> Male Announcer: KUED Presents

...

> male announcer: KUED presents

the governor's monthly news

conference, an exchange between

Utah reporters and Governor Gary

Herbert.

[music]

> Gary Herbert: Good morning.

Nice to be with you again.

We're coming into the holiday

season, and we wish you all a

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays,

and of course we're looking to a

very happy and prosperous new

year.

I've brought with me a couple of

my friends, Congressman Bishop

and Congressman Chaffetz today.

As we look towards the new year,

there will be a new legislative

session, a new congressional

session, a new administration in

Washington DC, and I know you'll

have some questions and some

thoughts for us regarding that.

But before we get into that

area, I know there's a lot of

discussion, seems to be in the

last few days, regarding the

potential of a designation of a

monument in the Bears Ears area

down in San Juan County.

And so, we wanted to address

that today, a lot of speculation

on what's going to happen, what

should happen, and what maybe

should not happen.

I had an opportunity to talk to

the chief of staff Denis

McDonough this past Monday, just

3 days ago.

I asked him about the desires of

the administration, what they

were going to do, and I said,

"Are you going to name a

monument?

Have you made the decision to

name a monument?"

The answer to me was "No, we

have not made the decision, and

your thoughts are being

considered."

I hope that's the case.

I guess time will tell us, you

know, what happens here.

But assuming that they have not

made the decision, let me in

fact reiterate the opposition

this governor has to the use of

the Antiquities Act and a

monument declaration for the

Bears Ears as not the right way

to provide additional

protections to that area.

One of the things that I think

we've agreed to here over these

past couple of years as we've

analyzed the Bears Ears area is

there is a need for additional

protections for the historic,

the antiquities, for the Native

Americans' desires to have

access and utilize that property

as they see fit.

I would hasten to add that, as

we've done this analysis, the

polling numbers show that the

people of Utah are

overwhelmingly opposed to a

monument designation in Bears

Ears.

The Dan Jones poll as of October

22 shows that only 33% of the

people of Utah support a

monument designation, 60% oppose

it, about 8% are undecided, but

I can tell you the opposition

gets even greater as you get

closer to, in fact, the monument

area.

Certainly the local communities,

the elected officials there

generally are all opposed to it.

Our legislature, you know, 90%

are in opposition.

Our congressional delegation are

united in opposition.

There is really not a lot of

support.

At best, the Native American

support is mixed.

And I know, as we just had

elections, a couple of the

leaders, leading proponents of

the monument designation were in

fact not reelected, and part of

the reason for that was in fact

their adherence to a monument

designation.

I would just suggest to all of

us here it's not a matter of do

we want to have some additional

protections provided.

It is BLM land, by the way.

I mean, it's already protected,

and the BLM has that

responsibility.

But if we want to have in fact

additional protections, then

there's a better way to do it,

and that is legislatively.

Congressman Bishop and

Congressman Chaffetz have led

out on this issue to make sure

that we have in fact a

legislative solution to this

problem, and I think that's a

better way to do it.

The Native Americans, in fact,

want to have some co-management

responsibilities.

They want to have a say in how

it's going to be managed.

That can only happen if we in

fact have a legislative

designation through Congress.

Otherwise, it'll just be kind of

a recommending body, and today,

for example, here just recently

have said, "We won't accept

that, we don't want to have that

kind of a relationship."

So, again, I think there is a

better way to do it.

I think there's a need to do

something.

But the better way would be to

in fact have legislative action.

So, to speak to that issue, we

have Congressman Bishop here.

Rob has led the charge in this

for the last number of years.

He's certainly very familiar

with the public land initiative,

and the strengths, and maybe

even the weaknesses of that

process.

So, I'd like to have him come

and speak, and then after that,

we'll have Congressman Chaffetz

come and speak to the issue

also.

So, Congressman Bishop?

> Rob Bishop: Thank you.

I appreciate being here, but let

me first start by talking about

the Antiquities Act itself, and

why this is such a bad public

policy process.

Everything the Antiquities Act

does has to be done in secret

and in the shadows.

It is simply a matter that if

the White House were to engage

either the Interior Department

or Congress or anyone else, it

will automatically trigger NIPA,

which would demand there would

be public input, and slow the

process down, which is why the

White House, in every one of

their decisions, has tried to

avoid having that kind of public

input, which would be demanded

if indeed they did consultation

outside simply the Antiquities

Act.

That's why this act needs to be

reformed significantly.

Therefore, what we have to deal

with is simply what are the

rumors floating around there,

not knowing what the specifics

is, because they can't tell us

anything until that gotcha

moment when they announce it.

So, we heard it was originally

to be a 1.9 million acre

monument, now it's down to

around 1.4, but the latest rumor

is that the administration will

use the boundaries that we have

established in the Public Lands

Initiative Bill to use that as

the monument boundaries as a

justification for their efforts.

And that's why I want to say if

that is indeed what happens, it

would be a cynical ploy to try

and justify it improperly.

Because what we have done in

that area is divide it into two

conservation areas.

The lower one for Bears Ears,

which would be the area in which

traditional activities and

practices of the Native

Americans would be used, is much

different than the higher one,

which is set aside for

educational purposes.

So, there are different purposes

for the land, which would not be

encompassed and not be

incorporated if there was an

executive announcement using the

Antiquities Act.

In addition to that, the Native

Americans who came to us with

the original idea of using the

Bears Ears area for their native

customs, and would be abutting

that area, they were the one who

would be using it, have certain

practices they want to have

incorporated, they want to have

used.

You can do that if you do it by

legislation.

But announcement using the

Antiquities Act cannot guarantee

any of those activities.

And indeed, in the Grand

Staircase Escalante, even when

President Clinton said he would

guarantee grazing rights into

the future, land managers later

on changed those rights.

Some of them even abridged those

rights.

You cannot guarantee what the

Native Americans in Utah want in

Bears Ears unless you do it

statutorily, which is what we

are trying to do.

As the governor mentioned,

co-management is extremely

significant.

The administration says they

want that for this area, but

once again, the administration

has no authority to do that.

Even if they say they're going

to do it, they can't.

That can only be accomplished

through legislative actions.

So indeed, if the

legislature--if the president

were to announce a monument

here, a monument may have

roughly the same area, but it

would not have the same

opportunities for the use of

that land that can be done only

through legislation.

And that is why, specifically,

we are looking at those type of

areas.

If you do this, you should do it

the right way.

You should do it the way every

other national park and monument

in Utah has been done.

Even if it was originally

started as a monument, it has

been codified by Congress.

Go through Congress to do it the

right way so that we can make

sure that these things are

guaranteed for them going into

the future.

Governor, let me turn it back to

you for a second.

> Gary: I'm going to turn it

over to Congressman Chaffetz.

> Jason Chaffetz: Well, thank

you, and Merry Christmas.

Glad to be here.

I appreciate the process that

we've gone through to get the

right piece of legislation in

place.

We've had more than 1,200

meetings.

We've been talking about this

for more than a year.

We have met with every

stakeholder you can possibly

imagine.

We appreciate the visit from

Secretary Jewell.

I think that was an important

step forward.

While we did get technical

responses back from the

administration, we have never,

to this date, ever received a

suggestion from the White House

as to what they would like to

see done and changed in the bill

in order to earn their support.

I think it would be the height

of arrogance to actually

implement this monument without

the consultation, interaction

with the governor, with those

that represent the area,

including myself, Mr. Bishop,

our two senators.

What you find is there is

bipartisan opposition to Bears

Ears.

There is bipartisan support in

favor of the Public Lands

Initiative.

The only ones that I can find

that are in favor of the

monument are some radical

environmentalists, and some

people who have an environmental

agenda that they think is so

important that they are willing

to bypass everybody else's

input, and just want a monument.

There are a lot of things that

the president does, the monument

alone, that we're going to miss

in terms of conservation,

economic development, energy

development along the way.

We--one of the things I'm

excited about with the PLI is

the 300-plus miles of continuity

and protection on Desolation

Canyon.

It's hard to protect that much

river in this day and age.

We were going to add some 19,000

thousand plus acres to Arches.

We had a number of energy

development opportunities.

We had land exchanges that were

going to benefit our

universities and our public

education.

All of this would be set aside

in favor of a simple designation

that would be devastating to the

local economy.

I want to reiterate every single

locally elected official that

represents the Bears Ears area,

every single one of them is

opposed to the--to the Bears

Ears monument designation.

And I would highlight Rebecca

Benally.

Rebecca Benally is a San Juan

County Commissioner, she's a

registered Democrat, she's a

member of the Navajo Nation, and

she is opposed to this monument

designation.

So, as the governor mentioned,

it is a mixed bag to have some

people, this club that suggests

that maybe the Navajos would

like this designation, not true.

Every single person who is

locally elected at every level

of government is in opposition

to this monument, and I would

hope that the president would

understand that it would be just

the height of arrogance to

designate this monument without

the consultation, without the

suggestions, and to just do this

unilaterally.

> Gary: I want you to stay

here, congressman.

Congressman Bishop.

We'll open it up now for

questions regarding the Bears

Ears, and the monument

designation, and those issues

surrounding that.

So, we're happy to take

questions.

> Glen Mills: Are you confident

in what you're being told from

the administration that the

decision has not been made, or

do you believe a decision has

been made, and it will come out

next week?

> Gary: Well, I can only say I

accept their word.

You know, what the chief of

staff told me Monday is that a

decision had not been made.

So, who knows what's going on

behind the scenes?

We certainly hear a lot of

rumblings out there, and certain

the congressmen are concerned

that maybe the cake has already

been baked.

But at least what they told me

was the decision had not been

made as of Monday.

> Bob Bernick: Do you have any

belief that the--do you have any

belief, Representative Bishop,

that Trump can undo this?

It's never been undone before.

> Rob: Yes, I'm clearly

satisfied that he could do that.

The ability to--

> Bob: The Supreme Court,

though, that would be--

> Rob: Who knows?

The ability of shrinking the

size of the monument is not

actually put in the statute

either, but it is a precedent

that's taken place.

The ability to actually undo one

or repeal one would be another

precedent would be established.

And it's clearly not prohibited

in there.

It could easily be done.

If indeed something is done so

egregiously and so excessively,

as this would be, what violates

not only the principles of the

Antiquities Act, but also the

guidances of the White House

that we have right now that says

they have to have local support,

this would be so easy to be

overturned, and it would

establish that precedent.

That's why I think the White

House would be wise to look at

their entire legacy, and seeing

if you're handing something that

could easily be overturned as

this could be, maybe you don't

want to go down there in the

first place.

Maybe you want to do a little

bit--a little bit discretion in

this particular issue.

> Rod Decker: Congress can

certainly overturn it.

And I should guess you could

overturn it by--with the

appropriations process, avoiding

a filibuster by saying, "None of

this money can be used for

anything to do with making Bears

Ears."

Will you try that if it's

designated?

> Rob: Yes.

If you're addressing that to me,

if it were to be designated, we

will use every tool at our

disposal, which would include

legislation that we would

introduce, which would include

the appropriations process you

talked about, which would

include oversight and hearings.

And once again, Congressman

Chaffetz, that's his bailiwick,

that's his committee.

It would also include efforts to

try and pass the PLI so we could

simply overturn it by positive

legislation.

We will use every method at our

disposal.

> Rod: You've talked PLI for

quite a while.

The progress has not been as

large as you would hope.

You once told me you hoped to

have the thing passed by the end

of this year, and you don't even

have it--I doubt you'll get a

vote in the House.

Will you get a vote in the

House?

I doubt you will before the end

of this Congress.

Does the PLI have any real hope?

> Rob: I think since we are

recessed and adjourned, you're

probably accurate in that

assessment.

But the election changed

everything to us, and it gave us

a new concept of the period in

which we are dealing with.

No longer will you have an

administration, as Mr. Chaffetz

told you, that led us along for,

like, 18 weeks, saying, "Yeah,

we want to work with you, we

want to work with you," but

never gave us anything with

which to work.

That will change.

So yes, we're going to

reintroduce the PLI, it's

already passed the committee,

you don't have to go through

that step again, we can bring it

directly to the floor.

It will actually come to a vote.

> male: Do you think it'll

pass?

> Rob: Yes.

> Rod: Can you get it through a

Senate filibuster?

> Rob: Yes.

> Rod: Well, can you explain

that?

That sounds--that sounds

like--that sounds very

optimistic.

> Rob: Some of the groups that

have been opposing us, and

opposed before it was actually

put into print, have been doing

so under the assumption that

there would be an administration

that would back them up in

anything they wanted to do.

There will be a different

administration, which means we

are still going in the

negotiating process.

I think some of those

groups--some of those groups

will never be on the table

because they were never serious

in the first place.

But most--many of those groups

will come back and say, "Okay,

now the dynamics have changed,

now we're going to work with

you."

Now, we're going to be working

with an administration that

actually will deal with us and

coming up with something that

can be done.

I think you're going to see the

entire dynamics change.

While I was hoping to do is push

it through before.

Now, I'm going to be able to

rework some of those things, and

I think we'll push it through

with much more response that's

positive than we ever had

before.

We're closer to actually having

it done now than we were before.

> Ben Winslow: Have any of you

had any conversations with the

president-elect to gauge his

feelings on this?

If you would, he does have kind

of a history of saying

something, and then changing his

mind again.

> Jason: No, Ryan Zinke, as the

president-elect's selection as

the Interior Secretary, is going

to be very good for Utah, this

delegation, and I think the

nation.

Ryan Zinke is very good friends

with us on a personal level, but

I think he understands the

overreach of what the

administration is trying to do.

Let me also add designation

solely of a monument is

fundamentally flawed in a couple

of areas.

Number one, the administration

has routinely testified before

Congress, the House and the

Senate, that they would always