September 23, 2016
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Preventing Abuse of the Antiquities Act
This past Monday marked the 20th anniversary of President Bill Clinton using the Antiquities Act to create the 1.5 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah.
For most Utahns, this date is not a cause for celebration. It’s a source of anger toward what many see as an out-of-touch and overbearing federal government
Infamously, the Clinton administration failed to notify the people of Utah prior to announcing the monument designation – probably because the administration knew that nearly everyone in the state was opposed to the idea.
Utah’s congressional delegation, state and county leaders, and local residents all warned that a national-monument designation would dramatically disrupt the way of life in southern Utah and make it harder for working-class Utahns to earn a living.
Dismissing these concerns, administration officials insisted that an Antiquities Act designation would actually boost the local economy.
But 20 years later, the verdict is in. The people of Utah were right.
The land-use restrictions that accompanied the monument have wiped out many of the stable jobs that previously formed the backbone of the local economy – including ranching, mining, and timber harvesting.
To the limited extent that the national monument has spurred any job creation, it has been confined to the government and seasonal-tourism sectors, which don’t provide the steady work or wages necessary to support a family.
Today, Utah is again facing the threat of another national-monument designation. At the behest of mostly out-of-state environmental activists, President Obama is currently considering creating the Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah. And just like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, a Bears Ears monument would deprive vulnerable communities of vital economic, recreational, and cultural resources, by unilaterally locking up 1.9 million acres of land.
This Wednesday, Utah Native Americans delivered to the Secretary of the Interior letters, petitions, and resolutions opposing the proposed Bears Ears National Monument.
Their message should be heard loud and clear: enough is enough. The people of Utah are tired of living in fear that the president may at any moment, with the stroke of his pen, upend their way of life.
House Natural Resources Chairman Bishop has spent the past three years working on the Public Lands Initiative, legislation that would further protect the lands President Obama is considering designating. After holding more than a thousand meetings, Chairman Bishop is on the verge of passing a middle-of-the-road lands bill.
Unfortunately, this process is on the verge of being short-circuited by executive fiat. This is why I have introduced S. 3317, which would prohibit the establishment of new national monuments in Utah except by express authorization of Congress. This is not some radical new idea or a special carve out. Since 1950, Wyoming has enjoyed an identical exemption from the Antiquities Act.
My bill would simply put Utah on an equal footing with Wyoming and give the people of Utah some peace of mind about the future of their lands and livelihoods.
Issue in Focus: Is U.S. Inadvertently Assisting Al Qaeda in Yemen?
One of the reasons many Americans are growing increasingly wary of the United States intervening in sectarian armed conflicts in the Middle East is that our actions – no matter how well-intentioned – often have unpredictable consequences that produce more instability and volatility, fostering the conditions for terrorist organizations to thrive.
The United States’ ongoing involvement in the civil war raging in Yemen is a case in point.
After overthrowing the Yemeni government in 2014, the Houthis – a Shia Islam movement from northern Yemen – began an aggressive campaign to consolidate power in the country that included a moderately successful war against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a rival faction vying for control in Yemen and also a sworn enemy of the United States. Of all the terrorist organizations operating around the world today, AQAP is consistently ranked by U.S. military and intelligence officials as one of the most dangerous and greatest threats to U.S. national security – a position that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter reiterated on Thursday in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Now, this doesn’t validate the old proverb that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – the Houthis are certainly not a friend to the United States – but there’s no denying that their string of battlefield victories against AQAP and their stated commitment to destroying the terrorist group coincided with one of the strategic objectives of U.S. military strategy in the Middle East.
But the Houthis’ successes – and AQAP’s losses – quickly came to an end when Saudi Arabia, a long-time ally of the recently overthrown Yemeni government, began attacking the Houthis more than a year ago. With its chief regional adversary dramatically weakened, AQAP was able to reassert itself and now controls a large portion of central Yemen and its coastline – an area that rivals the size of ISIS’s territories in Iraq and Syria.
And where did Saudi Arabia get the military equipment and logistical support necessary to carry out its extended intervention into Yemen’s civil war? The United States of America. In addition to providing hundreds of air-to-air sorties, the United States recently approved the sale of $1.15 billion worth of weapons to the Saudi military.
Now, there’s nothing wrong, in principle, with the United States government selling military weapons and equipment to our allies. Saudi Arabia has long been an American ally in a very volatile region, and strengthening that alliance should be a priority of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
But the fact that Saudi Arabia is an ally with whom we have a track record of selling arms is not a sufficient reason to endorse this arms deal. Yes, we want our allies to be strong and capable of defending themselves. And yes, we should offer them assistance in times of need. But the first and most fundamental responsibility of the United States government is not to satisfy the requests of our allies. It is to protect the lives and liberties of the American people.
Is intervening in the Yemeni civil war – and participating in the decades-long sectarian conflict underlying that war – necessary in order to protect the lives and liberties of the American people?
Earlier this week the Senate had an opportunity to debate this question in response to Senator Rand Paul’s resolution of disapproval of the billion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia. But by voting to table Senator Paul’s resolution, the Senate opted the avoid this debate.
This was more than just a missed opportunity – it was a gross dereliction of duty. Members of Congress in both chambers have a responsibility to the American people to carefully evaluate our interventions abroad, and to participate in the process of defining America’s national interests and developing a foreign policy to pursue those interests. If we ever hope to earn back the trust of the American people, we must once again fulfill this obligation.
------------------
