultural vandalism,
looting of Native cultural sites, indiscriminate off road
vehicle use that damages areas sacred to Native peoples,
energy development footprints that negatively impact lands
of historic and cultural importance, and general
degradation of wildlife and plant habitats of importance to
Native traditional practices; and
14. To prevent this rapid destruction of lands in the San Juan
County region important to Native peoples, formal
protection as a national conservation area or national
monument is required; and
15. Formal protection of the area as a National Conservation Area/
National Monument will provide important consistency and
quality to management of these lands, and define principles
of management that will positively affect Native values on
these lands in the following ways:
A. Protection will be permanent, part of a national system
of protected lands that carry strong and clear legal
definitions of the primacy of conservation of cultural,
historical and ecological values that define Native connections
to these lands.
B. Protection as a national conservation area or national
monument creates important opportunities for Native American
co-management of these resources and increased funding for
protection with an emphasis on conservation and preservation of
the region's cultural and natural resources.
C. Protection should be at the largest landscape level
possible, providing connectivity of wildlife and plant
habitats, ecological integrity of the region and be
comprehensive in its protection of Native sacred sites, which
cannot be considered out of the context of the larger
landscape.
D. Protection of the region as a national conservation area
or national monument will be a top priority for concerned
federal agencies, with public involvement and prioritization of
staffing, resources and cooperation with Native peoples.
16. It is in the best interest of the Navajo Nation to support the
federal designation of 1.9 million acres in San Juan
County, Utah, as the Bear's Ears National Conservation
Area/National Monument. Resolutions in support of the
federal designation are attached as Exhibit A.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL'S
NAABIK'IYATI' COMMITTEE EXTENDS ITS SUPPORT FOR:
1. The designation of the 1.9 million acres in San Juan County,
Utah, as the Bear's Ears National Conservation Area/
National Monument.
2. The designation of identified roadless areas as wilderness under
the Wilderness Act.
3. Establishment of Collaborative Management Agreement(s) between
the Navajo Nation, other Tribes and the federal government
to improve management and elevate the Native American voice
in the long-term sustainable management of the region.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly considered by
the Naabik'iyati' Committee of the 23rd Navajo Nation Council at a duly
called meeting in Window Rock, Navajo Nation (Arizona), at which a
quorum was present and that the same was passed by a vote of 15 in
favor, 0 oppose, 0 Abstain this 12th day of March, 2015.
Honorable LoRenzo C. Bates, Chairperson
Naabik'iyati' Committee
Motion: Honorable Alton Joe Shepherd
Second: Honorable Jonathan Nez
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Now I am going to
call the Honorable Sean Reyes, who is the Attorney General from
the state of Utah. Thank you.
If you have been here before you understand the process.
You are recognized for 5 minutes. Go for it.
Mr. Reyes. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SEAN D. REYES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Hanabusa, members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to
participate in this hearing. And an additional aloha to the
Ranking Member from Hawaii. My mom was born and raised in North
Kohala, and I myself spent much time growing up working the
land of my ancestors on the Big Island.
In Native Hawaii, our lands are known as aina, and the
relationship between the kanaka maoli, or Native people, and
the aina, is sacred.
In Utah, we also understand that lands are sacred to many
of the indigenous people who predated statehood. And whether it
is the sacred nature of lands, language, or children, we are at
various times, as a state and local communities, in locked step
with the Native American tribes in Utah and their interests.
For example, just yesterday, I spent the morning and
afternoon with my dear friends from the Northwestern Band of
Shoshone for a sacred ceremony regarding land on Bear River.
Council Chairman Darren Parry welcomed me and my team as
family, as they have our governor and lieutenant governor.
Perhaps an even better example of cooperation occurred just
2 weeks ago. Chairmen from every council of tribes in Utah,
along with the State Director of Indian Affairs, met in my
office or joined us by phone to discuss the defense of the
Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, from constitutional
challenges led by other states. Everyone in the room
acknowledged that ICWA was working very well in Utah, due to
cooperation between tribal, state, county, and Federal
interests. As such, I committed to work with the tribes and
their counsel to defeat any attempt to abolish ICWA.
The tribes do not always agree with the state or local
communities. After the announcement of President Trump's
Executive Order regarding Bears Ears, I heard powerful voices
on both sides of the issue from various tribal leaders. And
while I do not speak on behalf of all people for Utah, I think
my background and current office qualify me to testify in
support of H.R. 4532.
The Subcommittee may know from my written statement that I
think we can draw some analogies between the debate over the
new monuments in Utah and the Superbowl this weekend. Before
discussing these analogies, I want to reiterate that these
lands issues are, without a question, much, much more important
than any football game. But I do think it is a useful metaphor,
and a way of thinking about what is at stake.
First, the Superbowl creates buzz from many voices, but
that buzz dies within hours of the game for nearly everyone,
except for the teams themselves and their diehard fans. In my
view, the debate over the monuments follows a similar pattern.
I view the tribal, Federal, state, and local governments as the
teams who must manage these priceless lands for the public's
benefit. The diehard fans of those teams are San Juan County
residents, including many tribal members. These are people who,
for generations, have loved, protected, and used these lands
for gathering firewood or medicinal herbs, hunting and fishing,
ranching or grazing, performing sacred ceremonies, and visiting
ancestors' graves.
H.R. 4532 uniquely brings the governments and residents
together. It creates councils that give all the teams a voice
in how these monuments will be managed, including, for the
first time, the vitally important voice of the tribes. This
innovation allows the teams to provide custom-tailored
responses to the fans' needs, delivers on promises of shared
management authority that the prior administration made but did
not keep, because such authority must come from Congress. And
while it will help governments and residents make the best use
of the Antiquities Act's limited power to protect objects, the
definite, concrete things, rather than stretching it beyond its
text to purport to protect things as ethereal as star-filled
nights and natural quiet.
Second, rules are rules, both for football and for
monuments. Some of those rules have caused heartburn for locals
in Utah, such as the way H.R. 4532 continues to ban extracting
minerals from the 1.35 million acres in the Bears Ears
designation. But, that is the rule, so any assertion that this
bill throws open public land to harmful development is akin to
suggesting the Patriots get five downs to go 10 yards: an
outright falsehood.
Just as important, the bill establishes funding for new law
enforcement officers from local communities, such as for
sheriffs and their deputies, to help protect these lands from
looting and vandalism. This new or renewed model is a
significant improvement over prior Federal enforcement in this
region, which has resulted in serious hardships for many local
residents.
Despite similarities between the Superbowl and monuments,
some important distinctions exist. Above all, in the Superbowl,
one team wins and the other loses. But monuments in San Juan
County can and should be managed under multiple-use principles
that accommodate beneficial uses by all interested parties. In
short, when it comes to these monuments, everyone can win. And
this legislation will ensure that San Juan County does not
become a political football to be repeatedly thrown around by
each succeeding presidential administration.
The residents of the county deserve better. This thoughtful
legislation would give it to them by codifying what we all
want: appropriate monument protections and a cooperative
framework to ensure that those designations are managed
responsibly for the public's benefit.
Thank you for the chance to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of the State of
Utah
Good morning Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and
members of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Thank you for inviting me
to participate in this hearing. I'm pleased to support H.R. 4532,
Congressman Curtis' bill establishing the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek
National Monuments.
As I've considered what to say today, I confess that this past
week, my thoughts--like many Americans'--have occasionally been
interrupted by news and commentary about Super Bowl LII this weekend.
And I became struck by some similarities between the NFL's premier game
and the debate involving monuments in San Juan County. Without
question, the issues we're discussing today are much more important
than a football game, but if the Subcommittee will indulge me, I'd like
to use the upcoming game as a metaphor to highlight three key reasons
why Congress should pass H.R. 4532.
First, the Super Bowl attracts interest and support from many
different people and organizations. But the game's most lasting impacts
fall primarily on two groups: the teams fortunate enough to play in it
and their dedicated fans.
I think this mirrors the debate about national monuments in San
Juan County. As I see it, the ``teams'' are the Federal, Utah, local,
and tribal governments with interests in exercising careful stewardship
over these stunning lands for all the public's benefit. Utahns,
however, have learned that monument designations can make it
significantly harder to achieve that goal. If designated without due
care for state, local, and tribal interests, a monument can eliminate
some of the multiple-use management strategies these governments might
otherwise employ to maximize the public's beneficial uses of these
lands.
The ``fans,'' in turn, are San Juan County residents--people for
whom the teams work year after year, and who have loved, worked on, and
protected these lands for generations. These residents depend on access
to and use of these lands for a host of reasons: gathering firewood or
medicinal herbs; hunting and fishing; ranching or grazing; performing
sacred ceremonies; and visiting ancestors' graves, to name just a few.
So while die-hard Patriots and Eagles fans may have consumed every
tidbit about their teams for their emotional or intellectual sustenance
these past few weeks, San Juan County residents use these lands for
literal sustenance.
As a result, they know the land better than anyone else. They have
a vested interest in caring for it more than anyone else. And they are
our best source for making full use of the Antiquities Act's power--to
protect ``objects''--because they know which objects need protecting:
antiquities such as Doll House, Moon House and House on Fire. Indeed,
compared to San Juan County residents, Hollywood and other special
interests are like the corporate executives who will leave Minneapolis
this Sunday. They may momentarily celebrate a victory or rail against a
defeat, but they face no permanent daily consequences from the
monuments' designation. Instead, those daily consequences fall upon the
teams and their fans--the governments and San Juan County residents.
Enter H.R. 4532. This bill establishes something unique in U.S.
history: monument management councils that give all the teams a voice
in land management--including, for the first time, the vitally
important voice of the tribes. This innovation allows the teams to
provide custom-tailored responses to the fans' needs. And it delivers
on shared-management-authority promises that the prior administration
made (but did not keep) because such authority must come from Congress.
Second, despite that unprecedented responsiveness, neither the
Eagles and Patriots nor the teams in San Juan County can participate
willy nilly. Rules are rules. Next Sunday, it's still 10 yards for a
first down and a 5-yard penalty for a false start. And in San Juan
County, rules will still apply to their public lands. Some of those
rules--such as the way H.R. 4532 continues to ban extracting minerals
from the 1.35 million acres in the Bears Ears designation--have caused
some heartburn in Utah. Any assertion that this bill throws open public
land to harmful development is akin to suggesting the Patriots get five
downs to go 10 yards--an outright falsehood. After all, monuments or
not, these are public lands. They are not private lands. They are not
tribal lands. They will continue to be protected and governed through
processes in which all our teams play a role. Just as important, the
bill establishes funding for new law enforcement officers from local
communities (such as sheriffs and their deputies) to help protect these
lands from looting and vandalism. This new enforcement regime
represents a significant improvement over prior Federal enforcement in
this region, which has resulted in serious hardships for many local
residents.
The third point draws on distinctions between the Super Bowl and
San Juan County monuments to support H.R. 4532. For example, this
Sunday's game is a zero-sum contest; one team must win and the other
must lose. But there is no reason that same mentality must apply to
monuments in San Juan County. Instead, the management councils that
H.R. 4532 establishes should govern these monuments under the same
multiple-use principles applicable to other Federal lands. This will
accommodate beneficial uses by all interested parties. Because H.R.
4532 gives each team an equal management voice in San Juan County,
everyone can win.
Additionally, football fans expect to see the ball repeatedly move
from one end of the field to the other. Long scoring drives and booming
kicks make for an exciting Super Bowl. But they make terrible politics.
My hunch is that the members of this Subcommittee would not approve of
land in your districts becoming a political football to be repeatedly
thrown around by each succeeding presidential administration. The
residents of San Juan County share that same view. They deserve better.
This thoughtful legislation would give it to them by codifying what we
all want: appropriate monument protections and a cooperative framework
to ensure that those appropriate designations are managed responsibly
for the public's benefit.
In closing, Utahns love public lands as much as America loves the
Super Bowl--maybe more. The well-known disagreements that bring us
together today never have been about whether these specific lands
should be protected; they have been about how best to accomplish that
goal. H.R. 4532 is a sensible and responsible answer to that question.
Congress should pass it with all deliberate speed.
Thank you again for the chance to testify. I'm happy to answer any
questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Hanabusa to the Honorable
Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of the State of Utah
Question 1. President Obama's Presidential Proclamation 9558,
established the Bears Ears National Monument in response to calls from
tribal governments to protect the numerous culturally and historically
significant artifacts in the area from widespread looting and
destruction, as well as the still present threat of oil and gas
interests spoiling the land. The same tribal representatives that
worked with President Obama to establish the monument walked away from
conversations with the Utah congressional delegation when they felt
that their input was not given proper consideration. Mr. Reyes, in your
testimony you make two analogies in favor of H.R. 4352 that I would
like clarification on.
First, you state that H.R. 4532 continues to ban extracting
minerals from the original boundaries of the Bears Ears Monument. You
state that this is to maintain consistency with the ``rules''
established under President Obama's original proclamation to establish
the Bears Ears National Monument. Under President Trump's proclamation
to modify the Bears Ears National Monument, however, there are no such
protections from mineral extraction. So, during the time between the
issuance of President Trump's proclamation and the uncertain date in
which this bill might be passed, there is a gap during which mineral
leases could be issued. In addition, your written statement says that
the mineral extraction ban caused ``heartburn'' for some in Utah. How
can the state ensure that the 1.35 million acres of the original Bears
Ears designation won't be subject to such developments?
The second analogy that I would like clarification on is the
comparison of the Bears Ears Monument designation to a ``political
football'' that is subject to change under each new administration.
Typically, national monument designations are not easily or often
adjusted. In fact, President Trump's proclamation is currently being
challenged in court because the Antiquities Act does not expressly
provide the President with the authority to shrink monument
designations, so the monument could even retain its original status.
H.R. 4532 would interfere with these pending legal proceedings. If you
believe that this issue should not be subject to change with each
administration do you also believe that this legislation should
supersede the courts and challenge a presidential proclamation that
took years of planning under the Obama administration?
Answer. The process governing the potential extraction of minerals
in these areas is not exclusively a state one. Although the State's
Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (DOGM) can accept mining permit
applications, the underlying or surrounding lands are still managed
principally by the Federal Government. So, permit holders still need to
work with Federal land managers--the Bureau of Land Management or the
U.S. Forest Service--before attempting to extract resources. That may
explain in part why, as of February 7, DOGM had not received ``a single
permit application for plots in the areas.'' See Joe Deaux, Bears Ears'
mining rush falls flat as no one bothers to show up, Salt Lake Trib.
(Feb. 7, 2018), https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/02/07/
bears-ears-mining-rush-falls-flat-as-no-one-bothers-to-show-up/.
Second, Rep. Hanabusa asked my opinion on whether H.R. 4532
supersedes both President Obama's original proclamation and the pending
court challenges to President Trump's proclamations. In my view, the
Constitution answers this question affirmatively: it gives Congress the
express ``power to dispose and make of all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.'' U.S. Const., art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2. Because that
power resides in the legislative branch, not the executive branch, H.R.
4532 embodies a constitutionally permissible expression of the people's
political will about these lands in Utah.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I am now going to ask Mr.
John Tahsuda to stand, if you would, please.
He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior. He will not be giving an oral
testimony, but will be here for questions if people want to ask
him.
Thank you for being here.
And Casey Hammond, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Land and Mineral Management at the Department of the
Interior is here, and he will be testifying.
Mr. Hammond, you worked on this Committee staff for quite a
while.
Mr. Hammond. That is accurate.
Mr. Bishop. You forced me to do a whole bunch of things I
didn't want to do, as my staffer.
Mr. Hammond. I don't apologize for that.
Mr. Bishop. Tables are reversed now. You are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Hammond. Thank you very much, and thanks for having me
back here. I appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF CASEY HAMMOND, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND
AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Hammond. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member, and members
of the Subcommittee, I am Casey Hammond, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management at the Department
of the Interior. While today's discussion primarily centers on
Bureau of Land Management issues, this legislation has an
important nexus with tribal consultation, engagement, and
sovereignty.
Therefore, accompanying me today, as Chairman Bishop
introduced, is John Tahsuda, who is our excellent principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. We are pleased
to provide views on behalf of the Department on H.R. 4532, the
Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument
Act.
The Department supports the bill and the efforts of the
sponsor, this Committee, and Congress to codify the first
tribally co-managed monument. While the Department believes the
Antiquities Act has been largely successful in protecting
significant public resources, we also acknowledge previous
designations may have extended beyond the original purposes of
the Act.
Acting upon the recommendation of the Secretary, and
carrying the full support of Utah's governor and congressional
delegation, President Trump signed two proclamations on
December 4, 2017, one of which adjusted the boundaries and
management of the Bears Ears National Monument. This bold and
long-awaited action was a fulfillment of the President's
commitment to restore public lands for generations to come,
while correcting past abuses of the Act.
Generally, Congress has plenary authority over Federal land
use decisions, particularly in protection of public lands. That
is why Secretary Zinke specifically recommended to the
President that Congress be asked to ``legislate tribal co-
management authority, and to examine more appropriate land use
designations.''
The Secretary also recommended the President work with
Congress to develop legislative reforms that require a process
with state, local, and tribal governments and communities who
would be most impacted by a monument designation. Such reforms
would prevent abuses in the future.
H.R. 4532 would appropriately protect cultural and
archeological sites, as well as unique geologic features within
the smallest area compatible for the protection of those
resources.
The legislation also includes a mineral withdrawal within
the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument, as
designated by the 2016 proclamation, and each acre remains in
Federal ownership and under Federal management.
A key component of H.R. 4532 is the creation of tribal co-
management of the Shash Jaa Monument. The Shash Jaa Tribal
Management Council would guide specific uses within the
monument, ensuring important tribal cultural traditions can
occur, in addition to recreation, grazing, and other
activities.
H.R. 4532 also reaffirms and re-establishes the Bears Ears
Commission with its same membership and roles, while placing a
critical emphasis on providing recommendations to both the
council and the Shash Jaa Archeological Resources Protection
Unit.
As the President stated on December 4, 2017, ``The
Antiquities Act does not give the Federal Government unlimited
power to lock up millions of acres of land and water, and it is
time we ended this abusive practice. Public lands will once
again be for public use.'' H.R. 4532 is a refreshing step
toward genuine local state and tribal involvement in the
monument designation and management process.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee and
Mr. Curtis to further accomplish the goals of this bill. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify, and we are happy to take
questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammond follows:]
Prepared Statement of Casey Hammond, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Hanabusa, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Casey Hammond, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior
(Department or Interior). Today's discussion primarily centers on
Bureau of Land Management issues; however, the legislation tells an
important message about tribal consultation, engagement, and
sovereignty. Therefore, accompanying me this morning is John Tahsuda,
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the
Department. Together, we are pleased to provide views on behalf of the
Department on H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian
Creek National Monument Act. The Department supports H.R. 4532 and the
efforts of the sponsor, this Committee, and the Congress to codify the
first tribally co-managed monument.
background
Passed in 1906, the Antiquities Act (Act) authorizes the President
to ``declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and
prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest that are situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal
Government to be national monuments.'' The Act states that the
President may reserve parcels of Federal land and designate them as a
monument, but it also expressly states that designations should be
limited to ``the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.'' While the Department
believes the Act has largely been a success story for protecting
significant public resources, we also acknowledge that past
designations may have extended beyond the original purposes of the Act.
In response to strong local concerns about egregious past abuses of
the Act, President Trump signed Executive Order 13792 on April 26,
2017, which tasked the Secretary to conduct a review of all
presidential designations or expansions of designations under the
Antiquities Act since January 1, 1996, that exceeded 100,000 acres, or
any others that were made without coordination and outreach to the
public. The Secretary, in accordance with the Executive Order,
submitted two reports for consideration to the President. The first was
an Interim Report specifically addressing the Bears Ears National
Monument. The Final Report features an assessment of 27 monuments,
which was informed by travel to eight monument sites; dozens of
meetings with stakeholders, ranging from tribal, local, and state
officials to conservation organizations; and the first ever formal
comment period tied to the Antiquities Act.
Acting upon the recommendation of the Secretary and carrying the
full support of Utah's governor and congressional delegation, the
President signed two proclamations on December 4, 2017, one of which
adjusted the boundaries and management of the Bears Ears National
Monument. The proclamation resulted in two units within the national
monument, Shash Jaa and Indian Creek, which encompass key objects such
as Moon House Ruin, Doll House Ruin, and Indian Creek Rock Art. Also
included in the proclamation, and consistent with the protection of
monument objects, is the allowance of increased public access,
restoration of traditional uses, and protection of opportunities for
tribal collection of wood and herbs. This bold action was a fulfillment
of the President's commitment to restoring public lands for generations
to come while addressing public concerns about past designations. The
Secretary applauded the President's leadership, stating, ``The people
of Utah overwhelmingly voiced to us that public land should be
protected not for the special interests, but for the citizens of our
great country who use them, and this is what President Trump is doing
today.''
h.r. 4532, shash jaa national monument and indian creek national
monument act
Generally, Congress has plenary authority over Federal land-use
decisions, particularly to further protect public lands and make other
areas available for economically productive uses. This is why the
Secretary specifically recommended in his report to the President that
Congress be asked to ``legislate tribal co-management authority and to
examine more appropriate land-use designations.'' The Secretary also
advised the President to work with Congress to develop legislative
reforms that require consultation with state, local, and tribal
governments and communities who would be most impacted by a monument
designation. Such reforms would prevent further abuses in the future.
For this reason, the Department supports H.R. 4532, the Shash Jaa
National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act.
The Department believes H.R. 4532 would effectively and
appropriately protect cultural and archeological sites as well as
unique geologic features within the smallest area compatible with the
protection of those resources. The legislation codifies boundaries for
two monument units, Shash Jaa and Indian Creek, based upon the
recommendations provided by the Secretary and reflected in
proclamations signed by the President on December 4, 2017. In addition
to establishing the two units, the legislation includes a mineral
withdrawal within the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument as
designated by Proclamation 9558, which remain in Federal ownership and
under Federal management.
A key component of this legislative proposal is the enabling of
tribal co-management of the Shash Jaa Monument, which the Secretary
specifically identifies in the report submitted to the President.
Congressional sanction of this distinctive and collaborative management
agreement would facilitate the active participation of tribal entities
in the area. Title I of H.R. 4532 establishes the Shash Jaa Tribal
Management Council, which is required to develop a long-term management
plan for the Monument. The Council is expressly able to establish
specific uses within the Monument, ensuring important tribal cultural
traditions and ceremonies can occur on the land in addition to
recreation, grazing, and wildland fire purposes. This includes specific
mention of the management plan including access for sourcing of
traditional plants and other materials for subsistence, ceremonial, and
other uses. The legislation also reaffirms and re-establishes the Bears
Ears Commission with its same membership and roles while placing a
critical emphasis on providing recommendations to both the Shash Jaa
Tribal Management Council and the Shash Jaa Archaeological Resources
Protection Unit.
Title II of H.R. 4532 creates the Indian Creek National Monument
and authorizes the Indian Creek Management Council as the entity to
manage the Monument. As is indicated in the legislation, the Council is
required to consult with state and local entities, the Bears Ears
Commission, affected Indian tribes, and the public. The legislation
also creates the Indian Creek Archaeological Resources Protection Unit,
which ensures the preservation of antiquities, resources, and artifacts
within the boundaries of the Monument.
The Department firmly believes that H.R. 4532 is a positive step
toward greater local, state, and tribal involvement in the monument
designation and management process. We welcome the opportunity to
further engage with the sponsor and the Committee on the legislation,
including the Department's responsibilities and operations within the
scope of the management plan process identified in the legislation.
conclusion
As the President stated on December 4, 2017, ``The Antiquities Act
does not give the Federal Government unlimited power to lock up
millions of acres of land and water, and it's time we ended this
abusive practice. Public lands will once again be for public use.'' The
Department supports H.R. 4532, which seeks to maintain the protections
of America's public lands and unique antiquities while ensuring
consultation with state, local, and tribal governments and communities
who would be most impacted by a monument designation occurs. We would
be pleased to work with the Committee and sponsor to address certain
specific aspects of the legislation to further accomplish its goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We would be pleased
to answer questions at the appropriate time.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Bishop to Mr. Casey Hammond,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior and Mr. John Tahsuda, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Question 1. H.R. 4532 would reinstate the 1.3 million acre
withdrawal established in Presidential Proclamation 9558, effectively
withdrawing the lands removed from National Monument designation. How
are these lands currently being managed with respect to appropriation
and disposal under the public land laws; location, entry, and patent
under the mining laws; and operation of the mineral leasing, mineral
materials, and geothermal leasing law?
Answer. These lands are managed according to the 2008 Monticello
Resource Management Plan, as amended. These lands were reopened to
mineral entry 60 days after the issuance ofProclamation 9681, but are
subject to the decisions and stipulations in the 2008 land use plan.
Question 2. In the hearing on H.R. 4532, concern was expressed that
public lands removed from Monument designation in the Bears Ears area
may restrict Native American access for traditional ceremonies,
gathering of plants, and woodcutting. For these public lands, are there
any restrictions currently in place for Native American ceremonial
access or vegetation gathering?
Answer. No. In fact, the aim of Proclamation 9681 is to restore
access threatened by the 2016 action.
Question 3. It is my understanding that approximately one-third of
the lands removed from Monument designation in the Bears Ears area
already have in place protections associated with Wilderness Study
Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Outside of WSAs and
ACECs, what additional resource protections are in place via
restrictions on mineral extraction, rights-of-way, and cross-country
vehicular travel?
Answer. Many Federal conservation laws, except for the Antiquities
Act, apply to these lands. This includes the National Environmental
Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, the Paleontological Resources Preservation
Act, the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, conservation
sections of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) such as
those pertaining to ACECs and WSAs, and others. Proclamations 9681 and
9682 reference a number of applicable laws that pertain to the released
lands.
According to Proclamation 9681, ``A host of laws enacted after the
Antiquities Act provide specific protection for archaeological,
historic, cultural, paleontological, and plant and animal resources and
give authority to the BLM and USFS to condition permitted activities on
Federal lands, whether within or outside a monument. These laws include
the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-
470mm, National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.,
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d, Endangered
Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., Federal Cave Resources
Protection Act of 1988, 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq., Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-712, National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1600
et seq., Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of
1976, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., and Paleontological Resources
Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa-470aaa-11. Of particular note, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act specifically protects
archaeological resources from looting or other desecration and imposes
criminal penalties for unauthorized excavation, removal, damage,
alteration, or defacement of archaeological resources. Federal land
management agencies can grant a permit authorizing excavation or
removal, but only when undertaken for the purpose of furthering
archaeological knowledge. The Paleontological Resources Preservation
Act contains very similar provisions protecting paleontological
resources. And the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act
protect migratory birds and listed endangered and threatened species
and their habitats.'' Proclamation 9682 contains similar language.
Question 4. As Mr. Hammond's testimony indicated, the Department of
the Interior supports the legislative proposal of actual tribal co-
management of the Shash Jaa and Indian Creek National Monuments, as
opposed to relegating tribes to a more conventional advisory role.
Given its support, what is the Department of the Interior doing to
facilitate actual co-management of these important places by both
tribes and the Federal Government?
Answer. Congress has the authority to ensure tribal co-management
of the Monuments, which is why the Department supports H.R. 4532.
Question 5. What steps has the Department of the Interior taken to
implement updates to the National Monuments, per President Trump's
December 4 Proclamation. What sorts of resources has the Department
provided to the BLM to ensure that the new Monuments meet the intent of
the proclamation?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officially commenced
scoping efforts in January 2018 for the Indian Creek and Shash Jaa
units; the Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits, and Escalante Canyon units;
and Federal lands previously included in the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument that are now excluded from its boundaries. In total,
the BLM is working to produce six land use plans and two Environmental
Impact Statements. In March of 2018, the BLM hosted four public scoping
meetings as part of the land use planning process. The scoping period
closed on April 11, 2018. Currently, the BLM is in the process of
completing the scoping report.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Casey. We will now call to the
witness stand the Honorable Rebecca Benally, who is the Vice
Chair of the San Juan County Commission.
Pleased to have you here again, and you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. REBECCA BENALLY, VICE CHAIR, SAN JUAN
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MONTICELLO, UTAH
Ms. Benally. Good morning. Thank you, Vice Chairman Bishop
and Ranking Members of the Committee. I think you saved the
best for last. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My
name is Rebecca Benally, I am a San Juan County, Utah
Commissioner and a Navajo woman. I appreciate the opportunity
to make my voice and the voice of the community heard.
In our community, public lands are our most valuable
resource. The land is our inheritance, handed down from
generation to generation. We treasure the land, we take care of
the land.
It is stated that the purpose of the Shash Jaa National
Monument shall be to protect, conserve, and enhance the unique
important historic, sacred, cultural, scientific, scenic,
archeological, natural, and educational resources of Shash Jaa
National Monument. I believe that, together, we will accomplish
these goals.
H.R. 4532 creates the first true local-tribal management
council for a national monument. This legislation is only
effective if it truly serves the people, and no group of people
has more to lose or gain than the local tribes. No longer will
our people be shut out of meetings with their interests and not
protected.
H.R. 4532 creates true land protection by creating 10 law
enforcement positions to watch over the land with the funded
legislation.
H.R. 4532 reinforces that no new mineral extractions will
occur, that all Anasazi artifacts, as well as ancestral,
cultural, and sacred sites, have been protected and will
continue to be protected by 15 regulations and wilderness study
areas already in place.
And, most importantly, H.R. 4532 maintains local access. We
use the land for hunting, wood-cutting, gathering medicinal
plants, and for traditional ceremonies. By creating the Shash
Jaa Tribal Management Council, you are giving the Native people
the opportunity to manage the land of their ancestors, while
working to improve public access and protecting all interests.
The only consistent thing in life is change. Our county
continues to develop and grow. The needs of each community
member can be met if we work together. We are all from
different walks of life, but our vision and needs are the same.
By supporting H.R. 4532, you are listening to a group that has
been silenced for too long, and finally allowing us a seat at
the table. We want land that is well managed and accessible to
all people.
It is disheartening for me to hear today in previous
testimonies about degrading with derogatory remarks to
grassroots people who choose to stand up for themselves and for
the local people, the young and old, that they don't mean
anything unless there is a title to your name. As I have been
taught, a title is only a tool to represent your people. You
don't always have to have a title to represent the grassroots
people, so I am very disheartened by those comments to people
that choose to stand up for themselves.
It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for listening to
the local people. Thank you to the Utah delegation for showing
respect to the process, and putting forward a thoughtful and
inclusive bill. I believe all lives matter.
One thing that I want to stress here is that there are 567
tribes here in the United States of America. Every step that we
step is a sacred site. But let's be respectful, and let's have
a balanced approach. Let's think with beauty, harmony, and
hozho, as it is said in Navajo, to all approach there is
balance.
It is true that the environmental groups and the non-
governmental organizations known as NGO had started this
process of locking up the Colorado Plateau. And it was 2010,
2012 that Bears Ears of any sort from the tribes had wanted to
be part of it. Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition was not
developed until around 2015. So, therefore, let's get some
information and facts straight here. It is the local people's
voice that you need to listen to.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benally follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Benally, San Juan County Commissioner and
Member of the Navajo Tribe
Thank you, Committee Chair and Ranking Members for inviting me to
testify in support of House Resolution 4532. My name is Rebecca
Benally, San Juan County Commissioner, a member of the Navajo tribe. I
appreciate the opportunity for my voice and the community voice to be
heard.
In our community, public lands are our most valuable resource. The
land is our inheritance, handed down from generation to generation. We
treasure the land. We take care of the land. H.R. 4532 is a step to
create the first tribal managed national monument. The Shash Jaa
National Monument incorporates land within the Bears Ears area.
Unfortunately, the former Bears Ears proclamation never mentioned
tribal management just an advisory commission. It is stated that, ``The
purpose of the Shash Jaa National Monument shall be to protect,
conserve, and enhance the unique important historic, sacred, cultural,
scientific, scenic, archaeological, natural, and educational resources
of Shash Jaa National Monument.''
The purpose is only worthwhile if it truly serves the people. And
no group of people has more to lose or gain, than the local tribes. We
use the land for hunting, wood cutting, gathering medicinal herbs and
for sacred ceremonies. By creating the Shash Jaa Tribal Management
Council, you are giving the Native American people the opportunity to
manage the land of their ancestors and maintain access.
By supporting H.R. 4532, you are listening to a group that has been
silenced for too long and finally allowing us a seat at the table. We
all come from different backgrounds, but we want the same results. We
want land that is well-managed and accessible to all people. We support
the language of H.R. 4532. We agree that the land should be protected.
Currently there are 14 regulation and laws in place, such as:
1935 Historic Sites Preservation Act
1960/1974 Reservoir Act
1964 Wilderness Act
1966 National History Preservation Act
1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
1974 Archaeological & Historic Preservation Act
1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act
1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act
1980 Amendment-Executive Order Protection & Enhancement of
Cultural Environment
1990 Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act
1996 Indian Sacred Site Protection Act
2000 Consultation & Coordination with Indian Tribal Government Act
2003 Preserve American Act
Therefore, H.R. 4532 is a step in the right direction to create the
Shash Jaa Tribal Management Council that will benefit the local tribes
and groups to work together to manage the land.
It is an honor to be here today. Thank you for listening to the
local people, San Juan County, Utah. I also would like to thank the
Utah delegation for showing respect to the process and putting forward
a thoughtful and inclusive bill.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all the witnesses. We
will now start a round of questioning. And for Members, if they
have a question of a specific witness, we will ask that witness
to come up to the table and the microphone and answer that
question, and then proceed in that way.
Mr. Curtis, since I am really new at this job of being Vice
Chair, I also realized I didn't read ahead in the script far
enough to notice that you were supposed to have been recognized
to introduce Mr. Chaffetz. Sorry, I screwed up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Would you like to take a second to introduce
him now, or would you like to ask some questions?
Mr. Curtis. I will skip straight to questions, although I
will agree with him about his comment about him being the most
effective legislator in the district's history.
Mr. Bishop. Just so you stay within the 3rd District only.
Mr. Curtis. Within the 3rd District.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, don't go far afield from that. Mr. Curtis,
you are recognized first for questions.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I would like to start with
Commissioner Benally. If you would, please come up again, thank
you.
While she is coming up, I would like to thank her, as well
as all the witnesses. I realize many of you have made a great
sacrifice to be here today, and I appreciate that.
Commissioner, it may be obvious to a lot of you, but to
many of us it is not. Could you explain the difference between
the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation, who did previously
oppose President Obama's designation, and the Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition?
Ms. Benally. Let me preface this before I answer that
question. Most chapters of the Navajo Nation, which sits in
Utah, and by the way, we are the stepchild to Navajo Nation
called the Utah Strip. And the first go-around of support was
for a national conservation area. Somewhere along the line it
got changed to a national monument when environmental groups
and NGOs started getting involved.
So, to answer your question, Aneth Chapter is the largest
Utah Navajo local government, called a Chapter House, who has
local governance, LGA, on the road to govern themselves, who
had opposed a national monument around the Bears Ears region of
anything from 1.35 million to 1.9 million acres. So, that is
how the government structure is there in Aneth.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Could you help us understand why the
two would view this differently, and one support and one not
support the bill?
Ms. Benally. Can you rephrase your question?
Mr. Curtis. The Aneth Chapter was pleased with President
Trump's designation, but the Navajo Nation opposed it. Can you
help us understand why the different views?
Ms. Benally. It is very simple. It is the local people that
drives the local needs of Aneth, and also of Utah Strip, as is
referred to. The difference is that Navajo Nation sits in
Window Rock, Arizona, and the local people of Aneth Chapter are
about 45 miles from the region we talk about. It is our
backyard, and I believe we have done a great job to keep it a
pristine area for decades and decades, until someone noticed
and wanted to have a deep-pocketed interest in the area for
self-serving need.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. One of the primary criticisms of
this bill has been a perceived lack of tribal consultation. And
when I met with representatives of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition, they expressed the same concern to me. In the last
hearing, we offered to include a requirement that there was a
consultation with the Bears Ears Commission when those
presidential appointments were made. Do you think this bill
provides for adequate tribal input and management of the area?
Ms. Benally. There is consultation in Section 101 of BLM.
And when BLM tried to contact tribes, there was never a
response until starting in 2012. Why the sudden interest? I
think you can draw your conclusion: self-serving for NGOs and
environmental groups, and forefronting Native American and
romanticizing Native American way of life.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I am going to quickly switch to
Congressman Chaffetz, if you wouldn't mind.
Former Congressman, you mentioned in your testimony that
there were 1,200 meetings. And you emphasized that, yes, there
really were 1,200 in what was called the PLI process.
Many view this bill as just a snapshot in time of when I
came along just 8 weeks ago. Could you explain why it is really
a much longer process? And do you feel like this bill reflects
what you learned in those 1,200 meetings?
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. It did start more than 4 years
ago. I personally participated. I got on a plane and, as I
said, flew to Arizona to meet with the Navajo President. We had
countless meetings, open meetings, meetings that anybody in the
public could attend. Some had hundreds and hundreds of people,
some were much smaller groups.
I would also give you, for the record, a letter dated
October 16, 2015, another letter dated April 29, 2016, another
letter dated November 18, 2016, among others that should be, I
think, considered. And the other item that I would enter into
the record is this ``Big money, environmentalists and the Bears
Ears story,'' that appeared in the Deseret News on August 4,
2016, which, I think, lays out the issues.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I am out of time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Ms. Hanabusa, the
Ranking Member, has given me a list of the order for the
Democrats to speak.
Mr. Gallego, you get to go first.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is Gallego, since we
are interested in keeping names correct today.
Mr. Bishop. All right. The gentleman from Arizona and the
gentleman from Virginia will be recognized by those names
forever more.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Go for it.
Mr. Gallego. First of all, I would like to have all the
duly elected tribal witnesses, please come to the table,
because I will be asking you guys questions. One at a time?
That is fine.
Let me thank all the witnesses for traveling to Washington
for today's hearing. We are very pleased that we have duly--and
I stress the word ``duly''--elected representatives from the
five tribes here with us to testify about the importance of the
Bears Ears National Monument designation for each of your
communities.
And I think it is fairly important that we recognize that
we are actually listening to those that are elected. In my
years in politics, if we had ever done something of this
nature, where we skip over the local elected officials and
tried to designate other people to somehow voice the opinion of
any area, whether it is city, state, county, without actually
having a democratic process, we would call that somewhat of a
sham. And that is what I see happening here.
So, it is even more important that we really listen, and I
mean we really listen, to these duly elected officials, and try
to understand what is at stake if the President's proclamation
were to be codified.
So, again, only the duly elected officials. As you all know
well, the original tribal proposal for the Bears Ears National
Monument was 1.9 million acres. Can you tell us about the
effort undertaken by tribes to catalog the cultural resources
contained in the Bears Ears region? And we can start with
President Begaye.
Mr. Begaye. Thank you for that question. The Navajo Nation,
our people, have been working on protecting this area for over
80 years. This is something that didn't start just a few years
back, but this has been in the making from one Navajo Nation
president to the next, to the next. We have been trying to
designate and protect this area because it has been ravaged by
treasure hunters over the years, and a lot of our sacred areas
have been desecrated.
And multitudes, many artifacts have been taken from that
area illegally, and our sacred areas have been trampled upon.
For 80-plus years, our people have worked hard to have a
designation of some sort, whether it is a conservation and then
the Antiquities Act, what became the avenue of choice for our
people.
And this is something that didn't happen just in the last
few years, like I said, but this has been ongoing. Thank you.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, President. Because I have a limited
amount of time, let me skip to Vice Chairman Tenakhongva.
Specifically, I wanted to talk to you about some artifacts
and sites. As you know, the Obama designation was ultimately a
compromise that covered 1.2 million acres of the 1.9 million-
acre tribal proposal. The bill we are reviewing today retains a
monument designation for only 15 percent of that already
compromised Bears Ears National Monument.
As you know, Vice Chairman, the perfect kiva site was
removed from the monument. What does this mean for this site,
and for the hundreds of similar cultural sites that were
removed from the Bears Ears National Monument?
Mr. Tenakhongva. For the people in here that do practice a
religion, the kiva is a church. It is much like your church.
And if it was to be removed from the protected sites, it is
just like taking our right to practice our religion.
The kivas we practice in today still exist on Hopi. If you
look at our letterhead, that is the symbol of our lifeline.
That is the reason why it is very important that these sites be
protected. We have had cultural connections to these sites
since the time we traveled from there, not just in the past 15,
20 years. We still have sacred pilgrimages to these since
probably 500 years ago, or before, so that is how we have the
connection to these sites.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
Mr. Chair, the tribes' official record--official record--is
clear regarding the full support for the monument designation.
We, as a Committee, need to find ways forward to honor our
promises to our duly elected official tribal members, including
meaningful consultation, not sham consultations, when making
designations and decisions of this magnitude.
Again, I thank all the witnesses, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Tenakhongva. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Could I have Ms.
Lopez-Whiteskunk come up, please? Thanks for taking the time to
be able to be here. I listened to your testimony, and
appreciate all that came here today, and wanted to be able to
touch on a couple of issues that you had brought up.
First was in regards to the cultural preservation. As I
have read through this bill, to the President's comments, over
into Utah, in terms of making sure that those areas are
actually protected, there are going to be additional people,
which were not included under President Obama's designation, to
actually be there to be able to protect those artifacts. And
areas that are not included in President Obama's designation, I
believe--correct me if I am wrong, if you have read this
differently--that those are still part of the National Park
Service system, or National Forest Service system with the
protections, and wilderness study areas, with significant
protections for those cultural areas that need to be able to be
protected.
If you could maybe explain--and I don't expect you to be
able to give me a specific location--what other protections
would you like to be able to see?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate
your question. In regards to the previous proclamation, a
little bit of that is untrue, as many tribes have sovereign
voices and they have capabilities and resources that a lot of
local governments don't always have that the Native American
tribes do.
When we initially came to the table, we came as being
problem-solvers. We came to be a part of the solution. And one
of the solutions was to be able to have the capacity to add
that type of resource to protecting those areas. Native tribes
have Public Law 638 at our resources, which local agencies
don't--local governments do.
And that was one of the things that we wanted to be a part
of. We wanted to be a part of being able to provide
additional----
Mr. Tipton. That is more, actually, in terms of some of the
consultation end of it. What I was speaking to specifically was
your first point, in terms of some of the cultural resources.
Are there additional things, given the expansive nature, I
think, of more people, and the protections that are there, that
you would like to be able to see, specifically?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Life itself. That is the biggest
cultural resource. And the people in the area, to be able to
conduct ceremonies and collect those additional herbs that are
medicinal to our ceremonial conduct.
Mr. Tipton. So, being able to have access, actually, to the
land.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. To continue to harvest cedar, sage,
and other medicinal plants.
Mr. Tipton. Is there something in the bill that prohibits
that?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. No. But you know, as we shrink it,
and as it becomes a little bit more limited, and with
possibilities of energy extraction, then those would also begin
to limit that, especially destroy it.
Mr. Tipton. Great. I would like to be able to move on,
really, to the second topic that you had brought up and some
others had, as well, in terms of actually being able to have
what you were just addressing, actual tribal input into it.
As I am sure you are aware, under President Obama's
designation there was no additional tribal input. That was just
an advisory capacity. It actually takes an Act of Congress and
a presidential signature to be able to get that real input.
I believe that, under the proposed monument in Mr. Curtis'
bill, that is going to be structured. Are there any other
improvements, in terms of how people are going to be picked,
that you would like to maybe be able to address?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Under H.R. 4532, it takes that
extension of the arm of each tribal sovereign government to be
able to appoint that. That takes away a little bit of the
sovereign voice and ability to appoint our experts, our
traditional leaders who have that knowledge, which I beg to
differ that I don't think that the President or the delegation
has that knowledge of who are those experts within the tribal
nations to be able to provide that voice and adequate
information so that it can be presented in a meaningful manner.
Mr. Tipton. So, if you saw some of that adjusted to be able
to get that real input, because that is really the challenge, I
think. Under President Obama's designation, there was no real
voice that was given. This is actually going to be able to try
to create an avenue for the tribes to be able to have real
input going into some of those management issues. Would you see
that as a positive?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. I would. If Congressman Curtis had
approached the tribes in getting some of that input initially,
probably some of this wouldn't be so problematic today.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. Out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. All right.
Since I am screwing up every name, Ms. Tsongas, you are
recognized.
Ms. Tsongas. You got that one right.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for traveling across
the country to be here with us today. It was actually nice to
see Mr. Chaffetz again, although he spent some time in
Massachusetts, and I asked him if it had any impact, and he
said whatever impact it had he shed quickly when he made his
way back to Utah. But nice to see him here.
Witnesses, your testimony today has been critical to making
sure that we here on this Committee have a comprehensive
understanding of the impacts of H.R. 4532. And as today's
testimony demonstrates, for years tribes have been seeking
permanent protections for Bears Ears and the thousands of
artifacts and sacred sites found in the area. These are public
lands that belong to all Americans, and I strongly agree that
they should be permanently protected for the use and enjoyment
of future generations. These things are very fragile, and it
takes a concerted effort to do that.
As such, this Committee has considered several different
proposals over the years on the best way to provide permanent
protections to these lands, including Chairman Bishop's Public
Lands Initiative, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition's
proposal for a national monument, and now H.R. 4532.
But like the Public Lands Initiative, I am opposed to H.R.
4532 because a close examination of the so-called conservation
provisions demonstrate a clear pattern of loopholes, rolled
back protections, and an undermining of Federal land management
authority, all of which threaten the long-term conservation
value of Bears Ears and the protection of these lands for all
Americans.
The national monument designated by President Obama in
close consultation with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition,
I believe, is the best way to protect these areas. And
President Trump was wrong to abolish the monument. The
legislation before us today fails to adequately restore these
much-needed protections for these lands.
So, turning to Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk, if you could, come up
to the table.
We have heard some testimony on this, but the tribal
proposal to establish the Bears Ears National Monument stemmed
from concerns about looting and other damage to sensitive
cultural resources. We have heard that reinforced. Does H.R.
4532 adequately address this, in your view?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. No. I believe that, with further
discussions with the sovereign nations--and not just the two
that are recognized within this, but there are many. There are
not just the five members of the Coalition that are affected.
There are tribes, the San Juan Southern Paiute, there are many
other tribes that also need to be brought into the discussion.
Just because they do not and are not represented within the
Coalition, there are other sovereign nations out there that
will stand up and they will justify and they can talk about the
protections that are desperately needed, not only just on the
land, but beneath it, because the story truly lies in the many
layers, the layers of history that are written on the canyon
walls, in the land, in the water, and the air that we breathe.
That is an honor. That is something that is far bigger than we
are. That comes from our creator and Mother Earth.
Ms. Tsongas. Another provision of the bill, Section 107,
establishes an archeological resource protection unit, and it
requires a minimum number of law enforcement to patrol the
monument. Will this be enough to limit looting and address the
resource protection concerns you have expressed?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Looting is always going to be an
extreme concern. And no matter how many people we get out
there, if there are 7 or 10, are we going to have those 7 or 10
after hours, when a lot of the vulnerable time period comes?
Because we all know not everything happens in the daylight. It
is usually going to happen after dark. Are those resources
going to be available after the sun sets? That is usually when
things tend to happen.
We would very much like to see more. Of course, we would
always like to see more money invested in the protection of
this, and to have more boots on the ground.
And as I mentioned before, I think if we would just come
together with the tribes to see what they can bring to the
table, and become a part of the solution, some of the issues
that are at stake within the bill wouldn't be so problematic.
Ms. Tsongas. In your view, why was the national monument
established by President Obama the best way to protect these
sacred sites and artifacts, even as you are looking at ways to
strengthen this bill? Why was the national monument designation
by President Obama the best way forward?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Time. Time is everything. If we would
have went the congressional route and came through Congress, we
would still be seeking some protection. But through the
Antiquities Act, it allowed for us to be a part of an open
process. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Gianforte.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz, if I could.
Thank you all for being here. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Chaffetz, Federal lands limit the funding. You talked
about this, just 8 percent in San Juan County are eligible for
property taxes that generate the desperately needed money to
fund the schools there in the county. How has only having 8
percent non-Federal land affected the schoolchildren of San
Juan County? And how does the San Juan County school system
compare with the school systems in the rest of Utah and the
rest of the country?
Mr. Chaffetz. Any quick visit to San Juan County, and you
would quickly find out that getting to school is a major
production. You cannot even always move the buses to get there.
Once you do get to the schools, you understand that they aren't
the best that we can possibly provide.
Also, for the residents of San Juan County, the highest
per-capita property tax in the state of Utah is down in this
part--not in Salt Lake City, not in Provo, Utah, but down in
San Juan County, the highest per capita. And again, you are
talking about a swatch of land that is roughly the size of New
Jersey.
And I do want to address what the congresswoman from
Massachusetts talked about with law enforcement. You have,
essentially, one BLM officer for every 1 million acres. What
Congressman Curtis is trying to do is to up the number of
people that are able to patrol and protect. If you don't do
anything, and you shoot down the bill, guess what? You are
still going to have one person for every 1 million acres. It is
ridiculous. It is not a formula that can succeed.
Mr. Gianforte. I have just one followup. We heard some
testimony today that some voices hadn't been heard, and yet you
said you had 1,200 meetings. Were tribal members represented at
any of these meetings that you had?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, consistently.
Mr. Gianforte. And what steps did you take to actually
reach out to the Native American community to make sure their
voice was heard?
Mr. Chaffetz. Via the governor of Utah. I went to great
lengths to get the state plane to go visit the President of the
Navajo Nation. We had an ongoing dialogue. I have had members
of the tribes come to visit me in my office. I have done
meetings in San Juan County. I have been to hotels where they
have come in small groups to meet with us. There were public
meetings that were available.
And we really relied on Rebecca Benally, who is from the
Navajo Nation, a Democrat who is on the San Juan County
Commission, to also engage in the dialogue.
Mr. Gianforte. So, 4 years, 1,200 meetings, many
outreaches. You believe their sentiments and input are
reflected?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes. And, by the way, at the time, the five
Members and then the six Members of the Utah delegation asked
to meet with President Obama to talk about this. He would
never, ever even take one meeting on this.
Mr. Gianforte. OK.
Mr. Chaffetz. So, to suggest that there was not a dialogue,
you can point to President Obama. He never listened to us.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you very much. I would like to have
Commissioner Benally, if I could.
Thank you for being here, especially for your local
perspective. I want to ask about tribal management of a
national monument. This is going to create a new precedent for
us. Considering that you are not only a commissioner, but also
a member of the Navajo Tribe, what does meaningful co-
management mean to you and your community?
Ms. Benally. Meaningful tribal co-management means to me
that the local people have access to carry on their daily way
of life. So, meaningful, just meaning that there is dialogue,
communication, participation, and access.
Mr. Gianforte. OK. Do you think that this bill is going to
provide a path forward to preserving the historical and
cultural uses of the land within the monument designation?
Ms. Benally. On top of the 15 regulations and wilderness
study areas, you bet it will.
Mr. Gianforte. So, you think we have enough rules?
Ms. Benally. Government is about layers of bureaucratic
laws and regulations.
But I want to mention this. As was mentioned, for 80 years,
at least for the Navajo Nation to be involved in this, this was
just sent to me today. Between 1994 to 1997, Navajo ancestral
and aboriginal rights were sold for about $12 an acre, and was
put into the Navajo Lands Claim Fund. So, if you sell your
rights, then you want it back years later, how does that work?
I don't know.
Let's talk about sovereignty. Sovereignty for Native
Americans, as we see it defined, is the domestic dependent
nations, and then freedom of speech.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you for being here today. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
all the witnesses for being here. It is good to see my former
colleague here, the leading spokesperson for the 3rd District
of Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.
I would like to also thank the Chairman for granting the
Democrats' request for a second hearing, with today having the
representatives of all five tribes that are impacted by H.R.
4532. I think this balanced approach has allowed us to correct
some of the misinformation that we heard in the first hearing
that still exists surrounding the level of tribal support for
this bill.
This bill, as I said over and over again at the last
hearing and I will say it again today, we should not be
considering. It codifies President Trump's illegal decision to
eliminate the Bears Ears and replace it with two drastically
smaller monuments, leaving thousands of acres and critical
cultural and natural resources within them unprotected. We are
now engaging in a process to not protect over a million acres
that had been protected by President Obama.
We have also heard a lot about tribal management councils,
but they are not appointed, the tribes have no say. The
President appoints, with the support of, or the authorization
of, or working with the Utah delegation, individual people, not
sovereign tribal leaders appointing their own people. What we
have in this bill is not tribal management, but management by
the President and picking people that the President wants.
And then, worst of all, as we have heard, this was done
without any input from the tribes, whose sacred land it
purports to protect. So, we are not listening to the people, we
are going to protect it for them.
But the message that we have heard from the tribal leaders,
which I want to amplify, is that there is an overwhelming
amount of support for the Bears Ears National Monument, as
designated by President Obama, and strong opposition to the
legislation before us today. Tribal leaders could not be
clearer: H.R. 4532 is not wanted.
I have some questions that I would like to ask Ms. Regina
Lopez-Whiteskunk. I would also like the answer from the
Honorable Russell Begaye from the Navajo, if you could just
come up and answer.
Mr. Bishop. Which one do you want first?
Dr. Lowenthal. I will ask Mr. Begaye.
Mr. Bishop. President Begaye, please.
Dr. Lowenthal. At the first hearing, we heard a lot of
concerns about access in the Bears Ears National Monument, as
proposed, that there were real problems with access, some of
the people said, for gathering of wood and medicinal herbs. And
these concerns were held up as justification for President
Trump's, I think, illegal elimination of the monument.
Are you aware of any restrictions that were in the Bears
Ears National Monument that limited access for traditional
activities, like gathering of wood or medicinal herbs? Do you
know of any that were in the Bears Ears?
Mr. Begaye. There are none. In fact, on an almost daily
basis we have Navajos, even today, that drive up into the Bears
Ears area to gather firewood. You see evidence of people doing
that on a regular basis, and people go out there to gather
medicine, to do prayers, to do ceremonies, and those types of
things. Before the designation, at a meeting, for example, one
of the towns where we were told by a town's local people that
this was not our land, that we need to stay on Navajo because
that belonged to us and not to our people.
So, the restriction, after the designation came, there were
none. We can go out there today and do the things that we have
done before, which is to gather firewood, to gather herbs, to
do our prayers, our ceremonies. Those restrictions are not
there. And the protection, the designation is 1.3 million. With
this new bill, it will limit only to certain areas, and not
covering many of the other sacred areas. We will not be allowed
to do that. Thank you.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Chairman, thank you. Actually, my first
question is for my former colleague and classmate, Congressman
Jason Chaffetz.
Congressman Chaffetz, good to see you, pleasure to have you
back in Washington. This week, we discuss again the designation
of the Bears Ears National Monument and the negative affects it
has had on local populations, and more specifically reflect on
where this was driven from and how much local input was a part
of this discussion.
Congressman, in your testimony you mention the 1,200
meetings that Chairman Bishop and you conducted over the years
with local populations and interest groups. What were you able
to learn from these meetings with regards to local management?
And how will the tribes manage this land differently than, say,
the Federal Government?
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, I do believe, in principle, that if you
want the best result, you are going to look to the people at
the most local level. That includes a broad cross-section and
that is where I believe in multiple use and the access that
people wanted.
There are some parts where we should not be doing oil and
mineral extraction. But I want to remind the Committee that it
was Federal land before President Obama designated a national
monument. And President Trump, I think, made the right
decision--I would have eliminated all of it--but when he made
the decision to shrink it, it still has the Federal land and
the Federal protection.
What you worry about is the management plan that gets
layered on top of a national monument. That is where the
concern comes, because then you are managing the land for a
certain purpose, as opposed to a multiple-use type of purpose.
That is what causes the uncertainty within the community.
And I would also remind everybody that none of the
designation of the national monument under President Obama
happened on tribal lands. The reduction does not affect what
has previously been designated as tribal lands. But what Mr.
Curtis' bill is trying to do is put more input that was not
there before.
So, there is a net increase, there is a net improvement in
the tribe's ability to meaningfully communicate their desires,
wishes, and beliefs on how that land should be managed. That is
a net increase in their ability to participate in the
management of those lands. It is a huge win for the tribes and
the local communities.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
And, Chairman, if I could, my second question is for
Commissioner Benally.
Commissioner Benally, thank you for being here. I just want
to follow up. In your testimony, you have talked about and you
have responded to questions about the special appreciation and
respect that the Native American community have for the public
lands. Can you explain further why local Native Americans who
have lived in this area for generations are best suited to care
for and manage the land?
Ms. Benally. Very simple. I think they did a good job up
until 2012, when there was an interest and a pristine
situation. Yes, there was some looting. But the local people
are the best people to manage the land because it is in our
back yard, we use it on a daily basis. And Navajo families use
it not only for wood cutting, heating homes, cooking, but also
for small economic ways, because they turn around and sell it.
That is a little income for them.
So, as was mentioned, how does this monument hurt the
people? It hurts the people that wood cutting would be cut off
because there is a difference between gathering and wood
cutting. Just a few miles down the road from the Bears Ears
Buttes is Natural Bridges. And right there, there is a huge
sign that says, ``No wood cutting.'' So eventually, that is
what it would do.
And just talking about the disadvantages of a monument
under the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, within the last 2 to
3 years there has been an average, on an annual basis, of six
to seven roads being closed. These are roads that are vital to
wood-cutting, to medicinal plants, and to ceremony practices,
so, yes, it is a detriment. And this comes from BLM and the
Forest Service currently, and it limits to no access.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have
Clark Tenakhongva come forward. And as he is coming forward, I
would just like to make a statement.
As some of you may know--and I know that the good attorney
general, the former North Kuhala resident, is very well aware--
the sailing, the voyaging ship, the Hokule'a from Hawaii just
completed its around-the-world voyage in what was culturally
exactly what they sailed with. And it really showed the ability
of Native peoples to voyage the world and to answer some
questions about where we are from.
When I read Clark's testimony on the Hopi, I was struck by
a very similar situation, and that is the migratory and,
really, the journey that the Hopi people have been on. And it
is, of course, to fulfill their religious goal, for lack of a
better description, of the Earth guardian telling them to move
to the Earth's center.
However, part of that voyage, or part of that journey, took
them through Bears Ears. And that is when, in his testimony and
on the slides that he showed, you saw the kavi and a very
different type of--for lack of a better description, to me--
very culturally significant and religiously significant
structures that the Hopi left along the way.
So, Clark, if you would address for us, first, the kavi,
which I believe is your religious structure. And what does H.R.
4532 do in relationship to those areas that you spoke to, as
opposed to the original monument designation?
Mr. Tenakhongva. My understanding of H.R. 4532 is that it
will not protect what is there as rightfully the right of the
first people, which I would say honorably and humbly, is the
Hopi people. We were there first, along with the other Pueblo
nations, so it is our covenant, our agreement, just like the
non-Natives pray to a man named God and Jesus, our creator's
name is called Maasaw. That is who we made the covenant with,
in order to make these travels to where we are at today.
I made this travel all the way here to your empire, which
is the White House, the Capitol of the United States. And I
would hope you understand that where we make those standings,
they are in southern Utah. That is something that is very
important to us.
H.R. 4532 would not protect it, because this part, what we
showed, the kiva is what we call it. The word itself is very
symbolic. It means the womb of your mother. Much like a church
would, it has its purpose, the religion that we are practicing
today.
As in my testimony, I said please come out and join us. The
kivas are still existent in the 12 villages. We still practice
what we practiced there, at Bears Ears.
For many of the other tribes, they have connections to that
location, also. For me, personally, our clan, the Tobacco and
Rabbit clans, were one of those peoples that may have
constructed those buildings there and left it there for this
reason.
It is sad to say that some people just don't understand
that we left those as evidence, as markers, way before the
arrival of Columbus and the pilgrims here, in the United
States. Please respect why we left them. Money is money, life
is more important than money. We can continue to argue about
prospering in this Nation, but respecting one another's rights
and religion is all we ask for. That is all I am asking for,
what my advisors, what my elders advise me before I make this
travel here. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I will go last.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say
that the first session that we had, the earlier hearing this
month, both the Governor and Representative heard us mention
that the decision to abolish Bears Ears was not motivated by
mining or oil or gas interest. They pointed out the fact that
H.R. 4532 restores the mineral withdrawal for the entire region
established by the original designation. And it was great to
hear the Governor and the congressional delegation of Utah
understand the importance of protecting cultural and religious
resources over commercial development. But I am really
concerned that we need to do much more.
Friday marks 60 days since Trump scrapped the Bears Ears
Monument, and the original mining withdrawal is scheduled to
vanish on Friday. So, that means that while Congress debates
this controversial piece of legislation, and the courts wait to
rule on Trump's decision, the whole area is open for
speculation by big oil and foreign mining conglomerates, and I
think this situation can only be addressed by swift action by
the Secretary.
I have sent a letter to Secretary Zinke requesting an
emergency withdrawal, and that letter is available for any and
all members of this Committee to sign on.
Mr. Chairman, I would request unanimous consent that the
letter be entered into the hearing record. There is no
objection?
Mr. Bishop. No objection.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you for the formality, sir. I
appreciate it.
Let me just thank all the witnesses that came, the tribal
leadership that is here present from the nations, and thank you
very much for the effort to be here and to provide a point of
view that was absent.
If I could ask Mr. Begaye a couple of questions. President
Begaye, if you don't mind, sir?
Mr. President, at the Subcommittee hearing on January 9, we
were told by Members of Congress, our Chairman, and other
members of this Committee on the Republican side that the
Curtis bill was supported, that the Aneth Chapter supported it,
and that local people are opposed to the Obama designation.
Let me ask you. I understand that Navajo support, in San
Juan County, Utah, is nearly unanimous. How do we explain that?
Mr. Begaye. When you talk about Utah Navajos, it is a whole
region. From Navajo Mountain, we have a Navajo chapter there.
You have Mexican Water, that are partially in Arizona and other
parts of it are in Utah. You have Red Mesa, where the chapter
is in Utah, many of the members of that chapter live in the
Utah area. TeecNosPos Chapter is in Arizona, but along the
border, but their members also live in Utah. Aneth is up in the
Montezuma Creek area.
Every chapter at one time voted to support the monument.
The first vote, second vote at the Aneth chapter, the president
of the Aneth Chapter has come out and said, ``I support the
monument.'' If there was a vote taken today, I believe the
Chapter would vote for the monument.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. President, does the witness, Ms. Benally,
represent the Navajo Government in this question of this
legislation, Bears Ears, the original designation?
Mr. Begaye. She is a county commissioner and not a Navajo
Nation official. We appreciate her election to that position,
but a re-vote needs to really take place, where the court has
ordered that a re-vote for commissioners take place in that
part of Utah.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Begaye. And it needs to happen, rather than the
Commission trying to stop it. So, that is where our focus
should be, and I am asking Representative Curtis to put his
effort and energy there.
But, over 90 percent of Utah Navajos support the monument.
Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I want to forward to the witnesses additional
questions for the Committee, we didn't have enough time. Thank
you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask the last set of questions
here.
Casey, I need a wonk, so would you please come forward? I
just want to make sure of a couple of things, as we go through,
on these issues of protection and influence.
All right. When President Obama created the Bears Ears
Commission that these groups can appoint, what power did they
have? What was their job to be?
Mr. Hammond. The way I read the proclamation, it was to
provide advice.
Mr. Bishop. Advice, all right. Is there anything in that
proclamation that required the BLM to acknowledge and actually
follow their advice?
Mr. Hammond. No, there is nothing that required them.
Mr. Bishop. All right. In this bill that is being produced,
is that Bears Ears Commission appointed by the tribes still in
existence?
Mr. Hammond. It is still in existence.
Mr. Bishop. And they are there to give advice?
Mr. Hammond. That is accurate.
Mr. Bishop. We made a change, though, because there also is
a council. If the council does not accept the Commission's
advice, does the council actually have to do something?
Mr. Hammond. By my read of the legislation, they have to
respond in writing.
Mr. Bishop. Which is not happening. It did not happen in
the proclamation, it did not happen in the status quo.
So, the Commission still exists, the tribes still appoint
their commission. They still give advice. But in his bill, it
requires the council that makes the management decision, the
council has to respond and tell them why they didn't.
In our original talk about the PLI, we decided to have that
concept in there, simply because we cannot allow somebody who
gives advisory opinions to tell the government what to do
unless you change the statute in some particular way.
So, here is the bottom line. The council, then, does it
make mandatory decisions that have to be followed by the BLM?
Mr. Hammond. By my read of the legislation.
Mr. Bishop. And that doesn't happen in President Obama's
commission, does it?
Mr. Hammond. No.
Mr. Bishop. This is the only way you can actually have that
kind of input taking place. Can I have you switch? Chaffetz, if
you will come up just for a second.
You talked about protection very quickly. How many people
before Obama's proclamation were there to protect that area? In
Obama's proclamation, how many people were added to the
protection of that area?
Mr. Chaffetz. Zero.
Mr. Bishop. In his bill how many people are added to
protection of that area?
Mr. Chaffetz. A lot more than zero.
Mr. Bishop. And did they go home late at night when the
business is over, or are they supposed to be there 24/7?
Mr. Chaffetz. They are supposed to be protecting it 24/7.
Mr. Bishop. And are they contracting with local officials,
so they will be there in that particular area?
Mr. Chaffetz. They should be.
Mr. Bishop. Is that more protection than Obama made in his
proclamation?
Mr. Chaffetz. A lot more protection.
Mr. Bishop. Did we have conversations with the Inter-Tribal
Council?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Were they late-comers to the process?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Did we get a letter in 2016, which I will put
into the record, in which we asked for draft advice and
concepts, especially on this issue of governance?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, we did.
Mr. Bishop. And did that letter tell us they weren't going
to give us anything?
Mr. Chaffetz. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Let me have Rebecca Benally come in for my
last 2 minutes.
You answer one-sentence answers very well, Jason. Thank you
for that.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Benally, you were asked--no, actually, President Begaye
was asked--if there were restrictions in either the bill or the
Obama proclamation about local--especially wood gathering, wood
cutting, herb gathering, that kind of stuff--if there were
restrictions in the proclamation. And your answer was--or
President Begaye--there were no restrictions. That is correct,
right?
Ms. Benally. [No response.]
Mr. Bishop. There were no restrictions in the proclamation,
per se. But the question I have for you, were there protections
specifically put in the proclamation that would guarantee these
activities would take place in the future? Or was it left to a
future BLM land manager to do whatever he or she wanted to do?
Ms. Benally. No. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right. In his bill, are there specific
protections put in there to guarantee these traditional
activities by those who live near that area will continue?
Ms. Benally. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. And in his bill--as you talked about those road
closures--if you have a management council that actually has
the power to make decisions, could you impact those road
closures?
Ms. Benally. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. And you can't do it now?
Ms. Benally. No, because----
Mr. Bishop. And you couldn't do it during the proclamation?
Ms. Benally. No.
Mr. Bishop. There is a net benefit that comes here. The
Bears Ears Commission in which the tribes can appoint members
still exists in his bill. And they still give advice, which is
what they were doing in the proclamation, advice. But it has a
specific purpose in here, in having a council that can make
decisions, and they have to respond to those commissions, and
they actually can tell the BLM exactly what to do in the
future. That is the difference.
Ms. Benally. Correct. Bears Ears Commission is still intact
in H.R. 4532. What is new is that the tribal management council
will have true authority and can still listen to the Bears Ears
Coalition. If there is a disagreement, it has to be put in
writing back to the Commission.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that. Key bottom line
is there will still be a commission appointed by the tribes,
there still will be a council that actually has some real
ability to do something. Never happened, it will happen in the
proclamation.
I appreciate the witnesses for traveling from all over the
place, from Arizona, from New Mexico, from Colorado, and from
Utah, for actually being here so we can talk about this. I
appreciate the Members for being here. And, as you can
traditionally see, one of the problems we have in hearings is
that no one is here at the end to actually hear anything that
is going on. But it is in the record, so any policy wonk that
actually wants to read this stuff can do so in the future.
Congressman Chaffetz, it is nice to see you back here
again. I appreciate you coming here.
Attorney General Reyes, thank you. Now I want to ask you a
question. Do you want to say hi? All right, the question.
Eagles or Patriots, and your spread?
Mr. Reyes. Eagles.
Mr. Bishop. OK, the rest of you go on and make money. Hit
him up afterwards, and you can do that.
Commissioner Benally, thank you for being here.
Members of the Department of the Interior, thank you.
And for the representatives of the five tribes that are
involved, thank you for being here, especially President
Begaye. Thank you, as the head of the Navajo Nation, for
actually being here.
I thank you. I want to remind you there may be additional
questions that Members have. Under our Committee Rule 3(o),
members of the Committee can have written questions within 3
business days following the hearing if it is given to us by
5:00 p.m., and the record will be open for 10 business days for
your responses. So, we may be hitting you up for additional
written comments to be put as part of the hearing record.
Raul, do you want me to be snarky, or not? OK, then I won't
say anything about the letter. But I will sign the letter as
soon as you vote for his bill.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. With that, thank you for being here, thank you
for your presence. I appreciate all of that. Thank you for
putting up with me. I know you would rather be here with
McClintock, and I am actually ticked at him that he is sick
right now, because I wanted to just enjoy this hearing.
With that, thank you for everything, thank you for being
here. I appreciate your time, I appreciate the witnesses.
This Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC 20515
February 22, 2013
Utah Land Office/Navajo Land Department
C/O Commissioner Kenneth Maryboy
P.O. Box 410
Montezuma Creek, UT 84534
Dear Commissioner Maryboy:
Public lands are valued across the state of Utah. These lands
support a range of uses, including recreation, solitude, wildlife
habitat, historical uses, and resource development. However, the
history and management of the public lands in Utah is long on episodes
of contention and conflict, and short on examples of compromise and
consensus. For decades, unsettled land-use designations have fueled
distrust and acrimony. Much of the debate has centered on a false
choice between multiple-use or land conservation. I reject this either-
or proposition. Conservation and multiple-use can coexist. They each
have an important role in making our state healthy, inviting, and
thriving. Much of the long-term success of counties, tribes, and other
stakeholders depends on both balanced conservation and responsible
development and use.
The existing gridlock and land ownership pattern has created
countless problems between state, tribal, and federal interests. Nearly
120 years after statehood, most Utah landholdings (school trust lands)
still exist as a checkerboard pattern of isolated square-mile sections
surrounded by federal lands. The small size of the individual state
school sections and their location within the federal estate preclude
the state from effectively managing its lands or from realizing their
full potential for the school trust, the purpose for which the lands
were originally granted.
After observing and participating in the public lands debate for
many years, I believe we are in the midst of a paradigm shift. There is
a growing consensus that a more reasonable, balanced use of the public
lands can be achieved in Utah. Through conversations with county and
state officials, tribal leaders, conservation groups, industry, non-
governmental organizations, and the public, I believe Utah is ready to
move away from the tired arguments of the past. We have a unique window
of opportunity to end the gridlock and bring resolution to some of the
most challenging land disputes in the state.
In order to strike an appropriate balance between conservation and
responsible development and use, and to create greater certainty for
the citizens of Utah and Indian Country, I am pleased to announce that
I am initiating a process to develop federal legislation that seeks to
address many of the issues that have plagued public land management in
eastern Utah. The intent of this letter is to formally request comments
from interested parties on public lands issues that are important to
their respective organizations in this region of the state.
To better understand your organizations interests and priorities, I
ask that you provide a written, prioritized list of public land
designations it wishes addressed--including wilderness, other land
designations, or other considerations. Given the significant scope of
this process, each individual item that is submitted, should have a
unique overall ranking to help my office understand your priorities.
The benefits of land conservation and multiple-use are well-known
and obvious. Your organization's list of priorities will help inform
and shape the discussion with other partners and stakeholders as we
attempt to craft legislation that will help accomplish the appropriate
balance of conservation and multiple-use on our public lands and help
sustain and elevate our quality of life for generations to come.
Utah is blessed with unparalleled landscapes, recreational
opportunities, and world-class natural resources. This effort will be
both time-consuming and challenging--but it's worth it. I look forward
to working with you as we move into the next phase of this critically
important endeavor. I ask that you please provide your list of
priorities via email to Fred Ferguson in my Washington, D.C. office
([email protected]) no later than March 22, 2013.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Member of Congress.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC 20515
October 16, 2015
The Honorable Russell Begaye
President, Navajo Nation
P.O. Box 900
Window Rock, AZ 86515
President Begaye:
I am writing to update you regarding the latest developments of
Public Lands Initiative (PLI) and more specifically, to follow up on
our conversation from August 18, 2015. As you recall, I lead a
delegation of multiple Utah officials to meet with you and members of
your Administration in Flagstaff, Arizona. We had a productive
discussion about shared ideas about how we could find a consensus
approach to protect the lands and interests of San Juan County, Utah
residents and at the same time, advance the goals and interests of the
Navajo Nation.
In that meeting, you expressed to me repeatedly that the primary
interest was to find a mechanism where Native Americans would hold
real, meaningful management responsibility over the Bears Ears
landscape. I told you then that this was a fair, reasonable, and
achievable goal. I still believe that to be the case. That is why I
have instructed my staff to find a way within the PLI to legislatively
create a management structure that put the Navajo Nation and other
tribes in such a management position.
At that meeting, I communicated to you my skepticism that the
Navajo Nation could achieve its management goals under an executive
national monument designation. I still continue to hold this
skepticism. A presidential monument designation is simply not capable
of providing you with the management control and flexibility you seek.
A legislative process, such as the PLI, can provide you that management
control.
I remain willing to work with you to find a reasonable solution to
help the Navajo Nation accomplish its aims for the Bears Ears region,
and I welcome the opportunity to show you how we could accomplish these
shared goals. If you or your staff would like to discuss legislative
language or other legislative concepts, please contact my Chief of
Staff, Fred Ferguson (202-225-7751), to schedule a meeting. Thank you
for your service and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Member of Congress.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC 20515
April 29, 2016
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
It is widely known that you are considering use of the Antiquities
Act to declare a national monument in the State of Utah, We have
previously written to you expressing our opposition to this action,
While we appreciate the Secretary of the Interior's response to our
letter, we believe it was an inadequate response, as the Department of
the Interior does not possess the authority to declare a national
monument.
To further communicate our strong opposition against the unilateral
creation of a national monument in the State of Utah, we respectfully
request the opportunity to personally meet with you to discuss our
basis for opposition.
A meeting of this nature is supported by your recent public
statements. In a February meeting with the National Governors
Association, you stated that open lines of communication are needed
when discussing national monument designations. To that end, we believe
a meeting involving you, Governor Gary Herbert, the Congressional
delegation, and Utah's only elected Navajo official is critical to
successful communication and planning.
Finally, we hope a recent meeting we had with your staff will
result in a productive dialogue regarding the Public Lands Initiative
(PLI). The PLI is a balanced legislative approach to land management in
eastern Utah. If passed, the PLI will establish greater land-use
certainty and conserve more than four million acres of federal land.
Many groups, including conservation groups, are still at the table
providing feedback and comments on the draft PLI. The same draft was
given to your staff on January 14, 2016 but thus far feedback has not
been provided.
Thank you for your consideration. Collaborative planning is
essential in the land management arena, and we look forward to meeting
with you.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Benally, Gary Herbert,
San Juan County
Commissioner Governor
Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz,
United States Senator Member of Congress
Chris Stewart, Mia Love,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC 20510
November 18, 2016
To the Co-Chairmen and Members of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition:
The November 2, 2016 meeting involving the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition and our offices was very productive. We were grateful for the
time of the Coalition members who were able to attend. We look forward
to continued dialogue as proposals are put forward concerning the Bears
Ears region of Utah.
Following up on the conversations we had during our meeting, we are
writing to formally request draft legislative language that would
implement an equitable co-management system for the Bears Ears region.
It has been widely reported that co-management cannot be achieved
through an Antiquities Act designation. We believe the congressional
process can craft a meaningful co-management plan in which the Tribes
are made equal to other participants.
We are committed to finding legislative solutions to the various
land designation and management challenges facing the Bears Ears region
of San Juan County, Utah. Open dialogue and communication will ensure
that all points of view, options, and solutions are considered.
We look forward to hearing from you and stand ready to work
together.
Sincerely,
Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop,
United States Senator United States Representative
Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz,
United States Senator United States Representative
______
Mr. Bishop Submission
BEARS EARS INTER-TRIBAL COALITION
November 30, 2016
To Utah Congressional Delegation:
Thank you for hosting a meeting between tribal leaders from the
Bears Ears Coalition and Utah congressional staff earlier this month.
We sincerely valued the opportunity to hear directly from you and to
discuss some of our concerns with the Utah Public Lands Initiative
(PLI).
As you know, each Tribe that comprises the Bears Ears Coalition has
continually expressed an interest in collaboratively managing the Bears
Ears landscape. We are pleased that you might be willing to accept our
approach to collaborative management. After internal deliberation,
however, the Coalition is still not able to support the Public Lands
Initiative as drafted. As discussed at the meeting, some problematic
areas of the PLI include:
The failure to use the boundaries, encompassing 1.9
million acres, as proposed by the Coalition after years of
expert research and analysis of this area;
The removal of 100,000 acres of land from the Uintah and
Ouray Indian Reservation;
Amendments to the Utah Navajo Trust Fund absent
consultation with the Navajo Nation;
The long term consequences that the transfer of energy
permitting and regulatory authority to the State will have
on the landscape and nearby communities;
Provisions validating Utah's claimed ownership of PL 2477
rights of way;
Provisions allowing mining in much of the 1.9 million acre
area proposed by the Coalition.
These are only a few of the concerns that the Coalition has with
the PLI. Until adequately addressed, the Coalition is not prepared to
acquiesce to a draft bill by providing additional draft language.
Nonetheless, we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss these
issues with each of your offices.
Sincerely,
Alfred Lomahquahu, Carleton Bowekaty,
Bears Ears Co-Chair Bears Ears Representative
Hopi Vice-Chairman Pueblo of Zuni Councilman
______
Mr. Grijalva Submissions
February 13, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representatives Bishop, Grijalva, McClintock and Hanabusa:
As organizations and Tribal Nations dedicated to the preservation
of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, we write today
regarding the Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National
Monument Act (H.R. 4532). For the reasons outlined below, we urge the
Committee not to advance this legislation.
The full Bears Ears National Monument protects an internationally
significant cultural landscape that holds evidence of more than 12,000
years of human history. In excess of 100,000 archaeological sites with
their associated artifacts lie within the monument's original
boundaries, along with natural landscapes of outstanding scenic beauty
that have deep cultural significance for Indian tribes with ancestral
ties to the region. The monument designation appropriately prioritized
protecting the remarkable cultural, historic, and scientific resources
found throughout the area, while continuing to allow for traditional
and recreational uses of these public lands.
H.R. 4532 would remove more than 1.1 million acres from the Bears
Ears National Monument, including some of the most significant and
highly visited archaeological areas such as Grand Gulch and most of
Cedar Mesa. The vast area that the bill excludes holds more than 70
percent of the original monument's documented archaeological sites,
historic and pre-historic structures, cliff dwellings, pictographs,
petroglyphs, kivas, ancient roads, historic trails, artifacts, and
other archaeological resources. These cultural resources require
greater management focus, strategic planning, and visitor education,
not less.
For the two new national monuments, the bill establishes a
troubling management structure that elevates the role of a small number
of local officials above the voices of the five sovereign Tribal
Nations represented on the Bears Ears Tribal Commission, as well as the
rest of the American people who own these lands. The bill explicitly
excludes the Hopi and Zuni tribes, whose ancestors, along with other
Pueblo tribes, are responsible for creating the remarkable
archaeological record preserved by the monument. We support tribal co-
management--including the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Indian Tribe,
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni alongside federal land
managers--to ensure tribal values and traditional knowledge are
incorporated in management of the area. Effective co-management
requires government-to-government collaboration both in design and
implementation. This bill provides neither.
We do appreciate the bill's acknowledgement that this culturally
sensitive and archaeologically rich landscape is not the appropriate
place for new oil and gas development or mining. We also applaud
Representative Curtis for seeing the need for more on-the-ground
resources, which should go beyond law enforcement to include staff
archaeologists, backcountry rangers, and education specialists.
However, these positive elements cannot compensate for the removal of
protection for key archaeological areas and the flawed management
structure that would put these lands at risk.
We urge the Committee not to move forward with this legislation,
and, instead, engage in meaningful discussions with Tribal governments,
archaeological experts, conservationists and other stakeholders about
how to protect the exceptional cultural resources of this area for
current and future generations.
Sincerely,
National Trust for Historic
Preservation National Association of Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers
American Anthropological
Association Nevada Preservation Foundation
American Cultural Resources
Association Pala THPO
Archaeology Southwest Providence Preservation Society
Arizona Heritage Alliance Governor Joseph Talachy and the
Pueblo of Pojoaque
Arizona Preservation
Foundation THPO, Pueblo of Pojoaque
California Preservation
Foundation Save Our Heritage Organisation
Cienega Watershed
Partnership Site Steward Foundation, Inc.
Coalition for American
Heritage Society for American Archaeology
Colorado Council of
Professional Archaeologists Society for California Archeology
Colorado Plateau
Archaeological Alliance Society for Historical
Archaeology
Colorado Preservation, Inc. SRI Foundation
Conservation Lands
Foundation US/ICOMOS (The United States
National Committee of the
International Council on
Monuments and Sites)
Crow Canyon Archaeological
Center Vail Preservation Society
Council for Northeast
Historical Archaeology Washington Trust for Historic
Preservation
Friends of Cedar Mesa
______
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
Nixon, Nevada
February 7, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representatives Bishop, Grijalva, McClintock and Hanabusa:
As organizations dedicated to the preservation of cultural,
historic, and archaeological resources, we write today regarding the
Shash Jaa National Monument and Indian Creek National Monument Act
(H.R. 4532). For the reason outlined below, we urge the Committee not
to advance this legislation.
The full Bears Ears National Monument protects an internationally
significant cultural landscape that holds evidence of more than 12,000
years of human history. In excess of 100,000 archaeological sites with
their associated artifacts lie within the monument's original
boundaries, along with natural landscapes of outstanding scenic beauty
that have deep cultural significance for Indian tribes with ancestral
ties to the region. The monument designation appropriately prioritized
protecting the remarkable cultural, historic and scientific resources
found throughout the area, while continuing to allow for traditional
and recreational uses of these public lands.
H.R. 4532 would remove more than 1.1 million acres from the Bears
Ears National Monument, including some of the most significant and
highly visited archaeological area such as Grand Gulch and most of
Cedar Mesa. The vast area that the bill excludes holds more than 70
percent of the original monument's documented archaeological sites,
historic and pre-historic structures, cliff dwellings, pictographs,
petroglyphs, kivas, ancient roads, historic trails, artifacts, and
other archaeological resources. These cultural resources require
greater management focus, strategic planning, and visitor education,
not less.
For the two new national monuments, the bill establishes a
troubling management structure that elevates the role of a small number
of local officials above the voices of the five sovereign Tribal
nations represented on the Bears Ears Tribal Commission, as well as the
rest of the American people who own these lands. The bill explicitly
excludes the Hopi and Zuni tribes, whose record preserved by the
monument. We support tribal co-management--including the Hopi Tribe,
Navajo Nation, Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Pueblo of
Zuni alongside federal land managers--to ensure tribal values and
traditional knowledge are incorporated in management of the area.
Effective co-management requires government-to-government collaboration
both in design and implementation. This bill provides neither.
We do appreciate the bill's acknowledgement that this culturally
sensitive and archaeologically rich landscape is not the appropriate
place for new oil and gas development or mining. We also applaud
Representative Curtis for seeing the need for more on-the-ground
resources, which should go beyond law enforcement to include staff
archaeologists, backcountry rangers, and education specialists.
However, these positive elements cannot compensate for the removal of
protection for key archaeological areas and the flawed management
structure that would put these lands at risk.
We urge the Committee not move forward with this legislation, and,
instead, engage in meaningful discussions with Tribal governments,
archaeological experts, conservationists and other stakeholders about
how to protect the exceptional cultural resources of this are for
current and future generations.
Respectfully,
Vinton Hawley,
Tribal Chairman.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
--Deseret News, ``Big money, environmentalists and the
Bears Ears story,'' by Amy Joi O'Donoghue, August
4, 2016.
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
--American Geosciences Institute, Statement for the Record
on H.R. 4532.
--Letter addressed to Chairman McClintock and Ranking
Member Hanabusa from the American Alpine Club,
dated January 30, 2018.
--National Parks Conservation Association, Statement for
the Record on H.R. 4532.
--Resolution NABIJA-05-18 of the Naabik'iyati' Standing
Committee of the 23rd Navajo Nation Council.
--Society for American Archaeology, Statement for the
Record on H.R. 4532.
--Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Advisory Resolution, dated
January 24, 2018.
[all]