Thanks for clarifying their argument.  I sure never realized a Congressman would be dumb enough to stand up in Congress and make a statement like that.  My naivete no doubt.  Their argument in favor of H.R. 1459 is what I would like to hear.  Again, I have to wonder, what national problems (national security, jobs, climate change, overpopulation, over consumption of energy, the best government money can buy, etc.)  are they blaming  on the Antiquities Act of 1906?  What are the national problems that are caused by the Antiquities Act?  What is their argument on the floor for altering the Antiquities Act?   Or did they get up and literally say " I'm owned by the Koch Brothers whose purpose is to develop as much public land as possible regardless of toxic waste and more carbon dioxide to heat the planet a little more"?My apologies for asking such a dumb question.

Susan West



On Mar 25, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Phyllis Mains wrote:

> Their reasoning, because they are owned by the Koch Brothers, is to develop as much  public land as possible regardless of toxic waste & more carbon dioxide to heat the planet a little more!  Maybe if they succeed we can grow oranges in IA! Phyllis 
>  
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:55:26 -0500 Norm West <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> 
> Has anyone seen/heard their reasoning behind the need for H.R. 1459?  Without a strong need for such a law, why have it?
> 
> Susan West
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:14 PM, William Witt wrote:
> 
>> It sounds like the proposed changes in procedure could result in the kind of local input & admin tiptoe-review/recomendation process that blocked the Upper Iowa from designation as a Wild & Scenic River and the Loess Hills from consideration for National Monument or Park status.  Thank goodness the R's are only able to push this kind of thing in the House.
>> 
>> BW
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Wallace Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> More shenanigans from the House of Representatives.
>> 
>> Wally Taylor
>>  
>> H.R. 1459, The Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act
>> http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44530
>> H.R. 1459 would amend the process of designating new national monuments. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to declare landmarks, structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are on federal land to be national monuments. H.R. 1459 would require an environmental review of any potential monuments that are greater than 5,000 acres. The designation of a national monument would expire after three years for any monument less than 5,000 acres unless the monument was designated by a change in the law. Under the bill, every designation would be followed by a feasibility study of the costs of managing the monument. The legislation also would limit the number of designations the President could make to one per state during a four-year term.
>> Based on information provided by the National Park Service, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1459 would cost about $2 million over the 2014-2018 period. Over the past 10 years, 16 national monuments have been established. CBO estimates that the additional studies required under the legislation would increase the cost of designating a new monument by about $300,000. Enacting H.R. 1459 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
>> H.R. 1459 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
>>  
>> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/20/3416916/house-no-more-national-parks/
>> http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/113_HR_1459.html#toc2
>> https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1459
>>  
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CCL-DELEGATES list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
>  
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp  To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp