U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89-584 PS 2004

H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, AND 

H.R. 2966

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Serial No. 108-63

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 ..................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin 

Islands ............................................................................................................ 3

Cummings, Hon. Elijah, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 45

Prepared statement on H.R. 2424 ........................................................... 47

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, and H.R. 2966 ............ 2 

Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Montana ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 1629 ........................................................... 5

Statement of Witnesses: 

Calvert, Chad, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. .......... 8

Prepared statement on H.R. 1629 ........................................................... 9

Prepared statement on H.R. 2424 ........................................................... 11

Prepared statement on H.R. 2966 ........................................................... 13

Knox, Matt, Chairman, Missouri River Stewards, Winifred, Montana ....... 36

Prepared statement on H.R. 1629 ........................................................... 38

Martin, Joanne M., Ph.D., President and CEO, The Great Blacks in 

Wax Museum, Baltimore, Maryland ........................................................... 32

Prepared statement on H.R. 2424 ........................................................... 34

Roeser, Jennifer A., Director, High Sierra Packers’ Association, Eastern 

Sierra Unit, and Owner, McGee Creek Pack Station, Mammoth Lakes, 

California ....................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement on H.R. 2966 ........................................................... 27 

Tureck, Hugo, Vice-Chairman, Friends of the Missouri Breaks 

Monument, Coffee Creek, Montana ............................................................. 40

Prepared statement on H.R. 1629 ........................................................... 42

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1629, TO 

CLARIFY THAT THE UPPER MISSOURI 

RIVER BREAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

DOES NOT INCLUDE WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES ANY PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 2424, TO 

AUTHORIZE ASSISTANCE FOR THE 

NATIONAL GREAT BLACKS IN WAX MUSEUM 

AND JUSTICE LEARNING CENTER; AND 

H.R. 2966, TO PRESERVE THE USE AND 

ACCESS OF PACK AND SADDLE STOCK 

ANIMALS ON PUBLIC LANDS, INCLUDING 

WILDERNESS AREAS, NATIONAL MONUMENTS, AND OTHER SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AREAS, ADMINISTERED BY THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, THE UNITED STATES 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, OR THE FOREST SERVICE WHERE THERE IS A HISTORICAL TRADITION OF SUCH USE, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. 

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Radanovich, Christensen, Tom Udall, 

Bordallo, Rehberg, and Cummings. 

2

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good morning. The Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands hearing on H.R. 1629, 

H.R. 2424, and H.R. 2966 will come to order. Good afternoon, 

everybody. 

Our first bill, H.R. 1629, is introduced by Congressman Denny 

Rehberg of Montana, which would clarify that the Upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument does not include within its 

boundaries any privately owned property. 

Our second bill is H.R. 2424, introduced by Congressman Elijah 

Cummings of Maryland, which would authorize assistance for the 

National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning 

Center, located in Baltimore. 

And our last bill is H.R. 2966, which I introduced, which would 

preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on 

public lands where there is a historical tradition of such use, including wilderness areas, National Monuments, and other specifically designated areas administered by the National Park Service, 

BLM, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. While I introduced H.R. 2966 for a number of reasons, 

the driving force was to affirm my commitment to continued access 

of our public lands by ensuring trails, routes, and areas used by 

pack and saddle stock would remain open and accessible. 

Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask 

unanimous consent that Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Cummings be permitted to sit on the dais following their statements. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for any 

opening statement she may have. Donna? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman,

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on 

H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, and H.R. 2966

Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order 

This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public 

Lands will receive testimony on three bills—H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424 and H.R. 2966. 

Our first bill, H.R. 1629, introduced by Congressman Dennis Rehberg of 

Montana, would clarify that the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument 

does not include within its boundaries any privately owned property. 

Our second bill, H.R. 2424, introduced by Congressman Elijah Cummings of 

Maryland, would authorize assistance for the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center, located in Baltimore, Maryland. 

And our last bill, H.R. 2966, which I introduced, would preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on public lands, where there is a historical 

tradition of such use, including wilderness areas, National Monuments, and other 

specifically designated areas administered by the National Park Service, the Bureau 

of Land Management, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest 

Service. 

While I introduced H.R. 2966 for a number of reasons, the driving force was to 

affirm my commitment to continued access of our public lands by ensuring trails, 

routes, and areas used by pack and saddle stock remain open and accessible. 

Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask unanimous consent 

that Mr. Rehberg and Mr. Cummings be permitted to sit on the dais following their 

statements. Without objection, so ordered. 

I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen for any opening statement 

she may have. 

3

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, as you 

have said, this Subcommittee will consider three unrelated bills. 

The first, H.R. 1629, introduced by Mr. Rehberg, provides that 

the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument shall not include 

within its exterior borders any privately owned properties. This is 

not a new subject for the Subcommittee. Last Congress, we considered identical legislation. At that time, there were some fundamental misconceptions regarding the impact of the National 

Monument proclamation, with perceptions holding more sway than 

the reality of the situation. 

Two points need to be stressed today. The first is that including 

private land within the exterior boundary does not make that land 

part of the National Monument. On that point, both the Monument 

proclamation and the Antiquities Act are clear. 

Second, neither the Monument proclamation or the Antiquities 

Act gives the BLM any authority to subject these lands to regulation and management as part of the Federal Monument unless, of 

course, those lands are acquired by the Federal Government. There 

has been a lot of focus on the Upper Missouri Breaks boundary 

map, which contains Federal, State, and private lands. This map 

reflects the fact that the public lands are intermingled with State 

and private lands in many sections and that Monument features 

bisect all these lands. This is not uncommon. Intermingled public 

and private lands are common in the West. Numerous, National 

Monuments and National Forests have such intermingled public 

and private lands. 

Members will need to look closely at H.R. 1629. This legislation 

calls into question not only the exterior boundary of the Upper 

Missouri Breaks National Monument, but also the basis for the 

boundaries of numerous National Monuments and National Forests 

around the country. 

Our second bill, H.R. 2424, sponsored by our colleague and our 

esteemed Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative 

Elijah Cummings, authorizes a $15 million grant to The Great 

Blacks in Wax Museum in East Baltimore. While the funding contained in the bill would come from the Department of Justice, 

members of this Subcommittee are interested to learn more regarding this unique and important museum of African-American history 

and plans for expanding the Museum’s existing facilities. 

Our final bill is H.R. 2966, a measure which you introduced, Mr. 

Chairman, regarding the use and access of pack and other saddle 

stock animals on Federal lands. H.R. 2966 appears to raise a number of issues. By amending the organic statutes of the Federal land 

management agencies to enshrine such use, the bill appears to 

raise pack and saddle animal use above other public uses of Federal lands. Such public uses as hunting, fishing, and hiking have 

no similar right of access in these organic statutes. Furthermore, 

the legislation makes no provision for curtailment of a pack or saddle stock use for reasons of public health or safety or in an emergency, nor does the legislation address conflicts with other public 

uses or the management of natural and cultural resources. We 

4

should be extremely wary in singling out one particular public use 

for special treatment. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the presence of our witnesses here 

this afternoon. I especially want to welcome our Chair, Elijah 

Cummings, and look forward to the insights on the legislation we 

are considering. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. 

I will now move on to our first panel, which includes the Honorable Elijah Cummings, Representative from the 7th District of 

Maryland, who I believe stepped out. I know Mr. Cummings was 

stating that he had a bill to manage on the Floor. Can you check 

and see if he has stepped out? If not, we will move on to our other 

speaker for now. There are people and things coming in, but——

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. I think Mr. Cummings had to leave to 

manage a bill on the Floor. We will leave it open for a different 

time in the hearing for Mr. Cummings to make a presentation. 

That being the case, I will refer to Mr. Dennis Rehberg, who is 

here to speak on H.R. 1629. Denny, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the 

fact that you would take time out of your busy schedule to schedule 

this hearing for me. Mrs. Christensen and Ms. Bordallo, welcome, 

and thank you again for listening to an issue that is very specific 

to Montana. It is not precedent-setting for the rest of the country, 

but it is very important to the 127 landowners within the State of 

Montana. 

It allows us to address and debate an issue as old as our 

republic—private property rights. In fact, the issues before us 

today deal very much with the same concerns that led our Founding Fathers to declare their independence from an overbearing 

monarchy almost 300 years ago. Those Founding Fathers clearly 

codified private property rights in the Constitution, yet those rights 

are currently being challenged in the form of a boundary to a 

National Monument located in the State of Montana. 

In the late hours of January 17, 2001, President Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt created the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument, encompassing nearly 400,000 acres of 

federally owned land. With less than 90 hours remaining in his 

Presidency, the administration made this designation without consulting county officials, the Governor, the Congressional delegation, 

or the private property landowners whom the designation would indirectly affect. 

In the rush to complete his Executive Order designating the 

Monument, President Clinton included more than 80,000 acres of 

private land in its boundaries. Ranchers and farmers that have 

worked the same land for generations woke up on January 18 of 

2001 to find their family farms now part of an enormous new Federal Monument. Overnight, and despite their opposition, those 127 

landowners found themselves and their land gobbled up by the 

Federal Government. 

5

Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Government’s decision to include more than 80,000 acres of private land 

in the Monument’s boundary sends one clear and unmistakable 

message to the families involved: Washington wants your land. 

They called on me as their voice in Washington to remedy the 

debacle that Washington had created in Montana, so I introduced 

legislation last year. It was favorably reported from this 

Committee, and I reintroduce it this year to do one thing, remove 

private property from within the boundary lines of the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. 

H.R. 1629, the Upper Missouri River Breaks Boundary Clarification Act, is carefully crafted, I repeat, carefully crafted to help 

Montana landowners while at the same time preserving Federal 

management of the Monument itself. Local support for this effort 

is great. In fact, on March 24, 2003, a citizen delegation presented 

me with a petition supporting my legislation, signed by more than 

3,000 Montanans, most of whom live inside or near the Breaks 

boundary. 

I would like to, with unanimous consent, include that petition in 

the hearing record, along with official letters of support from the 

majority of the Montana State House and State Senate; letters of 

support from the American Farm Bureau, who are in the audience; 

letters of support from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 

the Montana Stock Growers, and the Montana Farm Bureau; letters of support from the State Senator Ed Butcher—he represents 

the folks in the Monument area; letters of support from landowners 

Tom and Gladys Walling of Winifred, Montana—they own 320 

acres in the Monument boundary; and letters from the county commissioners, who unanimously have opposed including private property and support this bill. I might add, in Montana, our counties 

are represented by three county commissioners each, Republicans, 

Democrats, and Independents alike, and they unanimously support 

this legislation. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. There being no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[NOTE: The petition and letters of support submitted for the 

record has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rehberg follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Dennis R. Rehberg, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Montana, on H.R. 1629

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing today. It allows us to address and debate an issue as old as our republic—private property rights. In fact, 

the issues before us today deal very much with the same concerns that led our 

Founding Fathers to declare their independence from an overbearing monarchy almost three hundred years ago. 

Those Founding Fathers clearly codified private property rights in the Constitution. Yet those rights are currently being challenged in the form of a boundary to 

a National Monument located in the State of Montana. 

In the late hours of January 17, 2001, President Clinton and Interior Secretary 

Bruce Babbitt created the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument—encompassing nearly 400,000 acres of federally owned land. 

With less than ninety hours remaining in his presidency, the Administration 

made this designation without consulting county officials, the governor, the congressional delegation, or the private property landowners whom the designation would 

directly affect. 

In the rush to complete his Executive Order designating the Monument, President 

Clinton included more than 80,000 acres of private land in its boundaries. 

6

Ranchers and farmers that have worked the same land for generations woke up 

on January 18, 2001, to find their family farms now part of an enormous new federal Monument. Overnight—and despite their opposition—those 127 landowners 

found themselves—and their land—gobbled up by the federal government. 

Let there be no mistake Mr. Chairman, the federal government’s decision to include more than 80,000 acres of private land in the Monument’s boundary sends one 

clear and unmistakable message to the families involved: ‘‘Washington Wants Your 

Land.’’

They called on me, as their voice of Montana in Washington, to remedy the debacle that Washington had created in Montana. So I introduced legislation last year—

it was favorably reported from this Committee. And I re-introduced that this year 

to do one thing—remove private property from within the boundary of the Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument. 

H.R. 1629, the Upper Missouri River Breaks Boundary Clarification Act 

H.R. 1629 is carefully crafted to help Montana landowners, while at the same time 

preserving federal management of the Monument itself. Local support for this effort 

is great—in fact, on March 24, 2003, a citizen delegation presented me with a petition supporting my legislation signed by more than 3,000 Montanans, most of whom 

live inside or near the Breaks boundary. 

In fact, I move to include this tremendous showing of local public support in the 

official hearing record. 

President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the Monument in the 

dark of night, but the Antiquities Act specifically mandates that lands included in 

a Monument, quote, ‘‘shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the 

proper care and management of the object to be protected.’’ In the case of this particular Monument, the Washington, D.C., powers-that-be deliberately ignored that 

provision of the Antiquities Act and extended the Monument boundary as they saw 

fit. 

As you can clearly see from the map at the front of the room,—private property 

is indicated by the bright pink color—the boundary of the Monument was not confined to the smallest area compatible. It is difficult to understand how all that 

bright pink up there equals ‘‘the smallest area compatible’’—it seems like there are 

enormous areas of bright pink on that map. 

Mr. Chairman, private property was included not for proper care and management of the Monument, but for future acquisition and inclusion in the Monument. 

Officials at the BLM have stated as much publicly. 

My point in bringing this to the Committee’s attention is that the inclusion of 

more than 80,000 acres of private property represents blatant abuse of the Antiquities Act. And frankly, it ultimately brings into question the legality of the Monument. 

But my point in coming before the Committee today with my legislation is not 

to question the legality of the Monument. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, I support the Monument. I support protection of this resource. My legislation, though, 

represents the landowners in my state who wish to be taken out of its boundaries. 

As various lobbying organizations from Washington, D.C., and Montana have 

geared up for the debate over this legislation, one fact seems to have been tossed 

aside in the stampede: none of the folks opposed to my legislation are personally 

impacted by the Monument boundary. In fact, the opposition witness we will hear 

from today lives outside the Monument boundary. 

H.R. 1629 has the unanimous support of locally elected county commissioners 

representing the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. H.R. 1629 has 

the strong support of Governor Martz. The largest daily newspaper in the region, 

The Great Falls Tribune, long an advocate for the Monument, has editorialized in 

support of my legislation. Quoting now from the editorial: ‘‘In addition to a clear 

map they can hold up when a tourist wanders onto their land, what the landowners 

are seeking is anything that might give them more leverage down the road in the 

event the larger public interest doesn’t square with their own...We don’t see much 

of a downside to that, the original framers of the Monument shouldn’t either.’’

But most importantly Mr. Chairman, this legislation has the strong support of the 

private landowners who are actually affected by the Monument designation and 

boundary. 3,300 local residents took the time to sign a petition supporting this legislation. 3,300 people. In the end, that should be all that matters to this Committee 

and the Congress. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 

1906 to create the Monument in the dark of night, but the 

7

Antiquities Act specifically mandates that lands included in the 

Monument, quote, ‘‘shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the object to be protected.’’ In the case of this particular Monument, the Washington, 

D.C., powers that deliberately ignored that provision of the Antiquities Act and extended the Monument boundary as they saw fit. 

As you can clearly see from the map, and I believe you have one 

in your packet, the private property is indicated by the bright pink 

color. The boundary of the Monument was not confined to the 

smallest area compatible. It is difficult to understand how all the 

bright pink up there equals the smallest area compatible. It seems 

like there are enormous areas of pink on that map. 

Mr. Chairman, private property was included not for proper care 

and management of the Monument, but for future acquisition and 

inclusion in the Monument. Officials at the BLM have stated as 

much publicly. 

My point in bringing this to the Committee’s attention is that the 

inclusion of more than 80,000 acres of private property represents 

blatant abuse of the Antiquities Act, and frankly, it ultimately 

brings into question the legality of the Monument. 

But my point in coming before the Committee today with this 

legislation is not to question the legality of the Monument. Make 

no mistake, Mr. Chairman. I support the Monument. I support protection of this resource. My legislation, though, represents the landowners in my State who wish to be taken out of its boundaries. 

As various lobbying organizations from Washington, D.C., and 

Montana have geared up for the debate, one fact seems to have 

been tossed aside in the stampede. None of the folks opposed to my 

legislation are personally impacted by the Monument boundary. In 

fact, the opposition witness we will hear from today does not own 

property within the boundary. 

H.R. 1629 has the unanimous support, as I said, of the local 

county commissioners, the Governor, the legislators. The largest 

daily newspaper in the region, The Great Falls Tribune, long an 

advocate for the Monument, has editorialized in support of my legislation. Quoting now from the editorial, ‘‘In addition to a clear 

map they can hold up when a tourist wanders onto their land, 

what the landowners are seeking is anything that might give them 

more leverage down the road in the event the larger public interest 

doesn’t square with their own. We don’t see much of a downside to 

that. The original framers of the Monument shouldn’t, either.’’

But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation has the 

strong support of the private landowners who are actually affected 

by the Monument designation and boundary. Thirty-three-hundred 

local residents took the time to sign a petition supporting this legislation. Thirty-three-hundred people. In the end, that should be all 

that matters to this Committee and to Congress. 

Thank you, and I ask unanimous consent to put this in the 

record. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. I appreciate your testimony. 

Any questions of Mr. Rehberg? 

[No response.] 

8

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. That concludes our first panel. Again, 

the Honorable Elijah Cummings had to leave for Floor duty, I believe, but is welcome to come back and make his statement for the 

Committee any time during the time that the Committee is doing 

business. 

Next up is panel two, Mr. Chad Calvert, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management, Department 

of the Interior in Washington, D.C., and former employee of the incredible George Radanovich. 

Chad, welcome to the Committee. It is good to see you. Of course, 

Chad is here to speak on H.R. 1629, H.R. 2424, and H.R. 2966, all 

the bills that we will be hearing about. Chad, welcome to the 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF CHAD CALVERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, members of 

the Committee. It is my honor and privilege to be here testifying 

before this Subcommittee, in particular, for my first hearing on the 

House side. 

I would like to ask in advance that my statements be made part 

of the public record and I am going to summarize them. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. There being no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CALVERT. With regard to H.R. 1629, I have to say that I 

think the Congressman has already made the compelling case for 

his bill and the Department supports the bill, particularly because 

it would provide additional certainty to private and State owners 

of land located within the boundaries and that the designation 

itself and the management plan should have no effect on their 

property rights. 

The proclamation signed in January 2001 designed 377,000 acres 

as National Monument, running along 150 miles of the river. It included large blocks of the Wild and Scenic River Corridor and land 

management by the BLM, as well as land managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The Monument boundary also includes 

nearly 82,000 acres inside of it of private land and 39,000 acres of 

State land. 

It is true, it is not uncommon for management units to encompass scattered private and State lands, but this Monument actually 

includes more private and State land acreage than any other. It is 

more scattered, and there are certainly more individual landowners 

than in any other National Monument. 

So it presents a number of difficult management questions for 

the managing agency about how they work with local landowners, 

how they engage people to be cooperative in their management of 

the Monument, and how to move forward in a supportive manner 

with those people. 

The language of the proclamation does state clearly that the 

Monument itself is established lands and interest in lands owned 

and controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the 

area described on the map, consisting of approximately 377,000 

acres. On these Federal lands, the Monument proclamation imposed a number of restrictions. However, it is clear that these 

9

restrictions are not meant to apply to private or State land within 

the Monument. 

This legislation offered by Representative Rehberg would help 

reassure those who express concerns, notably 3,300-plus of them 

from the State of Montana, regarding this proclamation. It would 

reaffirm that private lands are not within the boundary—I am 

sorry, are not a part of the Monument, and it would direct the Department of Interior to provide a map for management planning 

purposes to reflect the actual Federal lands that make up the 

Monument itself. 

The Department would urge the Committee to reflect on Section 

2(a) and insert, in lieu of any privately owned property to include 

any land that is not owned by the Federal Government, which 

would allow for the State lands to receive the same treatment as 

the private lands under the bill. 

With that, I would conclude my testimony on that bill and move 

just briefly to testimony on H.R. 2424, The Great Blacks in Wax 

Museum and Justice Learning Center. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1629

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department 

of the Interior on H.R. 1629, the Upper Missouri River Breaks Boundary Clarification Act. While we believe that the Presidential proclamation establishing the 

Monument makes it clear that the proclamation covers only Federally-owned lands 

within the Monument boundaries, the Department supports H.R. 1629 because it 

would provide additional comfort to the private and state owners of lands located 

within the Monument boundaries that the Monument designation will not impact 

management of their lands. This will also help us to engage some of our local partners in a more constructive fashion that we believe will result in a more broadly 

supported management plan for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. 

President Clinton created the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument 

by Proclamation 7398 on January 17, 2001, under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The 

Antiquities Act allows the President in certain circumstances to create a Monument 

from land that is owned or controlled by the United States. The Proclamation stated 

clearly that the Monument consists of ‘‘all lands and interests in lands owned or 

controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area described on the 

map entitled ’Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument’ attached to and 

forming part of this proclamation.’’ The problem is that the map showed boundaries 

that enclosed private and state land as well—not just Federally-owned or controlled 

lands. It was undoubtedly intentional that the map boundaries enclosed private and 

state land as well, because the Proclamation also said ‘‘Lands and interests in land 

within the proposed Monument not owned by the United States shall be reserved 

as a part of the Monument upon acquisition of title thereto by the United States.’’ 

The Proclamation makes no claim to non-Federal property within the area that it 

identifies as the Monument. The legal uncertainty created by the Proclamation goes 

to the status of non-Federal land within this area that the Federal Government may 

later acquire, not to the scope of the Federal Government’s current interests or even 

to the reach of its existing acquisition authorities. Although the uncertainty created 

by the Proclamation does not affect the security of title held by private and state 

landowners, it may affect their interests. If land that the United States acquires 

within the Monument area automatically obtained Monument status, as the Proclamation asserts, the prospects for economic activity in the region could be altered. 

Accordingly, private and state landowners can benefit significantly from congressional reaffirmation of the status of these non-Federal lands. The Department of the 

Interior supports H.R. 1629 as a means of providing that reaffirmation to residents 

of the Upper Missouri Breaks area. 

Background 

The proclamation designated 377,346 acres of Federal lands as a National 

Monument, running along 149 miles of the Missouri River. It includes the Wild and 

10

Scenic River corridor of the Upper Missouri River as well as large blocks of land 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and a small number of acres managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Monument boundary also contains 

nearly 82,000 acres of private land and 39,000 acres of state land. 

The language of the proclamation states clearly that the Monument itself is established on ‘‘all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the United States 

within the boundaries of the area described on the map...consist[ing] of approximately 377,346 acres...’’ On these Federal lands, the Monument proclamation imposed a number of restrictions, including the withdrawal from entry, location, selection, sale or leasing under the public land laws, the mining laws and mineral leasing laws. It also prohibits off road motorized and mechanized vehicle use, except for 

emergency or administrative purposes. The proclamation does provide for continued 

livestock grazing and management of oil and gas development on existing leases. 

The formal planning for the Monument began on April 24, 2002, with the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. During the 120-day scoping period in the 

summer of 2002, the BLM’s Lewistown Field Office hosted a series of 11 open 

houses throughout north central Montana. 

In July of 2003, the Lewistown Field Office again held public meetings in 11 north 

central Montana communities, this time to begin formulating alternatives for the 

Resource Management Plan (RMP). These meetings included a short formal presentation by the BLM, one-on-one discussions between the public and resource specialists, and an open forum moderated by a member of the Central Montana Resource 

Advisory Council. Approximately 350 members of the public attended the 11 meetings. The Field Office also received approximately 8,500 letters and emails regarding potential alternatives. Governor Martz established a task force that made recommendations concerning the Monument and its management. This input along 

with all other comments and recommendations are currently being reviewed and 

considered. 

The draft RMP is scheduled for release in the summer of 2004. During the public 

comment period following release of the draft, the BLM will hold another 11 public 

meetings across north central Montana to review the document. Throughout the 

process, the Monument staff will continue to engage the public through regular updates on its website and through mailings as well as through local media outlets. 

The Status of Non-Federal Lands Within the Monument 

The Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906, authorizes the President to designate 

National Monuments on lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government at 

the time of the Monument proclamation. The Antiquities Act states, ‘‘The President 

of the United States is authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by 

the Government, and may reserve as part thereof parcels of land, the limits of 

which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper 

care and management of the objects to be protected.’’

The proclamation of January 17, 2001, sets apart and reserves lands and interests 

in lands owned or controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the 

National Monument described on the map made part of the proclamation. The proclamation also recognizes the standing of all valid, existing rights and interests within the Monument boundaries. Although the proclamation makes clear that non-federal lands within the boundary of the Monument are not a part of the Monument, 

owners of private and state land within the Monument remain concerned about the 

Monument’s implications for non-federal lands. On June 30, 2003, the BLM’s 

Lewistown Field Office issued a report entitled, ‘‘The Upper Missouri Breaks 

National Monument—Analysis of the Management Situation.’’ In that report, it 

states, ‘‘The BLM has no jurisdiction over State or private land contained within 

the Monument boundary.’’ We believe H.R. 1629 adds legal finality to this statement. 

H.R. 1629

The legislation offered by Representative Rehberg would help reassure those who 

have expressed concerns regarding the proclamation of January 17, 2001. It would 

reaffirm that private lands are not within the boundary of the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks National Monument and it would direct the Department of the Interior to 

provide a map for management planning purposes to reflect the actual federal lands 

that make up the Monument itself. 

H.R. 1629 would give non-Federal landowners the assurance that their cooperation is voluntary and, hopefully, will improve their participation as partners with 

our Federal land managers. The Department notes that this in no way prevents 

11

willing sellers from working with the Administration to add their lands to the 

Monument where all parties believe it is appropriate. 

The Department urges the Committee to amend Section 2(a) of the act by striking 

‘‘any privately owned property’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘any property not 

owned or controlled by the Federal Government at the time of issuance of that Proclamation.’’ The legislation currently refers only to privately owned property, which 

leaves out the roughly 39,000 acres of state-owned lands. We believe that the same 

assurances provided to private landowners should also be given to the State of 

Montana and any other non-Federal landowner that might possess property within 

the proclamation boundary. 

Conclusion 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have for me. 

Mr. CALVERT. The Department actually has no, to our knowledge, 

sees no connection to the National Park Service program in this 

bill and the money would be a pass-through grant administered by 

the Department of Justice, and for that reason, we would defer in 

our testimony and our position on this bill to the Department of 

Justice. 

I would be happy to pass along any questions on the bill to the 

Department of Justice, but unfortunately, I will not be able to answer any on this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2424

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee 

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2424, a bill to authorize assistance for the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center. 

H.R. 2424 would authorize assistance for the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center in Baltimore, Maryland, administered by a nonprofit group, The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Inc. The Museum features wax figures and related interactive educational exhibits that celebrate the history of Black 

Americans. The bill authorizes $15 million from the Department of Justice to pay 

the federal share of the costs of expanding the Museum and creating the Justice 

Learning Center. 

H.R. 2424 does not appear to provide any role for the Department of the Interior 

with the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum nor are we aware of any connection 

this museum has with any National Park programs. We therefore, defer to the Department of Justice for its position on this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any questions you or other Committee 

members might have. 

Mr. CALVERT. And on H.R. 2966, a bill offered by Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Nunez, Mr. Rehberg, and others, it is a bill to preserve 

the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on public 

lands. 

In my capacity, I will work directly only with the Bureau of Land 

Management, but it is my distinct pleasure today to speak on behalf of the other Interior agencies, notably the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The administration supports the goals of this bill. However, we 

would like to work with the Committee to clarify several points as 

you move forward in the process. 

We do support continuing to provide access for pack and saddle 

stock animals on our public lands. Using these animals is often the 

12

most appropriate way for visitors to enjoy many back-country landscapes that are otherwise inaccessible. 

On BLM lands alone, 73,000 recreational visits in 2002 are attributed to horse and animal pack stock recreational use, and it is 

our intention to assure that opportunities for that type of use remain available on the public lands managed by the Department of 

Interior. 

The Department believes two points, however, should be clarified 

in the legislation. The bill requires the Secretaries of Interior and 

Agriculture to provide for management of lands, to preserve or facilitate continued use and access where there is historical tradition 

of such use. It also allows reductions in the use of that access on 

lands only after complying with the full review process required 

under NEPA. I would like to address the NEPA issue first. 

In my statement, I mentioned that the legislation, the Department feels that the legislation is unnecessary. We do so because it 

is our view that we already fully comply with NEPA whenever we 

make decisions about land uses. We do this in a number of ways. 

First, our land management plans, our park plans, comprehensive 

conservation plans for refuges, Monument plans, wilderness plans, 

and any other comprehensive land plans that we do are all subject 

to NEPA. These typically utilize Environment Impact Statements 

that include a full public comment period. 

We also use in our management decisions, where appropriate, 

environmental analysis and FONZIs, categorical exclusions, and, 

where appropriate, full Environmental Impact Statements, and 

these decisionmaking processes all fully comply with NEPA. 

Temporary collusions and reductions are usually allowed for 

management plans, but on occasion may be conducted pursuant to 

a categorical exclusion or an EA FONZI. Depending on the Bureau, 

temporary closures include measures to protect wildlife habitat, the 

vegetation, as well as health and safety of the visitors. There are 

also different provisions for addressing closures relating to emergency reasons, such as fires and floods. 

The other thing that we would like to point out is that this legislation potentially sets up a conflicting priority for recreational use 

for certain agencies. For example, permitted uses in the National 

Wildlife Refuges must be compatible for the purposes for which 

each refuge was established. They must also comply with the six 

wildlife-dependent priority public uses—hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation—that Congress established in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

embraces these six uses as the core of their mission. We are concerned that additional prescribed uses would alter the balance 

among competing recreational uses that are currently achieved 

through the land planning process. 

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

13

Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2966

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2966, to preserve the use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on public lands, including wilderness areas, National Monuments, 

and other specifically designated areas, administered by the National Park Service 

(NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), and the Forest Service where there is a historical tradition of such 

use. We share the goal of ensuring that the use and access of pack and saddle stock 

animals remains a viable recreational option on public lands where those activities 

are currently provided. However, this legislation is unnecessary because the Department already complies with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

when making decisions concerning recreation use, including the use of environmental assessments and categorical conclusions where appropriate. As described 

more fully below, the Department does have concerns with provisions in the bill that 

appear to give more weight to one recreational use than to others without consideration of the agency’s mission. 

Providing appropriate recreational opportunities on federal lands is an important 

priority for the Department. Traveling through the backcountry with pack and saddle stock animals is an enjoyable, practical, and meaningful way to experience some 

of the most magnificent landscapes our country has to offer. For example, it has 

long been a recreational attraction for visitors to our beautiful National Parks in 

the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains, in particular. On BLM lands alone, 73,000 

recreational visits in 2002 were attributed to horse or animal pack stock recreational use. It is our intention to ensure that opportunities for this type of recreational use remain available on the public lands managed by the Department. 

H.R. 2966 would require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide 

for the management of lands under their respective jurisdictions to preserve and facilitate the continued use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on lands 

where there is a historical tradition of such use. It would allow the two Secretaries 

to implement a proposed reduction in the use and access of pack and saddle stock 

animals on such lands only after complying with the full review process required 

under NEPA. 

The Department believes that the provisions that apply NEPA to any proposed 

changes in stock use are redundant. Under existing law, changes in recreational 

uses on public lands are made through public planning processes, such as proposed 

revisions to general management plans for units of the National Park System, land 

use plans or activity plans for BLM lands, and comprehensive conservation plans 

for National Wildlife Refuges administered by FWS. These planning processes are 

all subject to NEPA, and all offer ample opportunities for public participation in the 

decision-making process. 

In addition to these plans, the Department also complies with NEPA when developing its wilderness management plans. For example, while BLM generally allows 

the recreational use of pack stock in wilderness areas, in some instances, the wilderness management plan prescribes certain limitations. In Aravipa Canyon Wilderness, horses and pack stock are limited to five per party, and stock use within the 

canyon itself is limited to day use. This policy is in place for the protection of sensitive riparian vegetation and as a result of conflicts with other recreation users in 

the narrow canyon corridor. In Paria Canyon-Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness, for safety 

reasons, the horses and pack stock are not allowed in the Coyote Butte Special Management Area, and commercial use is limited in the narrow upper two thirds of the 

Paria Canyon. The slick rock environment is not suitable for horse or pack stock 

travel and creates unsafe conditions for recreational users. 

National parks with backcountry recreational stock use typically have a pack 

horse plan or equivalent plan supported by environmental analysis and public disclosure under NEPA. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks have a very sophisticated program for managing pack and saddle use that provides for stock use when 

and where it is appropriate, while protecting park resources. Rocky Mountains 

National Park has a horse plan in effect that has resolved many longstanding controversies between stock users and hikers. 

In addition to decisions made during the planning process, temporary closures to 

recreation uses made by the Department also meet NEPA requirements by qualifying for a categorical exclusion or undergoing a separate environmental assessment. Categorically excluded actions fully comply with NEPA under the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, which allow agencies 

to exclude a category of actions from detailed NEPA analysis based on an agency 

14

finding that such category of actions do not have a significant effect on the quality 

of the human environment. Temporary closures include measures to protect wildlife 

habitat, vegetation and, in some cases, the health and safety of visitors. 

All recreational activities that occur on federal lands should be compatible with 

the respective agency’s mission. By statute, for example, all uses of refuges must 

be compatible with the purposes for which each individual National Wildlife Refuge 

was established. The FWS has concerns that the legislation appears to be in conflict 

with the six wildlife-dependent priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation) that Congress established in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

FWS views these six uses as consistent with its mission. For FWS and other agencies, we are concerned that this legislation would alter the balance among competing recreational uses currently achieved through their respective planning processes. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to respond to any 

questions that you or the other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I have a couple questions regarding H.R. 2966, 

my bill. The questions are long, so I am going to read it out. If I 

have to read it twice, that is fine. 

Mr. Calvert, in your testimony, you state that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is concerned that my legislation is in conflict with 

the six wildlife-dependent priority public uses, namely hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation. However, would you agree that all of 

those listed wildlife-dependent priority public uses can be accomplished on foot? In other words, how is a pack and saddle animal 

use a conflicting or competing interest, if you will, with those listed 

uses? 

Mr. CALVERT. I would like to, if I may, respond more fully in 

writing in case I miss something the Fish and Wildlife Service 

would like to add. However, the response that I can give you is 

that the agency views those six statutory compatible uses as the 

priority uses that they have before them, and to add another use 

that potentially is higher in priority than those presents a conflict 

for them that they are not—it is not clear in the bill how you intend to reconcile the stock and saddle animal use with those uses 

if there is a conflict. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. You don’t view them as competing uses, rather 

a statement of priority, one over the other? 

Mr. CALVERT. Not necessarily, but they could be. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Another long question. In your testimony, you 

state that the agency is attempting to implement temporary trail 

closures may qualify for a categorical exclusion in compliance with 

NEPA under the regulations of the Council on Environmental 

Quality and would then be allowed to forego a detailed NEPA analysis. Is it possible, then, that certain administrations may be afforded the ability to hide behind that categorical exclusion in an attempt to close the trail? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, categorical exclusions are only available 

where, first of all, they have been defined by the Department as 

an available categorical exclusion, but second and more importantly, if they meet any of the extraordinary—if circumstances 

meet any of the extraordinary circumstances provided in the law, 

then the categorical exclusion can’t be used, and those extraordinary circumstances can be things as simple as heightened public 

controversy. 

15

So, technically, categorical exclusions are used where you need to 

be fully compliant with NEPA but where you feel that your other 

NEPA documentation is already complete. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Mrs. Christensen? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are on H.R. 1629 particularly. Mr. Calvert, you 

said in your testimony that while the Monument proclamation 

doesn’t affect the security of title held by private or State landholders, it might affect their interests. Can you explain what interests might be affected and how they would be affected? 

Mr. CALVERT. I can’t make the case for them. I understand that 

there are a number of concerns that they have. It is the Department’s view as well as the Bureau of Land Management’s stated 

view that we have no jurisdiction over those private and State 

lands. However, they have legitimate questions as to why, in a 

number of circumstances, the boundary lines were drawn through 

their private land as opposed to around only Federal land, and in 

order to try to provide a more cooperative spirit in the development 

of the management plan for the Monument, the Department feels 

it is important to give those people additional certainty. For whatever reason, they feel that their title could be affected in the future. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Your testimony also says that by including 

private property in the exterior boundary, the Monument creates a 

legal uncertainty, and I guess that sort of must relate to the answer that you just gave me, but I am wondering, also, is it your 

assertion that all National Monuments that have private property 

in their exterior boundaries also have legal uncertainty? This is 

really important to me, because I have in-holdings in my own 

parks. Is that the Department’s position? 

Mr. CALVERT. No. It is important to distinguish, first of all, the 

difference between the park Monuments, those that have been set 

up to be administered by the National Park Service, and this new 

raft of Monuments that were designated that were handed over to 

the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management had no practices in place to respond to that and it was really 

dealing with these issues as sort of a first impression. 

The question isn’t about necessarily what the status is for the inholdings. The question is, what is the purpose of the boundary 

where it crosses private land only, and there are a number of circumstances where that occurs in the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

Monument, where the boundary wasn’t drawn the most narrowly, 

or as narrowly as it could have been. It was drawn instead across 

private land, and those people have, I think, a legitimate question 

in that what does this mean for me. Why is this boundary running 

across my Federal land? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I would imagine, I know in our case, the 

boundaries were placed where they were placed for a particular 

reason, because of the need to protect certain resources. Is it possible that those boundaries were drawn in an arbitrary fashion 

rather than for a specific reason that can be justified to the landowners? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, anything is possible. I can’t speak to what 

the motivations were specifically about drawing the boundary 

16

where it was drawn. It is my assumption that they attempted to, 

particularly on the Western side of the Monument, to capture the 

natural geology that runs along the river and the features that accompany the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. 

With regard to the Western side, I really can’t—or, I am sorry, 

the Eastern side, where it sort of balloons there up above, I really 

can’t speak to the motivations for drawing the boundaries in one 

place or another. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Has the Federal Government threatened or 

otherwise adversely affected the private property rights on the 

35,000-plus acres of private land in the Upper Missouri Wild and 

Scenic River that was designated in 1976 and which is also within 

the exterior boundary of the National Monument? 

Mr. CALVERT. Not to my knowledge. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Deputy Assistant Secretary Morrison testified last year that the Department was doing a study of private 

lands within National Monuments. What discussions have there 

been in the Department on the legal status of private lands within 

the National Monuments? 

Mr. CALVERT. To the extent that the Solicitor’s Office has attempted to analyze the questions that we discussed a moment ago 

about the effect of the boundary, those discussions have been internal to the Solicitor’s Office. There are several divisions of the Solicitor’s Office which each respond to different clients within the 

Department and the discussions have been between those offices. 

To my knowledge, there are no plans to issue an official opinion of 

the Solicitor’s Office. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So is the study ongoing? 

Mr. CALVERT. There wasn’t a study in a formal sense. There was 

an analysis that the Solicitor’s Office and its individual divisions 

were attempting to first scope and identify what issues of controversy were out there and whether there were clear legal responses to those. But——

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Wouldn’t it help to clarify for this and future 

Monuments this issue of boundaries and whatever interests would 

or would not be affected and whatever legal uncertainties might 

exist if a Solicitor’s opinion was issued? 

Mr. CALVERT. It would be helpful to provide guidance from the 

Department on issues where there isn’t a clear answer. On the fact 

that the Federal Government is not going to assert jurisdiction over 

private or State lands, we are clear on that. But that doesn’t get 

to the issue of why the boundary is where it is and whether there 

is any future effect on those lands. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rehberg. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Calvert, by changing the boundaries, does it in any way, 

shape, or form change the size of the Monument? 

Mr. CALVERT. It changes the size encompassed inside the external boundary. If——

Mr. REHBERG. But not the Monument. 

Mr. CALVERT. If you read the Antiquities Act and if you read the 

management analysis of the BLM, the Monument itself is the Federal land inside of the Monument and that would not change. 

17

Mr. REHBERG. Wouldn’t you agree perhaps that usually when 

these kinds of things are done in haste, mistakes are made, and 

from your perspective within a new administration, was this done 

in a hasty fashion at the last hour of the Presidential administration, or was it done with forethought, with adequate notice, public 

comment, a legal map that the landowners could see and knew that 

their land was going to be included? 

Mr. CALVERT. To my knowledge, there were no public meetings. 

There were no maps provided in advance. There was no comment 

taken in developing the boundary. That doesn’t mean that the 

boundary wasn’t done with a lot of thought-provoking and searching analysis. But it was issued at the very end of the administration and it was done without public comment. 

Mr. REHBERG. So if you were going to follow the spirit of the type 

of government we have in America, you would have made a map 

available to the landowners to specifically say, your land may be 

included in this Monument. What is your opinion? Are you for it 

or against it? 

Mr. CALVERT. I can only speak as a member of Secretary Norton’s administration, and from our perspective, I am sure you have 

heard it before, she ascribes to the four ‘‘C’’s and would not have 

recommended making a Monument without working with the local 

landowners first. 

Mr. REHBERG. When this Committee had the hearing last year, 

Mr. Chairman, I asked the question of the administration, had a 

map been put out yet, because it had not been done at the time 

that it was created and it had not been done at the time of the testimony by the administration. I ask you the same question, Mr. 

Calvert. Is there now a map that clearly defines legitimately or legally exactly what private lands are included along the periphery? 

Mr. CALVERT. At the time of the hearing, the last time, there was 

the map that had been put into the Federal Register with the proclamation, which was a small map printed on black and white paper 

and not very easy to read. There is now a map in the Lewiston 

Field Office in Montana that provides fairly certain boundaries. If 

you are a property owner, you can go in and find out whether you 

are inside or outside without question. It also——

Mr. REHBERG. Has that map been provided to each of the landowners? 

Mr. CALVERT. That, I can’t answer, but I would be happy to find 

out. 

Mr. REHBERG. Would you, please? 

Mr. CALVERT. It is the planning map that is being used in the 

field office. 

Mr. REHBERG. At the time of the hearing a year ago, I asked specifically the question, had the administration, the Clinton administration, ever communicated with the landowners the potentiality of 

their land being included. The answer was no, or we are not sure, 

we will check. Have you ever been able to identify any way, shape, 

or form that the landowners were told which acreage of their private land was going to be drawn inside the boundary? 

Mr. CALVERT. No. It would be hard to confirm that. I know 

certain landowners were part of the discussion that led up to the 

18

development of the Monument, but I can’t tell you which ones. 

Certainly, not all. 

Mr. REHBERG. Land owners that are currently included in the 

new Monument? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. 

Mr. REHBERG. I would like——

Mr. CALVERT. To the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. REHBERG. OK. You have been involved in the public lands 

issue for a long time. One of the things I say on the stump back 

in my State is, just remember, there is no such thing as a promise 

in our form of government, that while we state that we are going 

to do something today, people kind of forget that 10 years from 

now. Can you look this Committee in the eye and tell us that under 

no way, shape, or form there will ever be any change in the management of that BLM land that will directly or indirectly affect the 

private property that are included in the in-holdings? 

Mr. CALVERT. No. I can only give you certainty that there would 

be no change pushed forward by us. 

Mr. REHBERG. So all the promises——

Mr. CALVERT. A lawsuit could change—judicial review could 

change the status of in-holdings. That is—beyond the four years 

that we have there, I can’t provide any certainty. 

Mr. REHBERG. So a different administration with a different philosophy could, in fact, because that private property is included inside the boundaries, affect the management of the Federal properties and indirectly affect the private property management? 

Mr. CALVERT. They would have to change the current interpretation of the Antiquities Act, but yes, I mean, they could certainly 

argue that. 

Mr. REHBERG. And one of the arguments is this is precedent-setting, that it somehow affects another State or another district or 

another park. Do you see anything in this bill that, in fact, affects 

any other State, any other Monument, any other park? 

Mr. CALVERT. Not in this bill, no. 

Mr. REHBERG. I think my time is about up. I will save it, if we 

get a chance for——

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Ms. Bordallo? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Land 

issues always catch my eye. I come from a very small territory 

named Guam and land is very precious to all of us. 

I have a question on H.R. 1629 to you, Mr. Calvert. I want to 

understand this. So in what specific ways does inclusion of private 

property inside the exterior boundary of the National Monument 

affect their property? Does it impinge upon their access to the property or impact their use of their property, either positively or negatively? And if so, in what ways? 

And then my second part of this question is, some examples that 

you could share would be most helpful for me to understand, and 

that is the implications of including or excluding these properties 

inside the exterior boundary. And maybe you could also enlighten 

us on the implications either way for the BLM’s management of the 

Monument. In other words, what are the advantages or 

19

disadvantages of including these private properties and do these 

people have any rights? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, they certainly have all of their valid existing 

rights. The proclamation makes that clear. The Antiquities Act also 

applies only to Federal lands, so arguably, there is no—in fact, the 

Department and the BLM have stated as such, that there is no 

Federal jurisdiction over the private and State lands by virtue of 

this Monument proclamation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So they can use their properties in any way they 

wish? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, consistent with nuisance laws and things like 

that, yes. They can use them for any use they could have used before the Monument. And I guess that answers your first question. 

I am not sure. 

On the second question, you asked for examples of implications, 

and I am not sure exactly how to respond to that. The most notable 

implications for private landowners, or the questions that are 

raised are in places where the boundary crosses their property and 

doesn’t simply include Federal land. It is common that you have inholdings that are surrounded by Federal land inside of a specific 

management unit. That occurs all the time in parks and even within BLM conservation areas, et cetera. 

But it is uncommon to have boundaries of something like a 

Monument, which is supposed to be drawn as narrowly as possible, 

to go across or even around private land and simply not—not just 

by the fact that it is surrounded by Federal land, but to actually 

include it inside of a boundary for no other purpose than drawing 

the boundary around it. 

And that is what—given that the BLM asserts no jurisdiction 

over this land, the instant question that comes to mind is what effect does the boundary have? You are inside the boundary, but are 

you a part of the Monument? I think the answer to that is clearly 

no. But you are inside of the boundary. And so the question that 

naturally arises in landowners’ minds is, why am I inside the 

boundary and what implication does this have for me? 

I can’t with a fortune ball be able to identify all of the potential 

implications that could occur in the future. There will be a management plan that manages the use of the Federal lands inside of the 

Monument. That management plan is ongoing. The scope and process is being completed. They are working—the BLM in Montana is 

working to put together a draft management plan that should be 

completed by next summer and we will go out for extensive public 

comment at that time. 

Issues that could affect people’s use of their land will be things 

that have to do with the rights-of-way, that have to do with any 

number of issues that relate to Federal and private management 

anywhere. This is—if you have to have a right-of-way where it 

crosses Federal land where it is not in a Monument, you have to 

go through the Title V process to get that right-of-way. That is not 

supposed to change. This Monument shouldn’t change the Title V 

right-of-way permitting process. That is not to say that 10 years 

from now, it won’t. I can’t answer that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. One other question, if I could, Mr. Chairman, and 

I don’t know, maybe the author could answer this better than Mr. 

20

Calvert, but has the Federal Government ever made any move to 

compensate property owners if they are interested, or has there 

been any request on the part of the private owners to compensate 

them for their property? I don’t know, is this a good question or 

not? 

Mr. REHBERG. It is a good question. Mr. Chairman, if the 

gentlelady yields, no, there has been no offer of compensation. See, 

therein lies the issue. When you asked the question, does it affect 

the private property, no. So why have it in the boundary? Well, 

there must be a direct effect, then, or an indirect effect or people 

wouldn’t be working so hard not to change——

Ms. BORDALLO. To get it included. 

Mr. REHBERG [continuing]. The way it was included. So yes, 

there is an indirect effect, and what the indirect effect is, the Federal Government wants to be the purchasers of that land in the future, and that puts a cloud on either the title or the land itself, because if the Federal Government has its fingers on or designs on 

that property, indirectly they are saying, we want to be the purchaser. Now, if the Federal Government really wanted that land, 

would they poke the landowners in the eye as they are doing? So 

when the argument is made, it doesn’t affect the private property 

that is inside that boundary, well, obviously, it does, because people are working pretty hard to keep it in there. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Bishop for any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Calvert, in the Antiquities Act that 

was used for this particular Monument, historically, that Act was 

used to designate a Monument where some kind of Federal resource, either historical or archaeological, was under an immediate 

threat. In the case of this particular Monument, could you tell me 

what created the urgency to create the boundaries as they are right 

now? What was the immediate threat to a resource within this particular area? 

Mr. CALVERT. I can’t answer what created the immediate and urgent need to establish it because I was not there when it was established. The BLM has put out in its management analysis the 

purposes of the Monument, which probably give us the best guide 

for why the Monument is there. There are certain geological natural features there that are arguably worth protecting, or from certain uses. But I can’t tell you what the imminent or urgent need 

was to do the Monument the way it was done. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. That is sometimes helpful. I appreciate that. 

Since I was a little bit late coming in here, let me get a couple 

of things that I think have been heard and I want to make sure 

that they are there. If you do have private lands and State lands 

and public lands within this particular designation, that will always present the potential for some kind of conflict. Am I correct 

in making the assumption that there will always be a potential 

legal cloud over this particular Monument that could frustrate both 

the private citizens as well as the Federal Government’s design unless you do something to try and rectify the problem of having private lands within this Monument? 

21

Mr. CALVERT. I don’t want to say that there is a permanent legal 

cloud on their title because that would be incorrect from my understanding, for me to verify that, so to speak. But there is an ongoing 

conflict surrounding the development of the management plan for 

the Monument that directly relates to the 3,300-plus landowners 

who have communicated with Congressman Rehberg. They support 

this bill because they do not believe that their private lands should 

have been included in the Monument and the Department doesn’t 

feel that there is any compelling reason to keep them inside of the 

boundary. 

Mr. BISHOP. So that would simply solve that problem? 

Mr. CALVERT. That is my understanding. 

Mr. BISHOP. And the Department does support this bill? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Udall? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Calvert, for being with us 

today. Do the interim management guidelines for the National 

Monument threaten private property rights? 

Mr. CALVERT. I don’t believe they do, no, sir. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Will the final management plan for the 

National Monument threaten private property rights? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I can’t speak to what will be in the final 

management plan until it is issued, but I don’t anticipate that it 

will, no, sir. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And are the historic and scientific resources of 

the Upper Missouri Breaks area confined solely to Federal lands? 

Mr. CALVERT. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Are the historic and scientific resources of the 

Upper Missouri Breaks area confined solely to Federal lands? 

Mr. CALVERT. I can’t answer that. I am not familiar with all of 

the scientific or historical resources that might be there. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Isn’t it true that the Antiquities Act allows the 

Secretary of Interior to acquire property from willing sellers when 

historic and scientific resources of a National Monument are also 

located on private lands? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

Any other questions? Denny? 

Mr. REHBERG. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I just want to 

make a couple of points but ask you the question. 

By including private land on the periphery within the boundary, 

do you believe the intended—the stated intent is to eventually have 

the Federal Government purchase that property? 

Mr. CALVERT. I can’t say what the intent was, but what the proclamation says is that, if private land inside the boundary is acquired at any time in the future, it will become a part of the 

Monument. 

Mr. REHBERG. All right. We have already established the fact 

that the Federal Government did not follow normal procedures by 

having hearings, talking to the landowners, asking their opinion, 

so we have already circumvented one public process. If that land 

22

inside those boundaries comes up for sale, if the boundaries were 

not on the outside of the private property, legislation would have 

to be crafted by the Bureau of Land Management asking permission of the Congress to purchase the land and an appropriation 

made. 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. REHBERG. But not under the designation of the Monument, 

because now the line is on the outside and once again it will circumvent the public process because the Bureau of Land Management will be able to buy the land directly without Congressional 

approval, is that correct? 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, if money is made available by the appropriators, yes, the land could be acquired and it would become a part 

of the Monument without further action by Congress or the President as the proclamation——

Mr. REHBERG. So not only did we not have public input on the 

creation of the Monument in the first place and the addition of the 

public lands, the boundary, but if the land is purchased, we also 

won’t have public input. So we are compounding a problem, I would 

suggest. 

Mr. CALVERT. There would not be additional public input. There 

would be Congressional activity because it would require approval 

of the appropriations, but that is it. 

Mr. REHBERG. If I might make a point to Mr. Udall, perhaps you 

weren’t here when I was asking questions before, but I just would 

like to say that you used the word ‘‘final’’ guidelines. There is no 

such thing as final, and nobody can assure that what this administration establishes becomes the management of that National 

Monument for all eternity because that Monument is going to be 

around forever, but the next administration, whoever that might 

be, whether it is the Bush administration or someone else, can 

change those guidelines and the promise cannot be made, and that 

is what these landowners fear, because they never had an opportunity to suggest whether they wanted their land included or not. 

There is no such thing as finality in this form of government. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. REHBERG. I yield. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I think I was using those terms in terms of the 

legal term of art, that that is what they are titled in order to ask 

him. 

Mr. REHBERG. Yes. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Isn’t it true that, if I can go further, I would 

just like to clarify one of the questions you were asking, Mr. 

Rehberg. Your administration, if you had the intent to go out and 

purchase these lands through the appropriations process as has 

been outlined, you, of course, would involve the public and do whatever you could to make sure that the public was notified, the landowners were notified, and all of that, wouldn’t you? 

Mr. CALVERT. The Department abides by the four ‘‘C’’s wherever 

it can and consults with the local population before making significant decisions, yes, sir. 

Mr. REHBERG. Reclaiming my time, that makes my point of the 

difference between the last administration and this administration. 

The last administration did not fulfill its requirements of public 

23

notification and actually involve the landowners. This administration is, but can you look me in the eye and say the next administration, if it is not yours, is going to do the same, and you just 

stated——

Mr. CALVERT. Of course not. 

Mr. REHBERG. Therein lies the point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Rehberg. 

Two questions for Mr. Calvert regarding the Missouri Breaks. 

Under the Monument designation for private property, if they are 

in-holders, are rights-of-way affected to the private property owner 

under that Monument designation? 

Mr. CALVERT. To the extent that there are existing rights-of-way 

permits, there is no effect. And, in fact, although there isn’t specific 

guidance on it in the management plan because it isn’t completed 

yet, in the interim guidelines that Congressman Udall referenced, 

there is a specific mention of Title V permitting, which is how the 

BLM typically processes right-of-way applications and says that 

those decisions are not a part of the management of the Monument 

itself, that those decisions occur outside of that. And so processing, 

in theory, processing of rights-of-way permits should not be affected. 

The actual access won’t be affected. The location of it might. In 

order to protect certain geological features, the BLM might require 

that an access road go around or go this way or connect up to a 

different road somewhere else. The access itself shouldn’t be affected, but the location of the road might be. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you very much. 

Any other questions from members? 

[No response.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If not, Mr. Calvert, thank you for being here 

and speaking on these three bills. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Next, I will call up our third panel, which includes Ms. Jennifer Roeser, who is the owner of McGee Creek Pack 

Station from Mammoth Lakes, California; Joanne Martin, Ph.D., 

President and CEO of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Maryland; Mr. Matt Knox, Chairman of the Missouri River 

Stewards from Winifred, Montana; and Mr. Hugo Tureck, who is 

the Vice Chairman of the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument, Coffee Creek, Montana. 

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. We will 

hear testimony from each of you. You have got five minutes. You 

can sum up your written statements, because as you know, written 

statements are included in the record anyway. Each will be speaking for five minutes. If you will mind the clock, that would be very 

helpful, and then we will go for questions from the panel afterwards. 

Ms. Roeser, we will start with you, if you will begin your testimony, and welcome to the Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER ROESER, OWNER, McGEE CREEK 

PACK STATION, MAMMOTH LAKES, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ROESER. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich and members of 

the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk 

24

with you today about the critical need and the importance of 

preserving the historic use and access of pack and saddle stock animals—horses and mules is what we are talking about—on our Federal lands. I am pleased to be with you and provide this testimony 

and to answer any questions you have. 

As a member and a director of the High Sierra Packers Association, a second-generation owner of McGee Creek Pack Station on 

the Inyo National Forest in California, a member of the Back 

Country Horsemen of California, a nationally ranked endurance 

trail rider, the wife of a Forest Service packer who is also a secondgeneration pack station operator, and a lifelong stock user of the 

mountains in California, I come before you with testimony from my 

personal experience, my professional background and business experience, and more than anything, a heartfelt belief in the value 

and contribution that maintaining this historic use can have for 

this society and for future generations to come. 

I hope to convey to you the long and frustrating struggle that the 

stock use community has been going through for over 20 years to 

hold on to the trails and areas that have been historically used by 

stock. This is a very important turning point with the proposed 

Right to Ride Livestock Act, to protect this legacy for the future. 

I hope to offer a brief history and perspective of why the use of 

pack and saddle stock on Federal lands is important to the public, 

to identify problems that stock users encounter as they use Federal 

lands, and to identify our perception as to the cause of the problem, 

and to emphasize the need for urgency in passing this legislation. 

For those who use pack and saddle stock, leading the pack train 

is a way of reliving the pioneer era. It provides a link with the past 

and is something that cannot be done without a trail system, trail 

head access, and undeveloped areas for camping. Having a sense 

of discovery and exploration is what many users are seeking. They 

want and need to have a sense of getting away from it all. 

We are seeing an increasing loss of access through trail restrictions, trail closures, and use restrictions. Stock users are being prohibited from using areas they have historically traveled through 

and they are being concentrated into ever-smaller areas. In our 

business, the cumulative impact of the restrictions placed on where 

we can travel and the trails we can use has resulted in significant 

loss of opportunities for families, persons with disabilities, school 

groups, church groups, and others who use stock. In designated 

wilderness areas, there is a management environment less tolerant 

of these traditional forms of use. Restrictions are being advocated 

by a minority group of users and agency personnel who personally 

do not want to see stock use in the mountains. 

Time is of the essence in passing this legislation. Currently, 

there are numerous closures taking place that are affecting stock 

users’ access to trails right now. Historic pack stations are being 

closed without any public notice. Agency plans have increasingly 

more stock use restrictions without any science or valid rationale 

to support the actions, and with the number of National Forests, 

National Park, and area management plan revisions due in the 

near future, time is critical to prevent the loss of trails and access 

for stock. 

25

I just want to give you a quick, very quick history. Some of the 

conservation and preservation leaders of the past—it is sort of 

relevant, because this is the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark 

expedition and that was sort of the beginning of where this came 

from. But Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Steven 

Mather, and Horace Albright were great leaders and had a vision 

for what was needed to protect America’s lands. 

Pack and saddle stock provided the principal means of transportation in the exploration and development of the mountainous regions of the United States. Explorers, such as Lewis and Clark, 

Jedadiah Smith, John Fremont, Joseph Walker, dependent on 

horses and mules to take them over the rough terrain encountered 

on their travels. The U.S. Calvary relied on horses and mules for 

transportation on their patrols of public lands prior to the formation of National Park and Forest Systems. 

The richness of our Federal land system is due in part to our explorers’ and conservation leaders’ ability to conduct their duties 

using horses and mules. The extensive trail system that exists 

today in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range of California was built 

to facilitate the movement of pack animals through the high country. 

Recreational use of the back country by horsemen began in the 

early 1800s as local residents traveled to the high country to escape the heat of California valleys. As road systems developed on 

each side of the Sierra in the early 1920s, the commercial packing 

business began in earnest, and by the mid-1930s, the packing business was in full swing, with many outfits providing services to 

those anxious to visit the High Sierra. Commercial packers played 

an important role in the emergencies and for suppression of 

wildfires in back country and wilderness areas. 

Our link to the past is important as it provides us with an understanding of the processes that shaped our American history and 

culture. Many users of pack and saddle stock seek to find and experience the historic activities of an earlier time. To be able to view 

and live as early explorers did provides many users the opportunity 

to connect with history outside of a museum setting. Our link to 

the past is our ability to carry out this tradition and culture of the 

early day pioneer and to work to ensure that these traditional 

skills are not lost to future generations. 

As we begin our journey into the 21st century, free and unrestricted wilderness travel is fast becoming an anachronism. Incremental restrictions and regulations threaten the very essence of 

the wilderness experience and the ability to continue historic patterns and types of travel in remote, unroaded back country is eroding year by year. 

Some of the problems that I just want to quickly outline are loss 

of access, first of all. One of the most important issues facing those 

who use pack and saddle stock on public lands is the loss of access. 

This issue is identified by a report to this Committee by Dr. John 

Hughes, Chairman of the University of California at Davis. He 

mentioned closures and exclusions at the time, alarming condition 

of back country and wilderness trails, overregulation, and the need 

for legislative relief. 

26

Loss of services to the public are being experienced. The general 

public who do not have their own stock still want to have the experience of exploration, discovery, and enjoyment, and getting away 

from it all. We sense an antagonism from agency personnel merely 

because we are commercial businesses and being in business 

means we need to make a profit. 

The end result is the public who wishes to use our services is denied even further because of the additional constraints that are 

placed on commercial providers. We provide America’s last chance 

for families to vacation together without the gadgets that are so 

much a part of our daily lives. No video games, no phones, no TVs 

means most families can interact with each other on a one-to-one 

basis. That is pretty important. 

One of our perceived causes of the problem is that our history of 

pack and saddle stock is being eroded by the personal agendas of 

extreme environmental groups and aligned agency personnel. Additionally, we are losing the infrastructure of our trail system due to 

lack of annual maintenance and a downgrading of the trail system, 

which is due in part to lack of maintenance. 

It appears the agencies are interpreting the Wilderness Act with 

a conspicuous bias toward extreme preservationism at the expense 

of the equally important responsibility of providing for the use and 

enjoyment of the American people. It is our belief that this is not 

what Congress intended when they passed the Wilderness Act of 

1964. 

The efforts of land managers to place higher emphasis on restoring pristine conditions are the result of misguided preservation and 

purity biases. In fact, the House report on the Endangered American Wilderness bill specifically directed the Forest Service to abandon its purity approach. Congress clearly expected that wilderness 

would accommodate a wide spectrum of Americans who desired a 

wilderness-type recreation. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Ms. Roeser? 

Ms. ROESER. Yes? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I can, I forgot to mention the five-minute 

clock. Would you like to sum up now? 

Ms. ROESER. I will do that, yes. I am sorry. I saw three minutes 

over there. 

I will just sum up by saying that the timing for this legislation 

is appropriate and that we have tried, not only as private stock 

users, but as commercial entities, every possible means to resolve 

a number of the issues prior to coming to Congress to ask for legislation. We pride ourselves on our stewardship of Federal lands that 

we have operated on collectively in my family for 80 years. We participated fully in planning processes. We provided input, attended 

literally hundreds of meetings, engaged in legal options, and we 

now seek a solution that will provide stability and assurance for 

the traditional and historic use of pack and saddle stock on our 

Federal lands. 

I thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roeser follows:]

27

Statement of Jennifer A. Roeser, Director, High Sierra Packers’ 

Association, Eastern Sierra Unit, on H.R. 2966

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to talk with you today about the critical need and the importance of preserving the historic use and access of pack and saddle stock animals on 

our federal lands. I am pleased to be with you to provide this testimony and to answer any questions you may have. 

As a member and Director of the High Sierra Packers Association, a second generation owner of McGee Creek Pack Station (Inyo National Forest), a member of the 

Backcountry Horsemen of California, a nationally ranked endurance trail rider, the 

wife of a Forest Service packer (also a second generation pack station operator), and 

a lifelong stock user of the mountains in California—I come before you with my testimony from my personal experience, my professional and business experience, and 

more than anything—a heart felt belief in the value and contribution that maintaining this historic use can have for today’s society and for generations to come. 

I hope to convey to you the long and frustrating struggle that the stock use community has been going through for over 20 years to hold on to the trails and areas 

that have historically been used by stock. This is a very important turning point, 

with the proposed ‘‘Right-to-Ride Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2003’’ to protect 

this legacy for the future. 

I hope to offer a brief history and perspective of why the use of pack and saddle 

stock on federal lands is important to the public; to identify problems that stock 

users encounter as they use federal lands; to identify our perception as to the cause 

of the problem; and to emphasize the need for urgency in passing this legislation. 

1. For those who use pack and saddle stock, leading the pack train is a way of 

reliving the pioneer era. It provides a link with the past, and is something that 

cannot be done without a trail system, trailhead access, and undeveloped areas 

for camping. Having a sense of discovery and exploration is what many users 

are seeking. They want—and need—to have a sense of getting away from it 

all. 

2. We are seeing an increasing loss of access through trail restrictions, trail closures, and use restrictions. Stock users are being prohibited from using areas 

they have historically traveled through and they are being concentrated into 

smaller areas. 

In our business, the cumulative impact of the restrictions placed on where we 

can travel and the trails we can use have resulted in a significant loss of opportunities for families, persons with disabilities, school groups, church groups 

and others who use stock. 

3. In designated wilderness areas, there is a management environment less tolerant of the traditional forms of use. Restrictions are being advocated by a minority group of users—and agency personnel—who personally do not want to 

see any stock use in the mountains. 

4. Time is of the essence in passing this legislation. Currently there are numerous closures taking place that are affecting stock users’ access to trails. Historic pack stations are being closed without any public notice. Agency plans 

have increasingly more stock use restrictions without any science or valid rationale to support the actions. And with the number of National Forest, 

National Park and area management plan revisions due in the near future, 

time is critical to prevent the loss of trails and access for pack and saddle stock 

use. 

1. HISTORY 

Let us reflect on some of our country’s conservation and preservation leaders 

whose wisdom and foresight helped to provide us with an incredible network of public lands. 

• Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce 

• Teddy Roosevelt 

• Gifford Pinchot 

• Aldo Leopold 

• Stephen T. Mather 

• Horace M. Albright 

These great leaders had a vision for what was needed to protect America’s lands. 

Pack and saddle stock provided the principle means of transportation in the exploration and development of the mountainous regions of the United States. Early explorers such as Lewis and Clark, Jedediah Smith, John C. Fremont and Joseph 

Redeford Walker depended on horses and mules to take them over the rough terrain 

28

encountered on their travels. The U.S. Army Cavalry relied on horses and mules 

for transportation on their patrols of public lands prior to the formation of the 

National Park and Forest systems. The richness of our federal land system is due 

in part to our explorers’ and conservation leaders’ ability to conduct their duties 

using horses and mules. 

The extensive trail system that exists today in the Sierra Nevada mountain range 

in California was built to facilitate the movement of pack animals through the high 

country. Among the first trails built across the Sierra were the Hockett and Jordan 

Trails which were completed in 1864. The first Mt. Whitney Trail was completed 

in 1881. The famous John Muir Trail traversing over two hundred miles along the 

backbone of the Sierra was started in 1908. 

Recreational use of the backcountry by horsemen began in the early 1800’s as 

local residents traveled to the high country to escape the heat of the California valleys. Historically, the Sierra Club sponsored trips to Yosemite as early as 1902, with 

trips the following year to Sequoia Park and Mt. Whitney. These outings and subsequent trips relied heavily on pack stock to transport their extensive baggage and 

camp equipment. 

As the road systems developed on each side of the Sierra in the early 1920’s, the 

commercial packing business began in earnest, and by the mid-thirties the packing 

business was in full swing with many outfits providing services to those anxious to 

visit the High Sierra. Commercial packers also played an important role in emergencies and in the suppression of wildfires in backcountry and wilderness areas. 

Please see the attached ‘‘Previous and Present Day Packing Services in the Sierra 

Nevada’’ for a brief history of packing in the central Sierra region. The decline in 

the number of commercial operators is due in part to the excessive regulations, and 

agency decisions to close facilities. 

Our link to the past is important as it provides us with an understanding of the 

processes that shaped our American history and culture. Many users of pack and 

saddle stock seek to find and experience the historic activities of an earlier time. 

To be able to view and live as our early explorers did provides many users the opportunity to connect with history outside of a museum setting. Our link to the past 

is our ability to carry out this tradition and culture of the early day pioneer and 

to work to insure that these traditional skills are not lost to future generations. As 

we begin our journey into the twenty first century, free and unrestricted wilderness 

travel is fast becoming an anachronism. Incremental restrictions and regulations 

threaten the very essence of a wilderness experience, and the ability to continue historic patterns and types of travel in remote, unroaded backcountry is eroding year 

by year. 

Perhaps Aldo Leopold, a wilderness advocate and U.S. Forest Service Ranger in 

New Mexico in the early 1900’s best expressed the concept of packing history as 

being an important value of wilderness when he wrote, 

‘‘The time is almost upon us when a pack train must wind its way up a 

graveled highway and turn its bell mare into the pasture of a summer 

hotel. When that day comes, the diamond hitch will be merely a rope; Kit 

Carson and Jim Bridger will be only names in a history lesson...If, once in 

a while man has a chance to throw the diamond hitch and travel back in 

time, he is just that much more civilized than he would have been without 

that opportunity.’’

2. PROBLEMS 

Loss of Access. One of the most important issues facing those who use pack and 

saddle stock on public lands is the loss of access. This issue has been identified as 

one of the most critical aspects for nearly 20 years. Dr. John Hughes, Chairman at 

the University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, provided a report to the Presidential Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1986 and reported 

the following: 

‘‘Closures and Exclusions. Many areas where stock use occurred historically have been closed to overnight use by pack and saddle stock, and some 

have been placed ‘off limits’ to entry to horsemen. Often these closures were 

made on the basis of local bias without the benefit of public input or studies 

by qualified specialists. Excessive use by other use groups has led to the 

closing of trails that were built by and for the use of pack and saddle animals. The Mt. Whitney trail was closed to stock use to mitigate the possible 

conflict between pack stock and hikers. 

Alarming Condition of Backcountry and Wilderness Trails. Trail maintenance has declined to the point that many of the trails, especially on the 

high mountain passes, may be lost completely for the use by pack and 

saddle stock. It has been many years since an adequate trail maintenance 

29

program has been in place anywhere in the Sierra Nevada. A trail that 

becomes too dangerous for saddle and pack animals closes the areas served 

by the route to stock use as effectively as if each area were closed on an 

individual basis. 

Over Regulation. Most of the national public lands administrators manage their forest and parks with an over abundance of rules and regulations. 

Thirty years ago stock use on public lands was near an all-time high. Now 

stock use is down by as much as 85% and the rules and regulations continue to increase with each summer season. Horsemen visiting those areas 

still open to their use are often faced with complex and confusing rules that 

are often inconsistent with those found in other regions. It is easy to demonstrate that many of the regulations imposed upon stock users were made 

due to personal bias of administrators rather than any proven need to protect the resources of a National Park or Forest. 

Legislative Relief. Legislation should be enacted mandating the administrators of national public lands to recognize the significance of historic stock 

use and the rights of horsemen to use pack and saddle animals where such 

use has been historic and significant. Such a mandate would guide all future managers of the national public lands as they formulate future management plans, and would in effect create a consistent administrative policy 

in regards to pack and saddle stock use from one National Forest or Park 

to another. Such a guide would negate any personal bias on the part of administrators and would serve to help make necessary regulations more uniform and less confusing.’’

It is disturbing that the very same issues that Dr. Hughes reported on in 1986 

are still very much the same issues we are facing today. His call for legislative relief 

showed the foresight that is now so imperative to act upon. 

Later, in 1999, Horse and Rider Magazine polled its readers regarding their ‘‘top 

problem or concern’’ and loss of riding trails was the number one concern, ranked 

first by 42% of the respondents. 

On May 23, 2001, Alan T. Hill testified on behalf of the American Horse Council 

to the House Resources Committee regarding several key issues related to the loss 

of access. Alan’s testimony stated: 

‘‘We have become alarmed as we have witnessed during the last decade 

the continued decline in the condition and extent of our trail systems and 

a pervasive trend throughout the country of increasing restrictions directed 

specifically at pack and saddle stock use on our federal lands including wilderness areas, National Forests, National Parks, National Monuments, 

backcountry and front country’’

National policy needs to reaffirm that recreational and historical uses—

such as equestrian uses—be recognized as an appropriate and acceptable 

use on federal lands such as wilderness areas, National Forests, Parks and 

Monuments, and that management of our public lands is for the use and 

enjoyment of the American people. It has been our experience that special 

designations, i.e., Monuments, wilderness, road-less areas, seldom if ever 

expands recreational opportunities for horsemen. In practice these designations often result in a loss of access and recreational opportunities. 

Restrictions and prohibitions imposed on recreational equine use and incidental grazing should be the exception rather than the rule and be determined by site-specific analysis based on use, land characteristics and 

science. It should not be subjective or based on the social preferences of 

other users. 

The ability of the Forest Service or any other Federal land agency to unilaterally close a trail or trail head with no notice or public process must 

be stopped. De facto restrictions on access or the limitation through onerous 

regulations must be eliminated.’’

Loss of Services to the Public. The general public who do not have their own stock 

still want to have the experience of the exploration, discovery and enjoyment of ‘‘getting away from it all.’’ Yet, as providers of service to the public, commercial pack 

stock operators are restricted beyond belief! We sense an antagonism from agency 

personnel merely because we are commercial businesses. And being in business 

means we need to make a profit. The end result is the public who wishes to use 

our services is denied even further because of the additional constraints that are 

placed on commercial providers. We provide America’s last chance for families to vacation together without the gadgets that are so much a part of our daily lives. No 

video games, no phones, and no television means families and groups interact with 

each other on a one-to-one basis. Spending quality time together is a very important 

30

aspect of the backcountry experience our clients seek. We hope to continue to provide these opportunities for future generations. 

The issues of access, restrictions and closures drive home the compelling need for 

protection of the historic uses of pack and saddle stock on our federal lands. 

3. PERCEIVED CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM 

Our history of using pack and saddle stock is being eroded away by the personal 

agendas of extreme environmental groups and aligned agency personnel. Additionally, we are losing the infrastructure of our trail system due to a lack of annual 

maintenance, and a downgrading of the trail system, which is also due in part to 

a lack of maintenance. 

There has been a disturbing trend in agency management plans to reduce, restrict 

and eliminate stock use facilities and services. The list includes pack station closures, trail closures, camping restrictions, grazing restrictions and closures, crosscountry travel restrictions and closures, group size restrictions, and higher fees to 

stock users for wilderness permits under the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. 

An overview of wilderness management plans shows a distinct and pervasive 

trend of restrictions aimed specifically at pack and saddle stock. These actions deprive stock users of the type and range of recreational opportunities intended in the 

Wilderness Act. For example: • In the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas in California, encompassing more than 800,000 acres, we cannot take our guests more than 1/4 mile 

from a ‘‘system’’ trail. This has virtually eliminated approximately 70% of the 

area that our guests can no longer access by pack and saddle stock. Historically, 

visitors traveled to the famous lakes and streams throughout the wildernesses 

by way of game trails, fishermen trails, and routes marked only by way of rock 

markers. Now, that use is considered illegal. We now have to concentrate our 

guests into much smaller areas, and we have to continually re-use the same 

areas, thus increasing the chances for damage to the sites. 

• In the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho, the trail system has decreased 

substantially over the last 50 years. Today, more than 98% of the Wilderness 

is unavailable to stock use because of an absence of trails. With the loss of 

trails, this results in use being confined to less than 1% of the wilderness. 

• A recently approved plan for the Sawtooth Wilderness requires stock users to 

camp in the most heavily impacted 18% of the area and makes 82% or the wilderness unavailable to stock users, even if they use state of the art ‘‘leave no 

trace’’ methods. Managers acknowledged that stock use has not increased, and 

may have actually decreased since the area was designated as wilderness. Restrictions were imposed simply to ‘‘prevent’’ impact in the pristine portions and 

provide ‘‘stock free’’ opportunities for those who do not wish to encounter stock. 

It appears the agencies are interpreting the Wilderness Act with a conspicuous 

bias toward extreme preservationism or wilderness purity at the expense of the 

equally important responsibility of providing for the use and enjoyment of the American people. It is our belief this is not what Congress intended when they passed 

the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act specifically states that wilderness 

will be ‘‘devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, 

conservation, and historical use.’’ (Sec. 4b, P.L. 88-577) This intent was affirmed in 

the 1998 court case of Wilderness Watch v. Dale Robertson, Civ. No. 92-740, 

August 31, 1998. In this decision the District Court for the District of Columbia 

concluded that the statute directs the Forest Service to administer the wilderness 

with an eye not only toward strict conservation, but also to ‘‘ensure the use and enjoyment of the American people.’’

The efforts of land managers to place a higher emphasis on restoring pristine conditions are the result of a misguided preservation/purity bias. In fact, the House Report on the Endangered American Wilderness Bill (Report 95-540, July 27, 1977) 

specifically directed the Forest Service to abandon its purity approach. Congress 

clearly expected that wilderness would accommodate a wide spectrum of Americans 

who desired wilderness-type recreation experiences of a nature that were established at the time the law was passed. The intent of Congress (emphasized throughout the Congressional Record) was to preserve existing conditions while providing 

for existing and future uses. However, at the field level—managers are still directing wilderness plans to the pristine end of the spectrum, and are instituting unrealistic and illogical constraints, particularly for commercial pack and saddle stock providers. It is our belief that our customers are being unjustly denied fair access to 

significant portions of the wilderness due to the personal biases of agency land managers. The agencies are also bowing to the pressure and threats of litigation from 

extreme anti-stock user groups. 

31

Many of the commercial operators were in business well before the Wilderness Act 

became law. In fact my husband’s family, and mine, worked diligently to lobby support for the creation of the original John Muir Wilderness. Our families have always 

had a strong conservation ethic, one which I am proud to also share today. It is in 

our best interest to care for the land as best we can to continue to provide the quality of experience our guests are seeking. 

Other management plans that are affecting stock use include: 

• The Southern Region Forest Plan Revisions for the National Forests in 11 

southern states is proposing a standard that would block the use of many miles 

of historic foot travel trails that are currently open to riding and pack stock. 

Literally thousands of riders who access and enjoy Southern National Forest 

trails would find themselves trailering miles and miles just to reach approved 

trails and trailheads. 

• One alternative in a Preliminary Draft Management Plan for Sequoia-Kings 

Canyon National Parks proposed ‘‘No Stock’’ in the Parks entirely. Even though 

pack and saddle stock have a well documented history in these Parks dating 

back more than 100 years, Park planners indicated they had to include this alternative because another user group had requested them to do so. 

The planning documents do not contain substantive qualitative monitoring data, 

and the agencies have been unable to provide this when requested. These actions 

appear to be driven by the biases, preferences and values of the agency personnel. 

The agencies are also using the trail system as a tool to achieve social and recreation objectives, rather than as a transportation system. Year after year, trails are 

disappearing from inventories, and are being taken off the main system. The maintenance backlog is not being eliminated, and it does not appear this loss of mileage 

is being reported to Congress. With a loss of system trails, pack and saddle stock 

use is curtailed even more. We are being confined into main travel corridors, which 

only increases the odds for user conflict, resource impact, and future restrictions. 

We are seeing trails with a history of pack and saddle stock use dating back many 

years before wilderness designation, now being reserved for backpack use. This is 

being accomplished either through direct restrictions or by reducing the maintenance standards. Either way, it is an inappropriate means of eliminating stock use 

where it has historically existed. . 

4. URGENT NEED FOR LEGISLATION 

Congressman Radanovich and Honored Members of this Subcommittee, we have 

tried every possible means to resolve every single one of these issues prior to coming 

to Congress to ask for legislation. My husband and I pride ourselves on our stewardship of the federal lands on which we have operated on for collectively more than 

80 years. We have participated fully in planning processes; we have provided input; 

attended literally hundreds of meetings; engaged in legal options; and we now seek 

a solution that will provide stability and assurance for the traditional and historic 

use of pack and saddle stock on our federal lands. Every day that goes by without 

this legislation means these historic uses are endangered and vulnerable to changes. 

On behalf of the High Sierra Packers’ Association, I thank you for this opportunity 

and look forward to providing any assistance or additional information you may 

need. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much for being here. I appreciate that. 

Next is Dr. Joanne Martin, who is the President and CEO of The 

Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Martin, 

welcome to the Subcommittee and you may begin your testimony. 

Again, the lights there, basically the rule is that you treat them 

just like a traffic light. Green is go, yellow means speed up, and 

red means stop. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Welcome, and please begin your testimony, Dr. 

Martin. 

32

STATEMENT OF JOANNE M. MARTIN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE GREAT BLACKS IN WAX MUSEUM, 

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Dr. MARTIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the privilege of speaking 

before you on H.R. 2424, The Great Black Americans Commemoration Act, which passed the Senate as S. 1233. It was introduced by 

Congressman Elijah Cummings and Senator Barbara Mikulski. 

I would like to spend the moments that I have remaining talking 

to you about the ‘‘why’’ of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum and 

the ‘‘why’’ of this legislation. 

My late husband, Dr. Elmer Martin, and I founded The Great 

Blacks in Wax Museum in 1983, so July 9, 2003, represents or 

marks our 20th anniversary. We started as a traveling exhibit. We 

bought four wax figures with some money that we were saving to 

make a down payment on a house. We took these wax figures 

around to schools, churches, malls, libraries, and then at the end 

of the exhibit, we would throw them into the hatchback of my car 

and take them home to our two-bedroom apartment. And if you 

would come in at any given time, you would have found Mary 

McCloud Bethune’s head on the dresser and Frederick Douglass’ 

torso in a corner. 

One of the most significant ‘‘why’’s of The Great Blacks in Wax 

Museum had to do with my husband organizing a Little League 

baseball team. He had ID pictures taken of the kids, took them to 

a park to practice, and he saw a 6-year-old coming toward him distraught, crying, angry, demanding that my husband make the photographer take the picture over. My husband looked at the picture 

and declared, ‘‘Son, the picture looks just like you. Why should he 

take it over?’’ And the kid said, ‘‘Because it made it took dark. I 

don’t want to be this black.’’

And he was talking to someone from a product of the 1960s, the 

black consciousness movement of the 1960s and 1970s, a generation that had declared that we were black and beautiful and black 

and proud, and we are going to be black and beautiful and black 

and proud forever. We already knew as college teachers, my husband and I, that we were dealing with a group of college students 

just moments away from that time who thought that career-wise, 

it was possible to be too black, that learning black history and culture would not get you a job or the American dream. And then to 

find that we were dealing with a 6-year-old, a generation from 

those college students, who thought that physically it was possible 

to be too black, that was very disconcerting for us. 

So we started The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in a storefront 

in downtown Baltimore. We had the support of Senator Clarence 

Blount, who introduced a bill in the Maryland General Assembly. 

We went to the City of Baltimore for matching funds, and the only 

request that we made of the city was that they find the building 

for us in a low-income fragile community, because my husband and 

I were so convinced that we were going to create such a compelling 

museum that people would have to come, and in the process, we 

could help to bring a community back to life based on the philosophy that community development and cultural development go 

hand in hand. 

33

A ‘‘why’’ for me of a wax museum is that when you are dealing 

with a history that is often denied and neglected, that it is often 

a history without faces. What the wax medium and what The 

Great Blacks in Wax has done is to put a face on that history. And 

so we have an ebony Marcus Garby and a caramel-colored Colin 

Powell and a sepia Bill Pickett, and hopefully a generation of black 

children who will never feel the need, because they see so much of 

themselves in all that those figures represent, to say, I don’t want 

to be that black. 

And finally, the ‘‘why’’ for The Great Blacks in Wax Museum is 

around my husband’s belief that if we fail to make those important 

connections between the past and the present, none of what we do 

makes any difference. 

A case in point, a group of young African American males came 

into the Museum one day. They were there under duress. They 

were told by their counselor that they had to come in order to get 

to ESPN Zone, which is where they wanted to go. They had to come 

to The Great Blacks in Wax Museum. I resisted the temptation to 

just let them through and get out of there, which is what they 

wanted, and I knew that if I hung in there long enough, I would 

be able to chip through that resistance. 

And when I finally saw that I was, then I took the opportunity 

to make those connections that my husband talked about and I 

said to them, you are in the world today with the blood of an ancestor flowing through your body right now who was put on a slave 

ship but who did something unbelievable. They lived through that 

experience. And, therefore, flowing through your body right now is 

the blood of an ancestor who gave you God’s most precious gift, and 

that is life. 

And all they might ever ask of you if they could is that you live 

that life as if you appreciated how precious life can be. To understand that your ancestors died by the millions, they would probably 

find it crazy the way we kill one another today. But your ancestors 

found education worth dying for. They want you to be able to live 

for it. 

But your ancestors would know a slave ship if they saw one, but 

might be confused today by what we call the prison, the jail, the 

penitentiary because the similarities are frightening. In both cases, 

we are talking about people being taken away in chains. In both 

cases, we are talking about people being given a number and having their identity taken away. In both cases, we are talking about 

people being branded, physically branded with a hot branding iron 

as a slave, legally branded a criminal. In both cases, we are talking 

about people being made property, of the slave master, of the State. 

And in both cases, we are talking about people being confined. 

Your ancestors would know a slave trader if they saw one, so 

they would know the one who sold them into an evil called slavery, 

but they might warn you to be on guard for the ones who through 

drugs sell us into a slavery just as evil. They might want you to 

know that there is still some work for you to do because the shark 

of hatred and bigotry and racism still lurks in the waters, and they 

might need you to know that even something that seems so minor 

as being able to go into a Burger King to have it your own way 

34

did not come without sacrifice. Some of your ancestors had to die 

for that right. 

And in the final analysis, they might ask only of you that you 

try to understand what your African ancestors meant when they 

said, ‘‘I am because we are, and because we are, I am.’’ That is the 

‘‘why’’ of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum. That is the ‘‘why’’ of 

this legislation. We ask you to give us the opportunity to continue 

to work for community and show that community development and 

cultural development can go hand in hand, and should, and to continue to tell our stories and tell them well. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Dr. Martin, for your testimony. I 

notice we have a couple of inconspicuous or very quiet guests in the 

room today. Mrs. Christianson’s guest was maybe Harriet Tubman. 

Can you identify them for us? 

Dr. MARTIN. We have Dr. Benjamin Hooks, who, of course, was 

in the Nixon Administration, a member of the FCC, and Mary 

Eliza Mahoney. She was the first professional black nurse in America. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. 

Martin. 

Dr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Martin follows:]

Statement of Joanne M. Martin, Ph.D., Co-Founder, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Baltimore, 

Maryland, on H.R. 2424/S. 1233

Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Joanne Martin, co-founder with my late husband, Dr. Elmer 

Martin, of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. It is my 

honor and privilege to address you today regarding the proposed National Great 

Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2003, H.R. 2424/S. 1233. 

As you know, this legislation proposed by Congressman Elijah Cummings and 

Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, with broad bipartisan support, authorizes 

federal assistance in the expansion of our museum facility to establish the National 

Great Blacks in Wax Museum. This national museum initiative to help tell the story 

of great Black Americans began more than 20 years ago. Let me give you some 

background on the Museum’s origins. 

Brief History of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum 

The Great Blacks In Wax Museum, America’s first wax museum of African 

American history, was founded in 1983 by my late husband, Dr. Elmer Martin, and 

myself. However, our story really began in 1980 when, with money we were saving 

for a down payment on a house, we purchased four wax figures. We carried these 

to schools, churches, shopping malls, and festivals throughout the region, with the 

goal of testing public reaction to the idea of a black history wax museum. So positive 

was the public’s response that in 1983, with personal loans, we opened the Museum 

in a small storefront in downtown Baltimore. The success of the Museum, especially 

among students on field trips, made it imperative that my husband and I find larger 

space. In 1985, we closed the Museum and organized an aggressive fundraising effort to secure new and expanded space and to purchase more wax figures. These 

efforts allowed us to purchase an abandoned fire station on East North Avenue. 

After extensive renovations, we re-opened the Museum in October 1988. 

When the Museum moved to its East Baltimore location, away from the lucrative 

Inner Harbor tourist market and very much off the beaten track, many told us that 

few people would venture into a deteriorating community to see a wax museum. Yet, 

in 1989, the first full year of operation in its new location, 44,000 visitors ventured 

into the neighborhood to see the Museum. The museum’s visitorship increased 

steadily in subsequent years. In 2002, more than 300,000 people from across the 

country and from other nations visited the unique cultural institution. 

35

Why a Wax Museum? 

Some of you may question why a wax museum would be appropriate to help teach 

the public about the history of great Black Americans. My husband and I felt 

strongly about the significance of the wax medium in bringing public attention to 

the faces of people who are deserving of recognition. We believed that of all artistic 

mediums, wax creates the closest likeness of the human face. Moreover, we felt that 

bringing the faces of great Black Americans into relief was one of the most important objectives of this museum, since historically great Black Americans’ likenesses, 

as well as their stories, have not been well-known to the public. 

Additionally, it is important to recognize that wax has historically been used in 

art and cultural institutions to depict significant people. The wax medium has long 

been recognized as a unique and artistic means to record human history through 

preservation of the faces and personages of people of prominence. Wax exhibits were 

used to commemorate noted figures in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and Rome, 

in medieval Europe, in the art of the Italian renaissance. 

Approximately 200 wax figures and scenes, a 19th century slave ship re-creation, 

a special permanent exhibition on the role of Youth in the making and shaping of 

history, a Maryland room highlighting the contributions of outstanding Marylanders 

to African-American history, a gift shop, a mini auditorium for lectures and films 

are some of the major cultural features currently on display at The Great Blacks 

in Wax Museum. The public’s reaction to this wax museum speaks for itself. The 

Afro American newspaper has declared The Great Blacks In Wax Museum a ‘‘National Treasure.’’ In fact, The Museum does serve the entire nation. International 

visitors have come from France, Africa, Israel, Japan, and many other continents 

and nations. The Great Blacks In Wax Museum story has been heralded by news 

media around the world, including CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington 

Post, The New York Times, The Chicago Sun Times, The Dallas Morning News, 

Kulturwelt, USA/Africa, The Los Angles Times, USA Today, Crisis, Essence Magazine, Ebony Magazine, Good Morning America, ABC World News Tonight, BET, 

CBS Sunday Morning, National Public Radio, Maryland Public Television, To Tell 

the Truth, the CBS News Early Show, and The Amanda Lewis Show. 

Future Exhibits of the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum 

As is stated in the Findings section of the proposed legislation, our museum proposes to tell the story in wax exhibits and other appropriate media of the remarkable achievements made by Black Americans in the national service over the years. 

Under this legislation, Great Black Americans will be memorialized by wax figures 

and other exhibits at the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum. The Museum will 

showcase the 22 Black Americans who served in the U.S. House and Senate in the 

1800s, and those from the 1900s such as Sen. Edward Brooke (R-MA), and Reps. 

Julian Dixon (D-CA), Louis Stokes (D-OH), and J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK). 

The National Great Blacks in Wax Museum will focus on Black veterans of various military engagements, including the Buffalo Soldiers and Tuskegee Airmen, 

and the role of Blacks in the settlement of the western United States. It will also 

showcase Blacks who served in senior civilian Executive Branch positions, and in 

the judiciary and other significant legal positions, as well as others who have not 

received appropriate recognition. 

Funding Required for the Museum Expansion Project 

The current budget estimate to expand current museum facilities to create the 

National Great Blacks in Wax Museum totals $60 million. This multi-year budget 

will cover demolition and removal of current dilapidated and unsafe structures, gutting and renovating an entire city block, rebuilding a five-story museum complex, 

architects, engineers, and related site development costs, and the costs of designing 

and constructing new museum exhibits. 

Three-quarters of the funding for the museum expansion will be derived from nonfederal sources. These include the State of Maryland, which has already obligated 

over $3 million for the expansion project. Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich is 

strongly supportive of this project and committed to our success. 

Another important funding source is the City of Baltimore. Mayor Martin 

O’Malley has obligated $2 million to date for the museum expansion, and is committed to using his municipal resources to assist with costs of the expansion. On 

September 3, the Mayor attended a groundbreaking ceremony at the Museum marking the demolition of 48 structures to the rear of the property to make way for museum parking facilities. Much of the balance of the funding for the museum expansion will be contributed by the private sector. 

The Great Blacks in Wax Museum is in close dialogue with a large number of 

private sector grantmakers. These include major corporations such as AllFirst Bank, 

36

Bank of America Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Mercedes-Benz, Hewlett-Packard, 

Tropicana, Target, K-Mart, General Mills, Marathon Oil, Hewlett Packard, Baltimore Gas and Electric, Advanta Corporation, Recording Industries Association of 

America, Heiniken, WalGreens, Wal-Mart, Sams Club and Sony. 

The Museum is also under consideration by major philanthropic foundations. 

These include Associated Black Charities, St. Paul Companies Foundation, Annie E. 

Casey Foundation, Baltimore Community Foundation, Abel Foundation, MetLife 

Foundation, Freddie Mac Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Microsoft Foundation, and 

Enterprise Foundation. 

Community Support for our Initiative 

The Great Blacks in Wax Museum expansion program enjoys the strong support 

of the local community in East Baltimore, of allies throughout the State of Maryland, and of friends of the Museum throughout the nation. The many supporters 

and donors include the Prince Hall Masons, Links International, Zeta Phi Beta 

National Sorority, Kappa Alpha Psi National Fraternity, Delta Sigma Theta 

National Sorority, NAACP, Zion Baptist Church, ACTEX Foundation, the President’s Round Table, The Baltimore Times, and the De’zert Club of Philadelphia. 

On behalf of the Board of Directors of The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, as well 

as the Museum’s many supporters, I want to express our great appreciation for the 

opportunity to testify before the Committee today. We are grateful to the Subcommittee Chairman, Congressman Radanovich, the full Committee Chairman, Congressman Pombo, as well as the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Congresswoman 

Christensen and the full Committee Ranking Member, Congressman Rahall. We appreciate the consideration of every member of this Committee for our plans to establish a national museum addressing the legacy of great Black Americans. 

I particularly want to express our appreciation to the sponsors of this legislation, 

Congressman Elijah Cummings and Senator Barbara Mikulski, as well as the bipartisan group of House and Senate cosponsors. We are convinced that this initiative 

will have a profound, positive impact on the ability to educate youth and the public 

about the contributions of great Black Americans and about American history. 

Thank you for your consideration of this legislation. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. We are now joined by Mr. Matt Knox, who is 

Chairman of the Missouri River Stewards from Winifred, Montana. 

Mr. Knox, welcome to the Subcommittee. Please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW O. KNOX, CHAIRMAN,

MISSOURI RIVER STEWARDS, WINIFRED, MONTANA 

Mr. KNOX. Chairman Radanovich and members of the House 

Subcommittee, my name is Matt Knox and I am Chairman of the 

Missouri River Stewards. Our family ranch is in the Missouri 

Breaks northeast of Winifred, Montana. Our family does own deeded land within the Monument boundary as well as we have State 

lease and BLM lease within the Monument boundary. 

I am grateful for this opportunity to give testimony before you 

to support H.R. 1629. Before I state my reasons for supporting this 

legislation, I would like to give you a little background on the 

issue. 

The concept for a new designation for the Breaks first surfaced 

in early 1999 when former Secretary Babbitt floated the river and 

declared the area to be special and in need of additional protection. 

While we agreed with him that the area is, indeed, special, we felt 

strongly that the wild and scenic designation for the river, along 

with a myriad of wilderness study areas, ACECs, and National Historic Trails was ample protection. Holders of grazing allotments in 

the Breaks were already engaged with the BLM in watershed planning to ensure rangeland health was being maintained. The fact 

37

that this area remains special is a testimony to the stewardship 

practices that have been in place here since early settlement days. 

We strongly felt, if it isn’t broke, let us not fix it. 

What followed, however, was a lengthy and, we believe, heavily 

manipulated public process that was conducted through the Central Montana RAC. We participated in this process in an effort to 

challenge the perceived need for additional designation. We were 

frustrated continually with the issue of boundaries. At no time 

were we shown a definitive map of the proposed designation. Land 

owners were never consulted about the prospect of having their 

lands included in the National Monument, and no one, including 

our elected officials, had any knowledge about the boundaries. 

Our first look at boundaries was when a map of the Monument 

was published in a local newspaper the day after designation. Not 

even the RAC knew what the boundaries would be, and for discussion purposes developed an arbitrary administrative unit for which 

all the recommendations could or would apply. It should also be 

noted that the RAC did not establish this unit until after the public 

debate period had ended. 

With that historical backdrop, I would like to address the most 

compelling question before this Subcommittee. Why should the private properties be removed from the Monument? Virtually every 

landowner having property in the Monument has signed a statement calling for their land to be removed. Over 3,300 members of 

the public across Montana have signed a petition calling for the 

same thing. The majority of our elected officials in Montana support this effort. 

I think everyone understands when incidental private properties 

are included in a Federal designation, but when 81,000 acres are 

purposefully included, that is a matter that demands remedy, especially when private lands are functioning as a substantial part of 

the perimeter boundary of a National Monument. 

The Constitution establishes Congress as the authority over public lands. We believe that Congress needs to be involved in deciding 

whether private property should be targeted for purchase and included in National Monuments. If Congress abdicates that responsibility, the decision falls solely to the current administration, 

whatever that might be. 

The message from Central Montana is clear. We want the private 

properties removed from the Monument, and there are several underlying reasons for that judgment. For example, most of the 

ranches in our area are a mix of Federal, State and private lands. 

Management decisions have been typically made in a cooperative 

manner. If the private lands in the mix are targeted for acquisition, 

it would be very easy and perhaps irresistible for Federal land 

managers to impose greater land use restrictions and regulations 

on grazing allotments to the extent that a willing seller is created. 

This could also have the unintended consequence of compelling 

landowners into selling to land developers. 

When private property becomes Federal, our school system suffers from the loss of the tax base. Payment in lieu of taxes represents minimal funding and the money goes to our county general 

fund and not to our local school districts. 

38

There is a ranch in our area that is highly coveted by the BLM. 

That ranch was nearly purchased by BLM a few years ago. That 

ranch alone contributes $15,000 a year, or close to $15,000 a year 

in property taxes to our local school district. The local community 

would suffer gravely with just the loss of this one ranch. 

In summary, removing the private property to clarify the Monument boundary is the right thing to do. If it is true that Monument 

rules do not apply to private lands, as Federal officials have stated, 

then one should not expect there to be any adverse impact on the 

remaining Federal lands and the Monument by their removal. 

Clearly, removing private land from the Monument will greatly reduce inadvertent trespass and conflicts between landowners and 

Monument visitors, facilitate management, and reduce the temptation for a Federal buyout. 

I urge this Subcommittee’s full support of H.R. 1629 and I thank 

you for the privilege to testify before you on this matter that is so 

important to us in Central Montana. Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Knox. I appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]

Statement of Matthew O. Knox, Chairman, Missouri River Stewards,

Winifred, Montana, on H.R. 1629

Chairman Radanovich, and members of the House Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, my name is Matt Knox and I am Chairman 

of the Missouri River Stewards. I am a landowner and operate part of the family 

ranch in the Missouri Breaks located 24 miles northeast of Winifred, Montana. I am 

grateful for this opportunity to give testimony before you in support of H.R. 1629. 

Before I enumerate my reasons for supporting this legislation, I would like to give 

you a little background on this issue. 

The concept for a new designation for the Missouri Breaks first surfaced in early 

1999 when then Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, floated the Upper Missouri 

River and declared the area to be special and in need of additional protection. While 

we agreed with him that the area is indeed special, we felt strongly that the Wild 

and Scenic designation for the river, along with a myriad of Wilderness Study 

Areas, ACEC’s, and National Historic Trails, was ample protection for the area. 

Those of us who own grazing allotments in the Breaks were already engaged with 

the BLM in watershed planning, which is a process to ensure range land health is 

being maintained and riparian standards are being met. The fact that this area remains special today is a testimony to the success of the resource management practices and the love of the land that has been in place here since early settlement 

days. Our opinion on the entire designation matter was that ‘‘if it ain’t broke, let’s 

not fix it.’’

What followed, however, was a lengthy, heavily manipulated public process that 

was conducted through the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC). 

Area landowners affected by the proposed designation actively participated in this 

public process in an effort to challenge the perceived need for additional protection 

for the area. 

Throughout the public process, a source of constant frustration for us was the 

issue of boundaries. At no time were we shown a definitive map of the proposed designation. Landowners were never consulted about the prospect of having their lands 

included in a National Monument and no one, including our county commissioners, 

state legislators, governor and congressional delegation, had any knowledge about 

the boundaries. Our first preview of the boundary was when a map of the Monument was published in a local newspaper the day after the Monument proclamation 

was issued. 

Not even the RAC knew what the boundaries would be. In the RAC report to the 

Secretary of the Interior on December 30, 1999, it was stated that throughout the 

December meeting there was discussion concerning the area in question. It was not 

until the December 8th meeting that the RAC decided upon a tentative administrative unit. The RAC referred to this unit as the Expanded Upper Missouri National 

Wild and Scenic River and all of the RAC’s resolutions would apply to that area. 

39

It should also be noted that the RAC did not establish this administrative unit until 

after the public debate period had ended. 

Shortly after the RAC submitted its final report to the Secretary of the Interior, 

it became evident that the entire public process was more form than substance. On 

February 17, 2000, at the University of Denver Law School, then Secretary Babbitt 

announced his true intentions about land designations in the West. He stated: ‘‘It 

would be great to get these protective issues resolved in the Congressional, legislative process. But if that’s not possible, I’m prepared to go back to the President, and 

not only ask, not only advise, but implore him to use his powers under the Antiquities Act and to say to him: Mr. President, if they don’t and you do, you will be 

vindicated by history for generations to come.’’

In other words, the Secretary was committed to adding designated lands to former 

President Clinton’s Land Legacy Initiative by whatever means necessary. The 

Missouri Breaks would have to be nominated by Montana’s Congressional Delegation for some form of designation such as a National Conservation Area, as he favored, or the President would declare the area a National Monument. In the end, 

the President did declare the Monument in the Missouri Breaks. 

With that historical backdrop, I would like to address the most compelling question before this Subcommittee: Why should the private property be removed from 

the Monument? 

Virtually every landowner having private property in the Monument has signed 

a statement calling for their land to be removed from the Monument. Over 3,300 

members of the public across Montana have signed the petition to Congress calling 

for removal of the private property. Our Congressional Representative, one of our 

U.S. Senators, the Governor of Montana, the majority of Montana’s Legislators, and 

County Commissioners in the four-county area of the Monument support the removal of private property from the Monument. 

I also believe that Congress, in passing the Antiquities Act of 1906, did not intend 

for the President to have indiscriminate powers to include virtually unlimited 

amounts of private lands in National Monuments. I believe the intent of Congress 

was clearly articulated in the Antiquities Act by the provision that states that Presidents may establish National Monuments to protect historic or scientific objects that 

are situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States. 

I think everyone understands when incidental private property in-holdings are included in a designation. But when 81,000 acres of private property are purposefully 

included that is a matter that demands remedy, especially when private lands are 

being used to form substantial parts of the perimeter boundary of a National 

Monument. 

We could not understand why the BLM went on a land-shopping spree to select 

private property for inclusion in the Monument, so we asked them. We were told 

that these were lands they wanted to acquire from willing sellers and if these lands 

were included up front in the Monument they could be reserved, upon purchase, as 

part of the Monument by the Secretary of the Interior. That way Congress would 

not have to be troubled to enact legislation to include these parcels as part of the 

Monument. 

We respectfully disagree with the BLM’s rationale in this matter. The United 

States Constitution establishes Congress as the sole authority over public lands and 

I firmly believe that Congress needs to be involved in deciding whether vast tracts 

of private property should be targeted for purchase and included in National 

Monuments. If Congress abdicates that responsibility, the private land decision falls 

solely to the President. 

The message from central Montana is clear: We want the private property removed from the Monument. And there are several underlying reasons for that 

judgment. 

For example, most of the ranches in our area are a mix of federal, state and private lands. Management decisions have in the past been typically made in a cooperative manner. If the private lands in the mix are targeted for acquisition, it would 

be very easy, and perhaps irresistible, for federal land managers to impose greater 

land use restrictions and overregulate grazing allotments to the extent that a ‘‘willing seller’’ is created. Heavy handed federal management could also have the unintended consequence of compelling landowners into subdividing and selling to the 

highest bidder such as land developers or business entrepreneurs. 

Whenever private property transitions to federal ownership, the community and 

its school system suffers from the loss of the tax base. The federal compensation for 

loss of tax revenues, known as PILT, represents minimal funding and the money 

goes to our county general fund and not to school districts. 

The PN ranch, located at the confluence of the Judith River and the Upper 

Missouri River, is a property highly coveted by the BLM that they nearly purchased 

40

for over five million dollars. That ranch contributes approximately $15,000 a year 

in property taxes to the local school district and spends many more thousands of 

dollars with local merchants and businesses. The local community would suffer 

gravely with the loss of just one ranch. 

The boundaries established for the western reach of the Monument especially 

lacks justification and includes only the running river water that is owned by the 

State of Montana and property that is owned by ranchers. One can only speculate 

about the objects of antiquity that are being protected by the river flow and by the 

adjacent private land. To correct this matter, there seems to be only one solution—

remove the private property from the Monument. 

An observation conveyed to me by a colleague best sums up the need to remove 

the private property from the Monument. My colleague was camped on the Missouri 

River one evening when a number of people floating the river joined him at the 

campsite. He asked them what their impressions of the area were after their first 

day on the river. They replied that they found it rather strange to canoe all day 

on a river in a National Monument and everywhere they looked and everywhere 

they wanted to stop, they were surrounded by private property. 

It is my firm belief that removing the private property to clarify the Monument 

boundary is the right thing to do. If it is true that Monument rules do not apply 

to private lands, as federal officials have stated, than one should not expect there 

to be any adverse impact on the federal land in the Monument by removal of the 

private land. Clearly, removing private land from the Monument will greatly reduce 

inadvertent trespasses and conflicts between landowners and Monument visitors 

and diminish the temptation for federal buyouts. 

I urge this Subcommittee’s full support of H.R. 1629 and I thank you for the 

privilege to testify before you on this matter that is so important to us in central 

Montana. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Next up is Mr. Hugo Tureck, who is Vice 

Chairman of the Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument, from 

Coffee Creek, Montana. Mr. Tureck, welcome to the Subcommittee, 

and you may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HUGO J. TURECK, VICE CHAIRMAN, FRIENDS 

OF THE MISSOURI BREAKS MONUMENT, COFFEE CREEK, 

MONTANA 

Mr. TURECK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Representative Rehberg, 

and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Hugo Tureck. I am 

a rancher and Vice Chairman of the Friends of the Missouri Breaks 

Monument. Our organization is made up of business people, hunters, farmers, and ranchers, and those who love the open spaces of 

Montana. As a coalition, we are committed to protecting and preserving the Upper Missouri Breaks in its present form. 

I thank you for the opportunity today to testify in opposition to 

H.R. 1629. I have the privilege of being a public lands rancher not 

far from the Monument. We raise cattle and small grains on dry 

land operation that is suffering from an ongoing drought. Let me 

emphasize I reside outside of the Monument. However, I am a public lands rancher and I have had to deal with the BLM, as have 

those who oppose the Monument. However, I have never felt 

threatened by this agency, but rather felt that they have worked 

hard to build good working relationships. 

The BLM testimony to date mirrors much of the testimony that 

Ms. Morrison gave a year ago on June 13 when this bill was first 

presented. I would like to quote from her testimony. ‘‘While we at 

the BLM believe that the Presidential proclamation establishing 

the Monument makes it clear that the proclamation covers only 

federally owned lands within the Monument boundaries, the Department does support this bill because it would provide additional 

41

comfort for the landowners.’’ What Ms. Morrison has stated is that 

this legislation does not protect private property, that these rights 

are already protected. 

I would like to argue that this legislation does not provide additional comfort, either, for those ranchers. Rather, it only reinforces 

people’s unfounded fears of being betrayed by their government. 

Unlike the proclamation, H.R. 1629 does nothing to protect private property rights in the Monument. Private property rights are 

already protected by the proclamation. We live in a system of laws 

that protect private property rights. The Presidential proclamation 

provides another layer of protection by making clear that these 

rights are protected. The proclamation explains why private property was included in the boundaries of the Monument. The proclamation clearly states that if the property was significant, historical, 

cultural, wildlife, or landscape qualities or purchased by the United 

States from a willing seller, these lands will be reserved as a part 

of the Monument. 

While this legislation does nothing to protect private property 

rights, it does threaten the integrity of the Missouri Breaks 

National Monument. Many of the historical and cultural sites, such 

as the Nez Perce Trail, the Kid Curry Hangout, and Bull Whacker 

Trail are on private lands. These and other sites are part of our 

national identity. Today, if a landowner chooses to sell his land to 

the government, it becomes a part of the Monument. If this legislation passes, it would take an Act of Congress to purchase lands and 

then add them back to the Monument. This becomes a problem because there are over 415 different parcels of land. 

This is not what the public wants, whether they live in Montana 

or in Florida. As Chairman of the RAC, I heard from people across 

Montana who wanted this place protected. Since designation, there 

have been numerous opportunities for public input into the future 

of the Breaks. Efforts to dismantle the Monument shortly after its 

designation generated over 1,400 letters to our Governor, 1,100 of 

these asking her to keep the Monument as it is. 

There have also been two public comment periods as the BLM 

develops this management plan for the protection of the Monument 

in its entirety. The first, there were over 5,700 letters, of which 

5,602 supported the protection of the Monument in its entirety. Another comment period just closed and almost 7,000 people wrote 

the agency. It is clear that Montanans, like people across this country, want this place protected. 

There are other troubling things about this proposed legislation. 

It sets a precedent that may be applied to the other 15 Monuments 

managed by the BLM. It also sets a precedent that may be applied 

to other special places managed by the Department of Interior. The 

National Park Service oversees 395 units. Private land is included 

in 242, or 61 percent of those sites, including Yellowstone, Valley 

Forge, and Gettysburg. How much proof do those opposed to the 

Monument need? 

Twenty-six years ago, Congress, led by Senator Metcalf of 

Montana, created the Upper Missouri River Wild Scenic River. 

Forty-six percent, or 35,800 of these 81,000 acres that this bill 

would remove from the Monument are within the boundaries of the 

Wild and Scenic River designation. Just think, 26 years ago, ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:37 Mar 16, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89584.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
42

gress knew that they could do this and private property rights 

would be protected and none would be violated. Twenty-six years 

later, you know Congress was right, that private property rights 

were not violated and that the river was better protected than before. 

This Monument, with its inspiring landscape, celebrates Lewis 

and Clark and their role in the building of our nation. Let us not 

weaken this Monument by passing legislation such as this. Rather, 

it is time for us to work together to put in place a management 

plan for this new Monument that serves not just a few special interests, but all Americans now and for future generations. Thank 

you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Tureck, for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tureck follows:]

Statement of Hugo J. Tureck, Public Land Rancher, and Vice-Chairman, 

Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument, on H.R. 1629

Mr. Chairman, Representative Rehberg and Members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Hugo Tureck. I am a rancher and Vice-Chairman of the Friends of the 

Missouri Breaks Monument. Our organization is made up of business people, hunters, farmers and ranchers and those who love the open spaces of Montana. As a coalition, we are committed to protecting and preserving the Upper Missouri River 

Breaks Monument in its present form. 

I thank you for the opportunity today to testify in opposition to H.R. 1629. My 

family and I have the privilege of being public land ranchers not far from the Monument. We raise cattle and small grains on a dry land operation that is suffering 

from an ongoing drought. 

I served on the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) of the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) for six years. I was the Chairman during the entire 

public process that led to the designation of the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument in 2001. Our RAC is made up of 15 individuals representing 

many different points of view including ranchers, sportsmen, conservationists, elected officials and individuals representing oil and gas and timber interests. The RAC 

is a consensus council, that works to find common ground on natural resource issues 

affecting the public lands managed by the BLM. 

As Chairman of the RAC, I oversaw the preparation for and development of the 

report to the Secretary of Interior that resulted in the designation of the Missouri 

Breaks as a National Monument. That report summarized an inclusive public process undertaken by the RAC, at the request of the Secretary, to determine how 

Montanans felt about the public lands—a vast and wondrous landscape—that we 

call the Missouri Breaks. Our charge was to find out what Montanans agreed upon, 

what kind of a future we wanted for these lands. 

Before the RAC accepted this task, we held a public meeting in Lewistown, 

Montana, seeking public input on whether or not this project was something that 

the people of north central Montana wanted us to work on. The meeting room was 

packed with people, mostly ranchers and farmers, who asked the RAC to become 

involved, which we did. 

To reach the greatest number of people living in the area around the Breaks, we 

conducted hearings in several communities in Central Montana. To facilitate maximum participation we met for two days in each of those communities and accepted 

testimony during the day as well as in the evening. Hundreds of Montanans from 

all walks of life felt this issue important enough that they took time from their busy 

lives to attend the meeting presenting statements and listening to others. We also 

received hundreds of letters. 

As I listened to the testimony and read the many letters, I was moved by the passion that Montanans felt for this place. Rancher or floater, hiker or hunter, bird 

watcher or just a person seeking solitude; it made no difference. All felt a special 

love for this land we call the Missouri Breaks. 

This is what the RAC reported to the Secretary of the Interior: Montanans wanted 

this enchanted place to remain as wild tomorrow as it is today. Montanans also 

wanted to see the cultural and historical artifacts that abound in this Monument 

protected and they consider it critical that wildlife habitat be enhanced. The people 

of my state also wanted to see traditional uses including hunting, fishing and grazing to continue. Finally, and of critical importance, Montanans wanted to make sure 

43

that all private property rights were protected. While the RAC did not make a recommendation to the Secretary regarding Monument designation (and therefore did 

not address boundaries we were in full agreement that this special landscape needed and deserved special management to protect its unique resources. 

It is important for you to know that the majority of Montanans that testified and 

wrote letters supported the idea of a Monument as the best way to protect this landscape. They were also adamant in voicing that public land belongs to all Montanans 

and to all Americans. It was a small minority that opposed the Monument. 

When the President of the United States, using the powers given to him by Congress, through the Antiquities Act, created the Missouri Breaks Monument, he did 

so using the report from the Central Montana RAC to the Secretary. The Proclamation was written to reflect the values Montanans strongly agreed upon, such as continued hunting and grazing. It also reflects our recommendation to include specific 

and clear language to protect private property rights. 

The Monument Proclamation states that: ‘‘establishment of this Monument is subject to valid existing rights’’. The Proclamation further states that ‘‘...there are hereby set apart and reserved as the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, 

for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all lands and interests in 

lands owned or controlled by the United States.’’

Unlike the Proclamation, H.R. 1629 does nothing to protect private property 

rights in the Monument. Private property rights are already protected by the Proclamation and within existing government law and policy. We live in a system of laws 

that protect private property rights. The Presidential Proclamation provides another 

layer of protection by making clear that private property rights are protected. 

There are numerous rumors about how our government has cynically tried to 

force or intimidate individual landowners into selling, or how our government has 

attempted to restrict private property rights. As a public lands rancher I am naturally curious if any of these rumors can be substantiated. I have called upon those 

making these claims to give us evidence. I have yet to see any. 

The Proclamation explains why private property was included within the boundaries of the Monument. The proclamation clearly states that if property with significant historical, cultural, wildlife or landscape qualities are purchased by the United 

States from a willing seller, these lands will be ‘‘reserved as part of the Monument.’’

Why is this important? There are a significant number of historical and cultural 

sites that are on private land, but are an integral part of the historic and wildlife 

landscape. Sites like the Nez Pearce Trail where in 1877 Chief Joseph led his band 

across the Missouri River and up Cow Creek toward his final battle with General 

Miles. Sites like the Kid Curry hangout where gunfighters and rustlers hid from the 

law. Sites like the Bull Whacker Trail where bull trains hauled supplies from Cow 

Island to Ft. Benton when the water levels were so low that river travel was 

impossible. 

These and other sites are a part of our national identity. These are sites that help 

us define ourselves as Americans and deserve adequate protection for future generations to enjoy. Today, if a landowner chooses to sell his land that contains one of 

these sites to the government, it becomes a part of the Monument and is protected 

for all Americans. If this legislation passes, lands that the BLM might acquire 

through purchase, trade or donation could not be added to the Monument without 

additional legislation or another Presidential Proclamation. This would be the case 

for each acquisition—which means extra work for Congress or the President and additional costs to the American taxpayer, as legislation is expensive in both time and 

money. 

If this bill passes it also means that if BLM does acquire land through purchase, 

trade or donation, that land would not be part of the Monument and would therefore not be given the same protection. Those newly acquired lands would be open 

to oil and gas development and a host of other potential threats, creating a formidable and expensive management challenge for the BLM which makes it very unlikely that the agency would seek to acquire, from willing sellers, any in-holdings 

in the Monument. Either way, the public loses and the future of the Monument and 

its abundant wildlife, historical, and ecological values now within the boundary will 

be jeopardized, and our ability to preserve a piece of history and wildness will be 

ultimately lost. 

This is not what the public wants whether they live in Montana or in Florida. 

As chairman of the RAC I heard from people across Montana who wanted this place 

protected. Since designation there have been numerous opportunities for public 

input into the future of the Breaks. Efforts to dismantle the Monument shortly after 

its designation generated over 1400 letters to our governor, 1100 asking her to keep 

the Monument as it is. There have also been two public comment periods as the 

BLM develops a management plan for the Monument—the first generated about 

44

5,700 public comments and 5,602 supported protection of the Monument in it’s 

entirety. Another comment period has just closed and almost 7,000 people wrote the 

agency and we are waiting for the analysis of those comments. It is clear that 

Montanans, like people across this country, in increasing numbers, want this land 

protected. The bill we are discussing today offers a facade of comfort to the few people who oppose the Monument while ignoring what the majority of Americans and 

Montanans want. 

Last year, Representative Rehberg told the editorial board of the Montana Havre 

Daily News that ‘‘he wants to eliminate any worries the landowners may have that 

the federal government would somehow try to restrict the landowners use of their 

own property.’’ The Havre Daily News responded in their editorial as follows: ‘‘Rather than exacerbating people’s fears, Rehberg should be reassuring landowners that 

they have nothing to worry about.’’

Representative Rehberg has also stated that including private land within the 

boundaries of the Monument will open that land up to vandalism and trespass. But 

in reality drawing a line on a map would be of little help. On our ranch, our private 

lands are checkerboarded with public lands. It is almost impossible for a person to 

tell where my private land ends and the public’s land begins. If I want to keep the 

public off of my property and on the public land, I would need to clearly mark my 

boundaries. This is already my right and my responsibility. 

There are a few very troubling things about this proposed legislation. It sets a 

precedent that may be applied to the other fifteen Monuments managed by the 

BLM, thirteen of which also have private lands within their boundaries. It also sets 

a precedent that may be applied to other special places managed by agencies under 

the Department of Interior, such as other National Monuments and National Parks. 

The National Park Service (NPS oversees 395 units that include many different designations such as National Parks, National Monuments and National Historic 

Parks. Private land is included in 242 or 61 percent of those sites, which include 

sites such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon as well as sites like Harper’s 

Ferry, Valley Forge, the C & O Canal, and Gettysburg. 

It is also troubling that those asking for this legislation seem to have little trust 

in their government to treat its citizens fairly. It also seems those asking for this 

legislation have little faith in their fellow citizens, yet ask these citizens to trust 

them when they proclaim that they are the stewards of these public lands. 

Twenty-six years ago, Congress led by Senator Metcalf of Montana created the 

Upper Missouri River Wild and Scenic River. Forty-six percent or 35,800 of the 

81,000 acres that this bill would remove from the Monument are within the boundaries of the wild and scenic designation. Just think, twenty-six years ago Congress 

knew that they could do this and private property rights would not be violated. 

Twenty-six years later, we know Congress was right—that private property rights 

were not violated and that the river was better protected than before. 

Twenty-six years later the President of the United States using the powers granted to him through the Antiquities Act created a Monument protecting a larger area 

for future generations. This Monument with its inspiring landscape celebrates Lewis 

and Clark and their role in the building of a nation. It celebrates so much of what 

they stood for. Let us not weaken this Monument by passing legislation such as 

this. Rather, let us work together to put in place a management plan for this new 

Monument that serves not just a few special interests but the interests of all Americans now and for future generations. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. We will begin with questions from my colleagues up here on the dais. 

Ms. Roeser, I have got a couple of questions for you. Can you give 

us an example here in the Committee of how you have tried to 

work with the Federal agencies to resolve some of the access problems that you have had with the trails? 

Ms. ROESER. Yes. We have been involved throughout any development of management plans, certainly from the scoping process, 

comment periods, and then comments on the final documents numerous times on numerous different units, from the John MuirAnsel Adams Wilderness to Yosemite Park, Sequoia Park, on and 

on. Oftentimes, our comments were just given sort of a perfunctory 

review, so we would often take them to the next level, which would 

mean appeals to the Regional Forester in the case of the Forest 

45

Service, appeals to the Chief of the Forest Service, and so on. So 

we have followed that route numerous times. 

There has been dozens and dozens of public hearings, public comment periods, and we have even been forced with legal action actually a few times, so it has been numerous. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. In the prior panel, Mr. Calvert, 

representing the Department of Interior, stated that my legislation 

was not necessary because the current process of categorical exclusions is NEPA compliant. However, is it your feeling that if a normal NEPA process were required prior to the trail closures you 

mentioned and a public comment period was required, as would be 

under NEPA, having that process mandated, would that be helpful 

in addressing the problems that you mentioned? 

Ms. ROESER. It would certainly be a huge start. Many times, decisions are made without the input of stock users and certainly 

without the input of people who do not own stock but wish to use 

stock, in other words, hiring a commercial outfitter. So that input 

is often not received, first of all. 

And second of all, we believe that this simply reiterates what is 

already in the law that has been repeatedly ignored by the land 

agencies for many, many years. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

We are now joined by Mr. Elijah Cummings, who could not attend earlier because of some Floor activity. Mr. Cummings, welcome back to the Subcommittee. If you would like to give your 

statement, and then we will go ahead and open up this entire 

panel then to questions from members of the dais. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really 

appreciate your courtesy and thank the Committee. 

Chairman Radanovich and Ranking Member Christensen and 

members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss legislation which is of 

great importance to me, the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act, H.R. 2424, S. 1233. 

The legislation which I have introduced jointly with my good 

friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, would authorize 

Federal assistance in the establishment of an institution of great 

significance to this nation, the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum. 

The National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act will 

help to bring long-overdue recognition to African Americans who 

have served our nation with distinction. But those names, faces, 

and records of achievement are not well-known by the public. This 

legislation, introduced in June, enjoys the bipartisan support and 

cosponsorship of more than 50 of our colleagues in the House. 

Senator Mikulski’s companion bill, S. 1233, has already passed the 

Senate. 

The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, America’s first wax museum 

of black history, was founded in the early 1980s. The museum occupies part of a city block in East Baltimore and currently includes 

approximately 200 exhibits. Existing figures depict Colin Powell, 

46

Harriet Tubman, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary McCloud Bethune, and former Representatives Robert Smalls of South Carolina, Mickey Leland of Texas, Parren Mitchell and Kweisi Mfume 

of Maryland, and Shirley Chisholm and Adam Clayton Powell of 

New York. This legislation will help to present the faces and stories of black Americans who have reached some of the highest levels of national, and sometimes international, service, but who are 

generally unknown. 

A priority in this museum expansion project will be the creation 

of new exhibits presenting black Americans who served in this 

Congress during the 1800s, some born in slavery and others born 

free. These great Americans proudly served their constituencies 

and this nation. The expanded museum will also focus on black 

military veterans, on black judges, lawmen, and prominent attorneys, and the role of blacks in discovery and settlement. 

This legislation will help to showcase blacks who have served in 

senior civilian executive branch positions. These include Ralph 

Bunch, E. Frederick Morrow, Robert Weaver, William Coleman, 

Patricia Batt Harris, Louis Sullivan, and others who have not received appropriate recognition. 

The State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore already have contributed over $5 million toward this expansion project, which 

will occupy an entire city block in an empowerment zone area. The 

museum is conducting extensive outreach to major corporations 

and other private donors. This legislation authorizes a Federal 

share not to exceed 25 percent or $15 million, whichever is less, of 

the expansion project dollars. 

I am very pleased by the strong support that has been exhibited 

for this legislation on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate as well 

as the House. The Senate companion bill, S. 1233, passed the 

Senate by unanimous consent. It is a little more than a month 

after its introduction in June of this year. The House version, 

H.R. 2424, has attracted the support and cosponsorship of more 

than 50 of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well 

as members of the two House committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

This legislation is, indeed, a tribute to the people of my Congressional district who believe in the power of a cultural institution, 

such as a museum, to bring about positive change in a challenged 

community. It also very importantly constitutes the realization of 

a dream of two great Americans, the late Dr. Elmer Martin and Dr. 

Joanne Martin, who is with us today. 

At great personal sacrifice, the Martins dedicated themselves to 

building a cultural institution of prominence in a part of our city 

where no other such institution would choose to locate. They 

passed up opportunities to establish their museum in far more lucrative, tourist-oriented sites in Baltimore, choosing instead to remain instead in a fragile community in East Baltimore. 

I would also like to point out the phenomenal success of this initiative. The Great Blacks in Wax Museum draws more than a 

quarter-million visitors per year, including several members of 

Congress and their staff and I, I might add. More than 50 percent 

of those visitors are schoolchildren. On a typical day’s visit to The 

Great Blacks in Wax Museum, you will find school buses lining the 

47

block on East North Avenue, including buses from other States. A 

destination for scholars as well as students, receiving over one million hits annually on its website, The Great Blacks in Wax Museum truly deserves its reputation as a national treasure. 

I urge the support of all members of the Committee for this legislation to assist with the establishment of the National Great 

Blacks in Wax Museum and I thank you for your consideration of 

this important preservation and community-building initiative and 

I look forward to working with the Committee in bringing it to fruition. And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cummings follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Maryland, on H.R. 2424

Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

legislation which is of great importance to me, the National Great Black Americans 

Commemoration Act (H.R. 2424/S. 1233). This legislation which I have introduced 

jointly with Senator Barbara Mikulski would authorize federal assistance in the establishment of an institution of great significance to this nation, the National Great 

Blacks in Wax Museum. 

The National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act will help to bring long 

overdue recognition to African Americans who have served our nation with distinction, but whose names, faces, and records of achievements are not well-known by 

the public. This legislation, introduced in June, enjoys the bipartisan support and 

cosponsorship of more than 50 of our colleagues in the House. Senator Mikulski’s 

companion bill (S. 1233) has already passed the Senate. 

The Great Blacks in Wax Museum, America’s first wax museum of Black history, 

was founded in the early 1980s. The museum occupies part of a city block in East 

Baltimore, and currently includes approximately 200 exhibits. Existing figures depict Colin Powell, Harriet Tubman, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary McLeod Bethune and former Representatives Robert Smalls of South Carolina, Mickey Leland 

of Texas, Parren Mitchell and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, and Shirley Chisholm 

and Adam Clayton Powell of New York. 

This legislation will help to present the faces and stories of Black Americans who 

have reached some of the highest levels of national service, but who are generally 

unknown. A priority in this museum expansion project will be creation of new exhibits presenting Black Americans who served in Congress during the 1800s. Some 

born in slavery and others born free, these Americans proudly served their constituencies and the nation. The expanded museum will also focus on Black military veterans, on Black judges, lawmen and prominent attorneys, and the role of Blacks in 

discovery and settlement. 

This legislation will help to showcase Blacks who served in senior civilian Executive Branch positions. These include Ralph Bunche (Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration), E. Frederic Morrow (Eisenhower Administration), Robert Weaver 

(Johnson Administration), William Coleman (Ford Administration), Patricia Harris 

(Carter Administration), Louis Sullivan (George H.W. Bush Administration), and 

others who have not received appropriate recognition. 

The State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore already have contributed over 

$5 million toward this expansion project which will occupy an entire city block in 

an Empowerment Zone area. The museum is conducting extensive outreach to major 

corporations and other private donors. This legislation authorizes a federal share 

not to exceed 25%, or $15 million (whichever is less) of the expansion project. 

I am very pleased by the strong support that has been exhibited for this legislation on both sides of the aisle, in the Senate as well as the House. The Senate companion bill, S. 1233, passed the Senate by unanimous consent a little more than a 

month after its introduction in June of this year. The House version, H.R. 2424, has 

attracted the support and cosponsorship of more than 50 of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats as well as members of the two House committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

This legislation is a tribute to the people of my congressional district who believe 

in the power of a cultural institution such as the Museum to bring about positive 

change in a challenged community. It also, very importantly, constitutes the realization of a dream of two great Americans, Drs. Elmer and Joanne Martin. At great 

48

personal sacrifice, the Martins dedicated themselves to building a cultural institution of prominence in a part of our city where no other such institution would choose 

to locate. They passed up opportunities to establish their museum at far more lucrative, tourist-oriented sites in Baltimore, choosing instead to remain in a fragile community in East Baltimore. 

I would also like to point out the phenomenal success of this initiative. The Great 

Blacks in Wax Museum draws more than a quarter million visitors per year, including several members of Congress and their staff I might add. More than 50 percent 

of those visitors are schoolchildren. On a typical day’s visit to The Great Blacks in 

Wax Museum, you will find school buses lining the block on East North Avenue, 

including buses from other states. A destination for scholars as well as students, receiving over 1 million hits annually on its web site, The Great Blacks in Wax 

Mmuseum truly deserves its reputation as a ‘‘national treasure’’. 

I urge the support of all members of this Committee for this legislation to assist 

with establishment of the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum. Thank you for 

your consideration of this important preservation and community-building initiative 

and I look forward to working with the Committee on bringing it to fruition. 

Mr. REHBERG. [Presiding.] At this time, we will go back to the 

questioning of the various witnesses. I would like to begin by asking Mr. Tureck, why do you think you love Montana’s lands more 

than Mr. Knox? 

Mr. TURECK. I didn’t say that. 

Mr. REHBERG. Well, Mr. Knox’s property is included inside the 

boundary, his private property, and yours is not, and you are making a determination on his private property. What gives you the 

right as an American citizen to determine what he does with his 

private property? 

Mr. TURECK. I am not in any way determining what he does with 

his property. His property rights are totally protected. 

Mr. REHBERG. So why wouldn’t you support legislation? If he requests to have his private property taken out of the boundaries, 

why can’t he do that? 

Mr. TURECK. What is the cost to him of having it in the boundaries? The advantage is that there is another potential buyer out 

there if he ever wants to sell his land. 

Mr. REHBERG. Let me ask you this. In your testimony, you characterize oil and gas development among the threats to private land 

that might be possible, if not for the Monument designation. My 

question is two-fold. First, do you believe that you are the best decisionmaker for property that you do not own, and second, have you 

placed a perpetual easement on your property that would ensure 

that your property would never be susceptible to these types of 

threats? 

Mr. TURECK. Let me start with the second question, if I may. We 

own land on Square Butte, which is a natural area. It is the world’s 

largest laccolith. It has been visited since the 1880s by geologists 

from across the world. It is a very fragile area. I would like to announce that, yes, we have put a conservation easement up there 

that is probably the most restrictive easement you will ever see. 

OK. The only economic activity allowed on our land up there is 

grazing. There can never be a house built. There can be no mining. 

We will not allow power lines to go across it nor roads to be built. 

Mr. REHBERG. How would you feel personally if Mr. Knox determined that the rest of your ranch ought to be included in that 

same easement and came to the government and said, without Mr. 

Tureck’s knowledge, we are going to put that all in an easement 

49

and we are going to affect his future ability to develop his property? 

Mr. TURECK. There is nothing stopping Mr. Knox from developing his property now. 

Mr. REHBERG. He has land in-holdings. He makes a determination he wants to develop a well. Are you going to be sitting before 

us supporting a pipeline being built across Federal properties to 

take the oil out of his in-holding? 

Mr. TURECK. I doubt it, because I would protect the Federal 

lands, but he can put that well in. He can subdivide. He can do 

what he wants to do. 

Mr. REHBERG. He just can’t get it out. 

Mr. TURECK. But that might be a problem otherwise. 

Mr. REHBERG. But less of a problem if all he has to deal with 

is the Bureau of Land Management. 

As former Chairman of the Central Montana Resource Advisory 

Council, on December 30, 1999, you submitted recommendations 

made by your council to then-Interior Secretary Babbitt. Section 6 

of those recommendations, entitled ‘‘Issues Not Covered,’’ lists both 

private property and boundary issues as issues that were not covered. However, in your testimony, you state that the President created the Missouri Breaks Monument using those recommendations. 

It would seem clear to me that if private property rights and 

boundary issues, the two most central issues in today’s discussions, 

were not covered, as your report clearly indicates, you would be in 

favor of my bill in an attempt to fully cover these issues. 

Mr. TURECK. First of all, private property rights were addressed 

by the RAC. We recommended all private property rights be respected, and that is what the proclamation did. We did not talk 

about boundaries, because we did not talk about designation. We 

knew that there was no consensus on that. We are a consensus 

council. 

Mr. REHBERG. As Chairman of the RAC——

Mr. TURECK. Let me finish if I may, sir. 

Mr. REHBERG. You may. 

Mr. TURECK. OK. As a consensus council—or the ranchers that 

oppose this Monument refuse to talk boundaries because they 

refuse to talk about designation. There was not going to be a designation. They fought that to the final end. That was their choice. 

Mr. REHBERG. As Chairman of the Resource Advisory Council, 

you are pretty aware of probably who the membership of that committee was. Were any of the landowners who have land currently 

in the boundary on the President’s Resource Advisory Committee? 

Now, the President has the ability through the Secretary of Interior to appoint anybody he wants, so he had the ability to appoint 

landowners who have land inside those boundaries. Were any of 

those members on that Advisory Council? 

Mr. TURECK. At the time, no, but let me explain. Nobody applied 

from within where the boundaries now rest. Nobody had ever applied. I had asked people to apply. I said, this is somewhere you 

should get involved. They did not apply. But——

Mr. REHBERG. In your testimony——

Mr. TURECK. Let me finish. 

50

Mr. REHBERG. In your testimony, you brought up a lot of peripheral issues, such as the potential impact or effect on other places, 

like Glacier or Yellowstone or Yosemite. Show me in the bill where 

this specifically deals with any other Monument other than the 

Missouri Breaks Monument. 

Mr. TURECK. In all due respect, Representative Rehberg, this 

sets a precedent, and as you yourself pointed out today, this administration is going to be different from the next administration. Once 

this precedent is set, where does it go next? I anticipate——

Mr. REHBERG. I would put it to you, Mr. Tureck, that the Congress has, in fact, adjusted boundaries in the past. The precedent 

has been set long before this Congress. This just rights a wrong for 

one specific boundary in one specific Monument. 

Mr. TURECK. This does much more than just the boundary. This 

also removes all private lands within the Monument. 

Mr. REHBERG. My time is up. I will recognize Mrs. Christensen. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me address a question to Dr. Martin, but first, I want to 

thank her on behalf of the Committee for her very compelling testimony and to commend you and your husband for not only preserving our past, but protecting our future. 

I was wondering if, you know, we have a number of museums 

and monuments across the country, some of them are Federal but 

some are privately owned or locally or State-owned. Some are still 

being established. Is there any formal or informal collaboration 

planned so that that story can be told in a more—with more continuity and there be more coordination among all of our museums 

that tell the story of African Americans in the past. 

Dr. MARTIN. Museums today clearly understand the need to collaborate when you look at the economic climate that we find ourselves in and the ways in which the tourism industry is affected 

by any number of issues and occurrences on the national scene, in 

the national scene. So more and more, museums are forming alliances. We are looking to the American Association of Museums, for 

example, or the Association of African American Museums. Within 

our individual States, we belong to tourism councils and so forth. 

And as we begin to reach out to one another, then that brings 

us in touch with the kind of expertise that many of us simply cannot afford. It allows us to share resources, to share stories, experiences. So that is clearly on all of our agendas, to collaborate more 

and to understand that there is strength through unity. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for your answer. 

Mr. Knox, are you aware that there are more than 35,000 acres 

of private land within the Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic River, 

which were designated in 1976 and which are part now of the current Monument? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, I am. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And do you know of any situations where the 

BLM violated the private property rights of landowners within the 

Upper Missouri Wild and Scenic Rivers since that time, since 1976? 

Mr. KNOX. Not specifically, no, but I can give you a little background on why we ended up grudgingly, I have to say, but we did 

end up cooperating with and get along fairly well with the Wild 

and Scenic designation. 

51

First of all, it was done by Congress and we felt, whether we 

liked it or not, Congress did what they did. 

Second, this Monument, or, I mean, excuse me, this designation 

was written with a multiple-use mandate. It is, to my knowledge, 

the only Wild and Scenic River Act that was created that way. 

And what we are always concerned about with the mix of private 

and Federal lands, of course, is that the private lands are the base 

properties for grazing allotments. Almost all of these private lands 

that you see on this map are the base properties for grazing allotments. And everything that is done on Federal land that affects 

that grazing allotment affects that private property. 

So when the Wild and Scenic River Act was passed with a multiple-use mandate by Congress, we felt we had to accept it and we 

did. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I will probably come back to you with another question, but before my time runs out, I wanted to ask Mr. 

Tureck a question also. Do you recall how many hearings or public 

meetings the Resource Advisory Council which you chaired held on 

the Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument, and do you believe 

those meetings were a sham, as some of the people have claimed? 

Mr. TURECK. No, I don’t believe those meetings were a sham. 

First of all, we held the first meeting actually to consider whether 

we should even take this issue up as an RAC, and that meeting 

was well attended. A great number of the people were actually 

from Winifred and down on the river said they wanted the RAC to 

take it because that was their only hope. When we didn’t come up, 

I guess, with the recommendation they wanted, then we were a 

failure. 

But we traveled to three cities. We spent two days in each city 

to take testimony. Over 200 people testified. We took it during the 

day and at night both, so those people who felt importantly about 

this could come and talk. Then we also took written comments. 

Over 200 letters were also received. It was this that we turned 

around and dealt with in our recommendations. 

And in our recommendations, let me point out, we recommended 

multiple use for the Monument. Grazing is grandfathered in. It is 

mentioned in the proclamation. So is hunting and fishing. I would 

argue that actually Mr. Knox’s rights are better protected than 

mine, of grazing on public lands. 

Also, I would like to point out that if any land is purchased by 

the Federal Government from a willing seller, that land would 

automatically be operated under tailored grazing and, therefore, be 

given back out to grazing. 

Could I make one more comment, too——

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Sure——

Mr. TURECK [continuing]. And this has to do with the tax base 

that Mr. Knox alluded to being lost if you turned around and sold 

land to the Federal Government, that that would be lost. I pay on 

my rough break somewhere between 15 and 50 cents an acre, depending on the class of land. Per acre, that is what I pay in taxes. 

The government gives $1.35 an acre, per acre, in PILT payments 

locally. Those payments go directly to the county. 

The county—I think Congress in its infinite wisdom here and the 

BLM decided not to micromanage that money but rather let the 

52

counties manage it. Fergus County has chosen to spend that money 

on roads. We, the taxpayers, will turn around, and those who elect 

these county commissioners, and say, spend that money on schools. 

So I don’t see that there is necessarily—and he mentioned the 

one ranch. I calculated the PILT payments versus the taxes they 

pay. It would be almost identical. 

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. First, Dr. Martin, I know this is not a 

question, but I couldn’t pass you by without at least thanking you 

for the comments that you made orally here. 

Dr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Your discussion on heritage, I think was beautiful. 

All of us are a byproduct of our ancestry. That is what creates us. 

And the future generations—this is the old history teacher in me 

coming out—will never understand themselves until they can go 

back and understand their heritage, and I just want you to know 

how much I appreciated the words you said and the efforts you are 

doing. I will raise my voice at the end so it sounds like a question, 

but it is not really there. But I just want to thank you for what 

you said. 

Dr. MARTIN. Well, I am an English teacher, so that didn’t work, 

but——

[Laughter.] 

Dr. MARTIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Tureck, if I could ask you a question. In your 

testimony, one of the reasons you gave for continuing the status 

quo is the inclusion of private property in the Monument if at some 

future time it should be purchased, but it would automatically be 

included. And you characterized going the other direction, which is 

equally effective, of letting the land go and then buying it by Congressional action as burdensome and a waste of taxpayer money. 

In fact, the direct words were, it would mean extra work for Congress or the President and additional cost to the American taxpayers, as legislation is expensive in both time and money. I find 

that unique, because I think that we would define those terms differently. I think we would call that the democratic process. 

I guess my question has to be, is it your honest feeling that the 

benefit of automatic inclusion outweighs the efforts of giving affected landowners their say in a Congressional approach. 

Mr. TURECK. Since we are basically talking about only buying 

land from willing sellers, the landowners have the right to sell to 

who they want if they want to sell, but it is only to willing sellers. 

Why do we need a Congressional hearing? And Congress does have 

basically a veto on this because they—it is through appropriations. 

But it is not in condemnation. BLM has no rights to condemnation. 

It is to willing sellers. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, let me try this. Mr. Knox, you own land in this 

Monument, correct? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you presently a willing seller? 

Mr. KNOX. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. And I understand of the 127 owners, 125 of them 

want out of this Monument designation. 

Mr. KNOX. Yes. 

53

Mr. BISHOP. What would create you to be a willing seller in the 

future? 

Mr. KNOX. Well, as I stated earlier, where we are very concerned, 

and we always will be as long as we are ranching in that area, and 

hopefully we will be ranching there—I would like to see my daughters have the same opportunity that my wife and I have had—but 

what we are always concerned about is the private lands attached 

to the Federal lands and the effect that management decisions 

made by BLM have on those private lands. 

And when you institute or impose, in this case, a new Federal 

designation on an area, you know, these new designations always 

come with some kind of new management restrictions. We are still 

in the middle of the RMP process so we don’t know what those will 

be. But those will have a direct bearing and a direct effect on not 

only how we use our private lands, but also the value of those private lands. So for people to think that somehow this doesn’t have 

any effect, they are very wrong. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Knox, help me understand if I am going through 

this analysis in any way inaccurately. When Congress originally established the process for creating public lands, Monuments, et 

cetera, as they went through both a FLMPA and NEPA process, it 

was for the due process effort that was part of it. Many people have 

said that we need to trust our government because it hasn’t let us 

down before. That bothers me once again, because the Founding 

Fathers, when they wrote our Constitution, said that no generation 

of America should so blindly say that they would trust the government. 

In fact, the Bill of Rights is misstated. It actually should be 

called the ‘‘Bill of Wrongs.’’ Things are wrong for the government 

to do no matter how many people or how many councils want to 

do them. And part of the Fifth Amendment was obviously the guarantee of due process, that no one could take away your property 

without due process. 

Am I wrong in assuming that that is perhaps what has happened 

here, that if the government wants to buy that from a willing seller, they should do it before they include it in any kind of Federal 

project, not after? And tell me if I am wrong. To me, the analogy 

is, if I was in the private sector and I went out and built a building, I would build a building on the land and then see if I could 

coerce the owner of the land into selling it to me, as opposed to 

buying the land first and doing it the appropriate way. 

Now, have I gone through that analysis in your mind in any way 

inaccurately? 

Mr. KNOX. No, that is very accurate and it reflects the way we 

feel in the Missouri River Breaks area. When I say ‘‘we,’’ I mean 

the landowners. At one point, Mr. Tureck is correct that we did oppose the Monument designation. But in December of 2000, when 

Secretary Babbitt announced to the media that he was going to recommend to the President that the area be designated a National 

Monument, if nothing else, at that time, they should have come to 

us and said, OK, here are the boundaries. We would like your 

input and your comments on what those boundaries will be, whether or not your private property is included, if there is a way we can 

draw your property out if you don’t want it to be included in this 

54

designation. That was never done, and that is a matter of public 

record. It just didn’t happen. 

Mr. BISHOP. And I am sorry that didn’t happen. I apologize for 

that. My time has expired. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I don’t have any questions. 

Mr. REHBERG. Mrs. Christensen, if I could just make a couple of 

points to answer some of your questions, and that is I think the 

answer you received, if you heard at all, was a good one on the 

Wild and Scenic designation because what he told you was the 

Wild and Scenic designation was an Act of Congress. It was authorized. It was appropriated and managed as such. So it went through 

the public process, and the only way you can establish a Wild and 

Scenic Corridor is either through an Act of Congress or through the 

State Legislature, so you have the public process. In this particular 

case, you did not. 

The answer you heard from Mr. Tureck was incomplete on payment in lieu of taxes. I don’t know you get your funds in your community, the Virgin Islands, for education, but in the State of 

Montana, being a former appropriator and a legislator, we get our 

money for education from property taxes. The problem is, payment 

in lieu of taxes doesn’t go to schools, it goes back to counties for 

them to spend. So as the Federal Government purchases property 

that is deeded and takes it out of the taxpaying process, the schools 

lose the money. The counties are a beneficiary, not 100 percent, 

and that is part of the problem we have with payment in lieu and 

that is why we continue to beat up on every President since Washington, probably, to get them to fully fund payment in lieu, but 

there is not a transfer of 100 percent from schools back through the 

PILT to schools. It is lost to them. So I just wanted to clarify those 

points. 

One more question of Mr. Tureck, then I would like to turn to 

Mr. Knox, and that is, Mr. Tureck, you mentioned all those letters 

and all those signatures you got on all those petitions. Did one single person sign your letters and petitions that owned property inside the Monument? 

Mr. TURECK. I really can’t tell you. I really can’t tell you. 

Mr. REHBERG. Again, therein lies the problem. It is easy for 

somebody to plow their neighbors’ field. I would just love to graze 

your property without your permission. You probably wouldn’t like 

that. But I guess, oh well, it is in the greater good of me because 

my cattle need your grass, and that is essentially what you are saying by saying, in spite of the fact that 127 people that own 81,000 

acres inside the Monument don’t want their property in there, for 

the greater good of the Federal Government, we are going to include your property. 

Mr. TURECK. We have tried to find out the number of landowners 

inside the Monument. We have come up with 92, of which 20 percent live out of State. I am not sure that those have all been contacted. I would like to see all the letters of those who said, ‘‘I want 

out,’’ and signed. 

Mr. REHBERG. Well, Mr. Tureck, we are waiting to hear from one 

who wants to be included. 

55

Mr. Knox, a question for you. You obviously don’t love the land 

as much as Mr. Tureck because you don’t want your land to be protected. Are you mismanaging the McClelland Farm? 

Mr. KNOX. No, we are not. 

Mr. REHBERG. Ironically, I will tell the Committee there is a conflict of interest. I did not know it. I didn’t know Mr. Knox. He is 

the Chairman of the Land Stewards. But he actually farms my 

great-grandmother’s homestead. It just is purely coincidental. I 

have no landownership up there, but if I ever find out you are mismanaging the McClelland Farm, you are in deep trouble. It is within the Wild and Scenic Corridor. It is now within the Missouri 

Breaks and it does deserve protection and, I assume, because you 

manage that property, you are managing it to the best of agricultural practices for the betterment of the Missouri Breaks. I hope 

that is true. 

Let me follow up on Mr. Bishop’s question, then. Do you feel in 

any way, shape, or form, after you have been poked in the nose or 

the eye by the Federal Government, that you deserve to cooperate 

or you should cooperate with them in becoming a willing buyer and 

seller? I mean, what has created a warm and fuzzy feeling in your 

mind after they did this in the 12th hour of the Clinton Administration to make you want to participate or cooperate with the Federal Government? 

Mr. KNOX. Well, that is a good question. You know, one of the—

there are basically three categories of land that, as ranchers, we 

are virtually all dealing with, and that is private, State, and Federal, and they are intermingled. The country is rough. You can’t 

fence away any given parcel of land easily or economically feasibly. 

And so what is required is cooperation, and when a kind of designation like this is imposed without a public process regarding 

boundaries and regarding private lands, and when the boundary is 

cutting through parcels of private land and constituting the perimeter boundary of a designation like this, it does create an atmosphere where cooperation is a little bit harder to come by. I 

would——

Mr. REHBERG. Go ahead. 

Mr. KNOX. Excuse me. I would like to point out in response to 

something Mr. Tureck said about nobody put in for the RAC that 

would be directly affected by this. I myself did in 1995 during the 

Clinton Administration, and so did a neighbor of ours, Danny 

Boyce. The Boyce family is the second-largest landowner in the 

National Monument, and he and I both put in for the RAC. Our 

applications were turned down, but I believe that was 1995. 

Mr. REHBERG. Begging the Committee’s indulgence, I would like 

to ask one more question, because I do have a ranch. That is what 

I did for a living before I became a Congressman three years ago 

and I do have public lands intermingled in a checkerboard fashion. 

As a result of public lands inside my property, I see a trespass 

problem, not because people don’t respect private property, but because they think they have access to that public property even 

though it is wholly surrounded by private property. I assume—I 

will ask you the question. Do you have the same problem, and if 

you do, are the Federal agencies ever out there to help you with 

the trespass or do you end up being the cop confronting people, 

56

trying to explain to them that they are accessing land that is not 

public? In what way has the BLM helped you ameliorate the difficulties with trespassing? 

Mr. KNOX. The particular piece of property that we have within 

the Monument boundary is on the upper end of the land that you 

referred to, the McClelland Homestead, and typically, we let people 

have access to it. It is a good fishing area and people like to camp 

there. 

So we, as the Knox Ranch, I can’t say that that is a huge issue 

for us. But the Boyce family that I mentioned earlier, they own a 

large parcel in what is called Knox Ridge and there is a county 

road that runs through the middle of it. It is, of course, their summer range and it is a mixture of BLM and private, a large chunk 

of private land, and they have had a lot of problems. 

People simply aren’t good map readers. When you draw a designation boundary around something, that confuses the issue even 

more. People say, well, you know, it kind of looks like maybe it is 

private land here on this map, but yet it is within this boundary. 

So maybe I am within my rights to be on this property. 

And so that is the reality of it. People just simply don’t understand property rights issues in some cases, not all cases, but in 

some cases, and they don’t understand the relationship between 

Federal and private and they can’t read a map. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. Mrs. Christensen? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. I guess I have one question. 

Hopefully, it won’t lead to others. But it just seems to me that the 

reason both Federal and private lands are included in this is that 

there are historic and scientific resources on both, so protection is 

needed for both and I guess that is why the private properties are 

included. 

What I don’t understand is why the Congressional process is accepted, even though everything was not agreed to in a Congressional process, either, but the Presidential process, which has full 

authority under the Antiquities Act, just as much authority as the 

Congressional process had and which appeared to have had extensive public comment and a public process, the recommendations of 

which, as I understand it, are included in the Monument proclamation, why that is not accepted. 

Both have authority to be done. Both had public processes. Both 

have things that maybe some of the private landowners agree with 

and don’t agree with. I don’t see the difference. I mean, I don’t see 

why there is such a strong objection to this process, especially since 

the property rights of the private landholder is not infringed upon. 

Mr. KNOX. To answer your question, I would simply go back to 

the lack of public process on the boundary issue. When the Wild 

and Scenic River was created, I was, I guess, a high school kid 

then, but I remember my father was involved in it. In my memory, 

and to my knowledge, they were looking at maps before Congress 

passed that legislation. 

We weren’t in this case, and it is maybe a little harder to swallow when it is done administratively. I am not saying that the Antiquities Act is wrong or inappropriate. I am just saying that for 

people on the ground, it is just a little harder to accept. 

57

Here again, I would go back to a fundamental difference, and 

maybe this is only the Missouri Breaks Monument. Maybe they 

had boundary discussions and saw maps on all the other ones, I 

don’t know. But in this particular case, we didn’t, and that is why 

I think this legislation—and we have talked a lot about precedents 

today. I think the good precedent that this legislation would create 

is that in the future, administrations, before they create a large 

Federal designation through administrative authority with the use 

of the Antiquities Act, that they would consult with landowners 

and have a very, very intense, I guess is the word I would use, public process regarding boundaries and how they affect private landholders. And if we could create that precedent, I think that people 

would be more accepting of the use of this kind of administrative 

power. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Do you think that a Monument would ever 

get designated under that kind of a process? We are assuming that 

Monuments are designated because there is a resource that is in 

need of protection. 

Mr. KNOX. Yes. I—did you have more? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. No. I just wanted to allow Mr. Tureck to also 

answer both questions after you are finished. 

Mr. KNOX. OK. Yes, I believe this one probably would have been 

created with that kind of public process. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. 

Mr. KNOX. Because if they had, for example, if they had come to 

us with some kind of give-and-take public process that said, you 

know, we are probably going to do this, but do you want your property drawn in or out, and, you know, there are a lot of different 

ways we could do this, at some point, we would have sat down with 

them. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Can I—my time is running out. Can I allow 

Mr. Tureck to also answer? 

Mr. TURECK. Yes. I would like to point out that I think this legislation really is indirectly an attack upon the Antiquities Act. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Clearly. 

Mr. TURECK. OK, and I do that in part of Representative 

Rehberg’s introductory statement questioning the legality of this 

Monument alone. The Antiquities Act is 95 years old and we have 

struggled with it for 95 years and yet it is still in place and is still 

intact and Presidents use it. Only three out of all the Presidents 

over the 95 years have not created Monuments. If this legislation 

were to pass, it would destroy the Antiquities Act, and that is what 

I think the intention of it really is. 

What was the other question you asked? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The question was, what was the difference 

between—I thought that it was a public process that incorporated 

the public opinion before the proclamation of the Monument, as 

well. 

Mr. TURECK. Yes. See, the first Monument created by the Clinton 

Administration, the one in Utah, was done much as people said, in 

the heat of the night, you know, late at night, the Staircase 

Escalante. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN [continuing]. Escalante. 

58

Mr. TURECK. After that, all of these other Monuments had extensive hearings, probably more extensive than the creation of any 

other Monument under the Antiquities Act by any President before. You remember the Grand Canyon was created as a Monument 

by Teddy Roosevelt. It was brought before the court, saying it was 

much too large, that it was not the smallest unit possible. It was 

thrown out of court. I mean, we have brought them before. Now, 

we are trying to legislate the Antiquities Act out. 

Mr. REHBERG. Thank you. I am going to take the opportunity not 

to let Mr. Tureck put words in my mouth. I do not oppose the Antiquities Act. Mrs. Christensen, if you will read the Antiquities Act, 

you will see it very clearly says, take no more land than is absolutely necessary and in imminent danger, and the question becomes, what was the imminent danger? Did they take more land 

than was absolutely necessary? And therein lies the problem that 

Mr. Knox talks about, the fact that if they had been given the opportunity to talk about the boundaries and what should be in and 

out, they probably could have come to a consensus, and I so strongly believe in the consensus process. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. REHBERG. I will yield. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It is my understanding that the boundaries 

are, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the boundaries are 

drawn after——

Mr. REHBERG. That is correct, but the management is determined beforehand. In this case, it is catty-wampus. They put it into 

the later hours of the Clinton Administration, and you can’t deny 

that the reason it was done was because they wanted to get it done 

before they left office, and they left not only the boundaries unanswered without public input, but they hadn’t talked about the management, either. They would not have done that. They would have 

given the Department the opportunity to establish the management protocol. In Wild and Scenic, very clearly, they have to determine under which conditions it was going to be managed. 

So again, you can see the reasonableness of Mr. Knox and his 

compatriots up on the Missouri River in being willing to go through 

the legislative process. They lost the issue. They accepted it. They 

don’t have a particular heartache with the Wild and Scenic, but 

then you poked them again. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. I think, Mr. Rehberg, you just took my statement 

away right there. That is OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask one question, Mr. Tureck. What were the 

three Presidents who used—which three Presidents used this Antiquities Act? 

Mr. TURECK. No, I said three did not use it. President Bush, 

President Reagan, and I am not sure of the other President. All of 

the other Presidents have used the Antiquities Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. Eisenhower? 

Mr. TURECK. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. And Franklin Roosevelt? 

Mr. TURECK. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. And Hoover? 

59

Mr. TURECK. I think——

Mr. BISHOP. And Coolidge. 

Mr. TURECK. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. And Harding. 

Mr. TURECK. And yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. And if you say Taft, you will be accurate. 

Mr. TURECK. It has been used by Republicans. 

Mr. BISHOP. In a uniquely different process, let me go through, 

and also to Mrs. Christensen, there is a difference in what you 

were talking about. In the one process, you asked if something 

could take place without the Antiquities Act. The Congressional 

process established in those situations does work and it has 

worked. In my State, there were four that had been done since 

1950 that had been created in that process. 

The difference in the Antiquities Act is it has some specific 

guidelines that have to be in there to allow it to be an administrative process. The first one has to be the endangerment, the imminent danger, which, as the Department testified, they have no 

recollection of what that imminent danger was. 

The second one needs to be in the smallest area possible, which 

means there has to be the concept of a large area and then you 

come down to a smallest area. And once again as I am listening 

to the testimony of the Department again, you have reversed that 

process. You have started with the largest area and you have done 

nothing else. You haven’t found the smallest area possible, the 

smallest footprint. 

And the final one, the Antiquities has to be done on land controlled by the Federal Government, not private property. That is an 

abuse of the Antiquities Act power that is there, which is why frequently, especially the last time was with President Truman, what 

he created in the Antiquities Act was uncreated by the next session 

of Congress because it violated those processes and procedures, and 

that is what I think you are talking about in this particular 

Monument in Montana. There are specific processes that are integral to the Antiquities Act that, at least from the testimony from 

the Department, were not there. 

Mr. REHBERG. Let me conclude by thanking the two other witnesses for patiently sitting through a battle within the State of 

Montana. Perhaps you have a better understanding of the kinds of 

issues that we have confronting us in natural resources. You both 

have very worthy causes and thank you for appearing before our 

Committee. And to the two gentlemen from Montana, thank you for 

taking time out of your busy schedules to be here with us, as well. 

Without further comment, this meeting is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ