Yesterday Congressman Denny Rehberg introduced the Montana Land Sovereignty Act in the U.S. House. The bill “requires congressional approval before the White House or the Department of Interior (DOI) can designate any new National Monuments or “Wild Lands” in Montana.”
I think that’s a good thing.
What surprised me was the reaction of U.S. Senator Jon Tester who owns property in Montana. The Great Falls Tribune published a story today about Rehberg’s bill and reported the following comments from Tester:
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he believes the Interior Department has done a good job of seeking public backing and moving ahead on programs for which local residents voice support. He said Rehberg, who is running against him for the Senate in 2012, is making much ado about nothing.
“I think this all drummed up by him. This whole thing about monuments. It’s a figment of his imagination that’s got people fired up,” said Tester, who has pressed Salazar on the issue. “I’d be fired up about it, too, if I thought it was real, but I don’t think it’s real. I do not think there’s a grand plot.”
I guess Tester won’t be introducing a companion bill in the U.S. Senate…
After reading those remarks it seems to me that Tester has allowed his ongoing senatorial campaign against Rehberg to percolate into his job as Montana’s Senator.
Historically, Tester is wrong in saying the Department of Interior “has done a good job of seeking public backing and moving ahead on programs for which local residents voice support.”
The current Department of Interior sullied itself when an internal memo was discovered about their plans to declare millions of acres a National Monument. They have no creditability left and until Salazar and his team are gone, they won’t. After what happened in Montana on January 17, 2001, many folks in Montana have serious concerns about any Democratic administration and their attempts at National Monument or Wilderness designation.
I am in favor of protecting our public lands to a point. Rehberg’s bill is a good start to ensure it is not forced down our throats. His bill requires all of Congress to approve a new National Monument or Wild Lands designation in Montana.
There are others ideas out there about the designation of public land – to give it a more local flavor: One idea is that any designation would have first have to be approved by the state’s two U.S. Senators, the Governor, and the Representative(s) whose district(s) is impacted. If anyone disagrees, then it cannot be designated. Some people believe that state legislatures should approve it and others want County Commissioners to have a say.
Nevertheless, Rehberg has brought this issue to the forefront and that’s a good thing. Let the debate (and political posturing) begin!
The Western Word 
It’s hardly fair to suggest that Tester is using this as a campaign strategy when Rehberg has been campaigning on this non-issue for the past eight years.
It’s classic Rehberg. Rather than legislating, he gins up a controversy to make it seem like he’s fighting something. Read the Missoulian today, where he admitted that this was just another symbolic gesture, rather than something substantive.
I think it was very fair to suggest that Tester was using it as a campaign strategy, so we’ll have to disagree on that point. It’s a common theme for a political opponents to belittle bills introduced by each other. It would be nice to see Tester to come up with something to compare it to and say my bill is better, instead of saying it is “much ado about nothing.”
I also don’t believe Rehberg made up the controversy because there are concerns out there about National Monuments and Wilderness designations. I did read the Missoulian and did not take Rehberg saying “While symbolic, symbolism doesn’t have to be meaningless” to mean anything except that he’s trying to do something to address the problem and for Congress to have more say in the issue.
Thanks for stopping by; I enjoy your blog. -Jack