A congressman from Maine has introduced legislation aimed at preventing the president of the United States from designating a national monument in the Pine Tree State without approval from the state legislature and governor.
Rep. Bruce Poliquin last week introduced "Preserving States Rights," a two-page measure that succinctly states, "proclamations may be made only for national monuments that have been approved by the State legislature and governor of each state in which the monument would be located."
“Any process to incorporate federal land in Maine must have strong support from the local community,” said Congressman Poliquin in a press release.
The draft legislation is aimed at preventing President Obama from designating a "North Woods National Monument" if Congress won't endorse a national park on the land owned by Burts Bee founder Roxanne Quimby. Just two hours from coastal Acadia National Park, the proposed park abuts Baxter State Park and has spectacular views of Mount Katahdin, the northern terminus of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
Ms. Quimby is prepared to donate 75,000 acres along the East Branch of the Penobscot River for the park, and another 75,000 acres for a national recreation area along its west bank.
Last month U.S. Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King, along with Rep. Poliquin, sent a letter (attached) to President Obama in which they raised "serious concerns" about the president using his authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the land in question a national monument.
"Mainers have a long and proud history of private land ownership, independence, and local control, and do not take lightly any forced action by the federal government to increase its footprint in our state," the letter read.
Ironically, while Rep. Poliquin said he was driven to introduce the legislation because he believed there must be "strong local support" in favor of a national monument or park, a survey of his congressional district's voters showed 67 percent were in favor of a national park as was being proposed.
Comments
EC, the math reference was fairly obviously referring to the congressman's statement that there "must be strong local support" for a park/monument, when in fact 67 percent of the voters in his district were in support of such designation. If 67 percent isn't strong support, how much does he want?
The rest that you cite was partisan criticism of the GOP. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but that's his view.
As for the economic impact of parks, I provided links to three different sources. Do you have any sources that refute them or claim otherwise?
"he does w[hat] HE wants or rather what Republicans are noted for - ex[t]ractive industries which destroy"
Well, with the simple typos cleared up it makes perfect sense to most of the rest of us. You know about making simple typos - like when you called Lee Les.
when in fact 67 percent of the voters in his district
Kurt - this legislation is for 52 states and hundreds of Congressional districts. What his local district wants has no bearing on the legislation. As to Polquin's desires and district your article states "The draft legislation is aimed at preventing President Obama from designating a "North Woods National Monument" if Congress won't endorse a national park ..." If that is accruate it would seem his "math" is perfect as he is perfectly aligned with those in his district. He wants a National Park.
More baseless accusations. I never called Lee Les. Les was the first commenter on this thread and it was he to which I was referring when I said "Re Les". Typos or not the comment, with the punctuation and typos was incoherent. If he wants to rephrase, fine. BTW are there no Democrats that participate in the extractive industries? Only those that live in states with nothing to extract.
"He wants a national park"?
Please show us where he ever said that, EC. Surely not in that letter to the president asking that he not designate a national monument. Though he and his colleagues on the delegation did ask for federal assistance for the manufacturing industries -- primarily forest products -- in the area.
The delegation also pointed out that "roughly 60 percent" of Maine's residents support a national park. Yet nowhere in the letter did he or his colleagues voice a preference for a national park.
Now, about those economic studies that refute the ones that note that $1 dollar of federal investment in the park system generate $10 in economic activity locally...?
Kurt, I am relying on your article. You state "The draft legislation is aimed at preventing President Obama from designating a "North Woods National Monument" if Congress won't endorse a national park on the land owned by Burts Bee founder Roxanne Quimby. " That sure sounds to me like he wants a National Park instead of a National Monument.
No, it means that if Congress fails to pass legislation to create a national park, the Maine delegation doesn't want the president to turn around and create a national monument. But since the job of introducing legislation for a national park in a specific state typically falls to that state's delegation, Congress won't get the chance to decide, and the delegation doesn't want the president to take matters into his own hands.
Read their letter, then get back to me regarding what the congressman wants. It's not a national park.
52 states?????
Is that incoherent or is it a baseless accusation?
As I read his letter and the proposed act, it really concerns me when it says: "the measure succinctly states, "proclamations may be made only for national monuments that have been approved by the State legislature and governor of each state in which the monument would be located."
If that is correct, this would ban a president from proclaiming a national monument in any of the 50 states (or is that 52?) Is this another attempt to destroy the Antiquities Act?