H. Rept. 111-480 - DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO THE SECRETARY'S TREASURED LANDSCAPE INITIATIVE, POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND HIGH PRIORITY LAND-RATIONALIZATION EFFORTS111th Congress (2009-2010)
PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-480
======================================================================
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO THE SECRETARY'S
TREASURED LANDSCAPE INITIATIVE, POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL
MONUMENTS, AND HIGH PRIORITY LAND-RATIONALIZATION EFFORTS
_______
May 11, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 1254]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 1254) directing the Secretary of the
Interior to transmit to the House of Representatives certain
information relating to the Secretary's Treasured Landscape
Initiative, potential designation of National Monuments, and
High Priority Land-Rationalization Efforts, having considered
the same, report thereon without amendment and without
recommendation.
PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION
The purpose of H. Res 1254 is to direct the Secretary of
the Interior to transmit to the House of Representatives
certain information relating to the Secretary's Treasured
Landscape Initiative, potential designation of National
Monuments, and High Priority Land-Rationalization Efforts.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H. Res. 1254 is a resolution of inquiry that directs the
Secretary of the Interior to transmit to the House of
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the
adoption of the resolution by the full House, copies of all
Department of the Interior documents, maps, records (including
electronic records), communications and other information
dating from July 1, 2009, and later referring to or relating to
the Secretary of the Interior's Treasured Landscape Initiative,
potential designation of National Monuments, and High Priority
Land-Rationalization Efforts. Under clause 7 of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee must
act on such a resolution within 14 legislative days or a
privileged motion to discharge the Committee will be in order
in the House.
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is one of the methods used by the House to obtain
information from the executive branch. According to volume 7,
chapter 24, section 8 of Deschler's Procedure, it is a ``simple
resolution making a direct request or demand of the President
or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of
Representatives with specific factual information in the
possession of the executive branch.''
COMMITTEE ACTION
H. Res. 1254 was introduced on April 15, 2010 by
Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA). The resolution was referred
to the Committee on Natural Resources. No hearings were held on
the resolution. On May 5, 2010, the full Natural Resources
Committee met to consider the resolution. A motion by
Representative Doc Hastings to favorably report H. Res. 1254 to
the House of Representatives was not agreed to by a vote of 20
yeas and 22 nays, as follows:
The resolution was then ordered reported without
recommendation to the House of Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply, as H. Res. 1254 is not a bill
or joint resolution.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this resolution. The Committee
estimates implementing this resolution would not result in any
significant costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not
provide a cost estimate for the resolution.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
resolution does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this resolution is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to transmit to the House of Representatives certain
information relating to the Secretary's Treasured Landscape
Initiative, potential designation of National Monuments, and
High Priority Land-Rationalization Efforts.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This resolution contains no unfunded mandates.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H. Res. 1254 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This resolution is not intended to preempt any State, local
or tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
H. Res. 1254 would make no changes in existing law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We were compelled to introduce H. Res. 1254, a Resolution
of Inquiry, because the Department of the Interior for two
months has been stonewalling a written request for documents
relating to a ``Treasured Landscapes Initiative'' and still-
secret plan for possible new national monuments, land use
restrictions and federal acquisitions.
Since mid-February when Republicans on the House Natural
Resources Committee revealed several leaked pages of a secret
Interior Department document, Secretary Salazar has received
repeated questions from Democrats and Republicans on what
exactly the Department is up to. The Secretary has repeatedly
stated that there is ``no secret agenda'' and ``no hidden
agenda.''
And yet, it is over two months later, and neither the
Congress nor the American people who live in the communities
targeted by this document has seen one more page of it
disclosed by the Administration. We revealed pages 15-21, but
the Department has had two months and still won't let the
public see pages 1 to 14, or pages 22 and higher.
The night before the Natural Resources Committee was to
meet to markup the Resolution of Inquiry, the Department
delivered a letter and CD containing 383 pages of information.
Some might think this response, no matter how late or slow in
coming, would resolve the matter and the public could learn
just what was afoot. But after reading the letter and reviewing
the pages the Department provided, we are more alarmed than
ever at the Department's refusal to come clean on its plans for
possible new national monuments.
The Department provided 383 pages of documents but said it
was withholding over 2000 more pages from Congress and the
public. It didn't turn over a single missing page from the key
document that outlines the monument plans. Where are pages 1
through 14? Where are pages 22 and higher? They haven't been
disclosed. They are still hidden from the American people.
The Department turned over a number of emails, but many of
these were merely cover letters for attachments, and it did not
provide the attachments to those emails. These attachments
appear to be the very documents that we are requesting be
disclosed to the public.
Of the 383 pages we did get, seven of them are actual
emails or documents that we Republicans sent to the Department.
In fact, one of the only email attachments that the Department
did disclose was our letter to the Department making the
document request.
Furthermore, the few, incomplete and redacted documents we
did receive raise even more questions and concerns. We can now
confirm that it was not just the Bureau of Land Management that
was involved in this secret document on possible new national
monuments and federal lands. The National Park Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
the Bureau of Reclamation were also involved. And the
Department is still withholding the documents that reveal these
agencies' involvement and what proposals they may have made for
either national monuments or other restrictions or acquisitions
of federal lands. The emails also reveal potential
communication with the White House on this effort, though the
documents are incomplete and this remains an open question.
This Administration has talked a great deal about openness
and transparency since taking office, but what we are seeing is
stonewalling and hiding behind lawyers. If there is no secret
or hidden agenda, then why not disclose all the pages of the
document? What are they afraid to allow the public to see?
Some have said the Department is too busy to disclose their
plans. But the Department has already gathered the documents--
over 2000 pages--and then decided to withhold them from
Congress and the public. The documents are sitting in a box or
in a computer down in the Interior Department building just
several blocks away from the Capitol; it takes no time or
energy away from other activities to just give Congress a copy.
The Department's secret planning affects districts and
states represented by Democrats and Republicans in both the
House and Senate. The American public and their elected
representatives deserve answers. These plans by the
Administration could take a terrible toll on communities across
the West whose livelihoods depend upon the public lands
targeted by the Administration.
The American people have legitimate reason to be concerned
about these secret plans. The few pages that were leaked in
February identified that 13 million acres of Western land are
under consideration for being put under lock and key by
Presidential fiat without any prior Congressional or public
knowledge or support, much as the Clinton Administration, in
the dark of night, used the Antiquities Act to create Grand-
Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah. In that case,
the Governor of Utah was not notified until 2 a.m. on the day
of the announcement of the President's edict to lock up a
section of his state larger than Rhode Island, Delaware and the
District of Columbia combined.
We regret that our Democrat colleagues on the Committee
chose to side with the Administration's stonewalling and
blockade of public disclosure and openness when they voted
against favorably reporting this Resolution of Inquiry to the
full House. The seriousness of what the Department of Interior
has been planning in secret, and the seriousness of demanding
and expecting open, public and transparent actions by
government officials deserved a ``Yes'' vote to favorably
report. Our effort to hold the Administration to its own much-
hyped standard of openness and transparency will not end by
Committee Democrats reporting out this Resolution without
recommendation. This move effectively halts action on the
Resolution, but it absolutely will not halt our demand and
continued push for these documents to be disclosed to the
public. The Secretary has repeatedly claimed there is ``no
secret agenda'' and ``no hidden agenda'' at the same time his
Department engages in efforts to keep its plans as secret and
hidden from public view as possible. This is unacceptable, and
we won't stop until this veil of secrecy is fully lifted and
all information is brought out into the sunlight for public
review.
Doc Hastings.
Rob Bishop.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
Secretary of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Salazar: We were distressed to learn from an
internal ``NOT FOR RELEASE'' document that deliberations
regarding potential National Monument designation sites and
``high priority land-rationalization efforts'' were taking
place within the Department of Interior without public
knowledge or participation.
We do, however, take a degree of comfort in your subsequent
statement that you hope for a more open process in which
locally affected people and their Representatives are engaged
in a ``public dialogue'' rather than being recipients of
surprise announcements. While not an explicit assurance that
the unilateral actions outlined in the document will not be
carried out, we do hope the statement does mean that an open,
transparent process involving the public will occur prior to
any action by the Department or the President.
Left unanswered at this point are many questions about the
status of potential National Monument designations, what groups
and individuals are or were involved in this endeavor, and the
extent to which the process will continue to be carried out
behind closed doors. Therefore, we request the following
information no later than March 26, 2010.
1. All pages of the ``Internal Draft'' document of which we
obtained only pages 15 to 21.
2. With regard to the ``brainstorming'' sessions you
publicly mentioned, we would like a copy of any documents
distributed at or in preparation for the meetings, a list of
all participants or invitees, any notes taken at the
meeting(s), and any memoranda, work product or follow up
documents from the meeting(s). All records, electronic or
otherwise, of meetings or discussions with private groups,
individuals or other persons or entities that are not employees
of the Department of the Interior where potential National
Monument designations were discussed. We request all notes,
agendas, memoranda or documents from those meetings.
3. All documents related to the Secretary's initiative to
compile a list of potential National Monument designations
since July 1, 2009, including, but not limited to, maps.
4. Any communication with any person or entity outside of
the Department of the Interior related to the Secretary's
initiative since July 1, 2009.
We thank you for your prompt response to our previous
letter and look forward to an equally prompt and fully
informative reply to this letter.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources.
Rob Bishop,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on National Parks,
Forests and Public
Lands.
Tom McClintock.
Doug Lamborn.
Don Young.
Dean Heller.
Greg Walden.
Jeff Flake.
Denny Rehberg.
Cynthia M. Lummis.
Jason Chaffetz.
Pete Sessions.
Scott Garrett.
John Campbell.
Michael Simpson.