diverting this money for a wall, which, by the way, that's not going to help in terms of your drug interdiction efforts because most of your drugs come through the regular ports of -- points of entry, not where a wall will be. you noted in your testimony on page 2 that this area, your arr, is the largest source of illicit drugs and illegal migrants to the united states. you know further on that you're working with partners to address share challenges and threats in this area including weak governance, corruption, transnational criminal organizations and the flow of illicit drugs. and you say that you're looking forward to discussing the nature of this activity and detail how you're working with the partners to address those issues. can you give me an example of how you're working with your partners to go after all of these -- the weak governors, corruption, the litany of th

that -- >> it's a team effort and it is a big list, senator, as you poe point out. our principal partner within the department of defense is northcom. the general and i are in constant communication about how we ensure there's no seam between the guatemalan/mexico border and how we view and track these challenges. so at its hard, these are intelligenc intelligence-driven challenges. so what are the drivers of the migration? what are the key criminal organizations that are involved in the illicit trafficking, whether it's people, arms, drugs, that frey on the weak governance, and so sharing intelligence with our partners, building their capacity to understand their own environment, and then taking that intelligence and building it into packages that we passed to partner nation, law enforcement, our own law enforcement, is key because most of these challenges involve action by other government

entities working very closely with homeland security to pass information that we know it, when we know it, about migrant caravans or illicit drugs. >> and really, admiral, to make an impact, you have to have a long-term commitment to addressing these issues, corruption, as i said, the entire litany. doesn't help when you have $450 million that's taken away from particularly the northern triangle countries. it does not help. i think you have to kind of acknowledge that. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. i appreciate the subcommittee's participation in today's activities. admiral faller, thank you very much for being here and representing our men and women of southcom so aptly. we truly do appreciate your service to our nation. thank you, sir, major zickafoos,ing zickafoos,

for being here as well. we appreciate you. with that, this hearing is closed.

our live couverage continue tomorrow when jerome powell testifies before the house financial services committee. he'll answer questions about u.s. monetary policy and the state of the economy. watch live wednesday morning at 10:00 eastern.

and on thursday, the senate armed services committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of general mark millie to be the next chair of the joint chiefs of staff. the committee will also -- reappoint him to the grade of general. that's live thursday 9:30 eastern on c-span3. all our live coverage is also available online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. there has been discussion about an appearance before congress. any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. it contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. and the report is my testimony. i would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before congress. >> former special counsel robert

mueller is set to appear before two committees of congress on wednesday, july 17th. at 9:00 a.m. eastern, he gives testimony to the house judiciary committee. later in the day, he'll take questions from the house intelligence committee. both open sessions. our coverage of robert mueller's congressional testimony will be live on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. zblrks meagan manson joins us from salt lake city. research sentcenter for growth opportunity. here to talk about the management of public lands. good morning. >> good morning. thanks so much for having me. >> a little bit about your organization, how does it involve itself directly with this topic? >> the center is a university-based research center. we're located on campus at utah state which is in northern utah. i'm lucky enough to live in one of the most beautiful places in the country, in my opinion. we're surrounded by federal lands. federal lands are a huge topic

in utah and across the west. and they're one among many of the issues that we study at the center for growth and opportunity. we're interested in doing policy-relevant research. and hopefully improve people's lives. >> so when it comes to management of those lands, generally, what's the approach of the federal government, particularly the white house? >> so most of my research has focused on a law called the antiquities act, over 100 years old, passed to allow the president in particular to set aside areas of federal land for permanent protection. those areas are set aside to protect their scenic and historic importance. a lot of the most iconic, most beautiful places in america, like arches national park in zion were originally protected through the antiquities act. i wanted to understand through my rerm, why does a law that allowed for the protection of these beautiful areas that we all love so much, why has it also created so much controversy and conflict?

>> how would you answer that question? >> what we found through our research the root cause of this controversy and conflict is the fact the antiquities act provides no clear limits on the president's decisionmaking power. that means the president can designate any areas he sees fit as a national monument. we've seen recently in the controversy over bearsears national monument in my home state of utah, we've seen this firsthand. so in 2016 president obama designated bear's ears which is named for a pair of twin buttes in southern utah's red rock country. a lot of local people were upset. they felt they hadn't been adequately consulted, had a lot of uncertainty about how they would be able to use the lands the way they had before things like hunting, grazing, even recreation. then a year later in 2017, president trump decided to reduce the size of bear's ears from its original 1.3 million acres to just over 200,000 acres. so a significant reduction.

when that reduction happened, once again, there was a lot of controversy, a lot of local people saying, wait a second, i thought this area would be protected. and once again, we saw that unilateral power, that ability to establish monuments and to change them with the stroke of a pen, created a lot of controversy. >> megan hansen, what's the typical justification of a president to expand the amount that's protected or decrease it? >> you know, it depends on the president. presidents throughout history have used the antiquities act to establish monuments or increase their size or even to decrease them. the justification is usually that these areas need to be expanded to protect the objects of significance that are on those lands or perhaps be red e reduced because that area is too large. the antiquities act does say the smallest area compatible with protection of these objects is what should be designated but doesn't provide any real guidance on what that means so there's been a lot of discretion, a lot of ability for presidents to determine for themselves what they think that means. >> and so as a president decides

to make these steps, is he required to consult with members of his administration or required to consult with congress or the state that's involved, its, in making these typ typ types of decisions? >> that's one of the key problems with the antiquities act, there's no requirement of consultation with congress or local stakeholders. that's one of the requirements we make, some kind of consultation, either with congress or with local stakeholders, would help achieve more cooperative management and reduce controversy and conflict. >> our guest with us, and if you want to ask her questions about federal land management and the approach that the president takes and what should be done about that, you can call us. for those of you, again, in the eastern and central time zones, 202, 202,-748-2000. one of those efforts in reforming the antiquities act,

you say more consultation is needed. can you expand on those? >> of course. require consultation with local leaders, such as the state governor where a monument is being considered. another option would be to require a notice and comment period. we require a notice and comment period where the public can go on and comment and provide their input about the local area and the likely impacts of a monument designation. it would also give experts who might have really good knowledge and the ability to help us better manage these areas. it would give us the opportunity to learn from those experts before we decide how we're going to manage these areas. >> i suppose if i'm a state, though, and i want access to the land for mining rights or natural things, these kind of decisions by the president either help or hinder those causes. but as a state, how much access would they get if the president decides to expand it? does that mean it automatically

closes them to mining and other efforts? >> not necessarily. and when we talk about national monuments, it's important to remember that we're not talking about taking federal lands and turning them into state lands or private lands. we're talking about taking lands that are already federal and changing the way that they're managed, but they remain federal lands both before and after a monument designation. now, a monument management plan can change the way that area's managed, and it can restrict things like mineral development, even recreation can be restricted as well. it just depends on the management plan that's put into place for thatquities act was signed into law in 1906 i believe. why hasn't some consensus been able to be found on these if efforts? >> that's a great question. it's an old law. over 100 years old. it's still having huge impacts, creating a lot of controversy today. there have been discussions about reforming the antiquities act, be there haven't been any major reforms. there have been some reforms that are state specific, so both

wyoming and alaska are basically exempt from the antiquities act. meaning congressional approval would be required to establish a monument in those states. but aside from those changes, we v haven't seen a lot of -- a lot of consensus on how to reform the law and i think a big reason for that is that the law's terms are very vague. i mentioned the law says that the smallest area compatible with management of these lands should be designated but there's a lot of disagreement about what that term means and it's really up for interpretation. there's also been a lot of lawsuits. there's been a lot of litigation that has resulted from this controversy. but courts have generally deferred to congress and said, look, we are -- deferred to the president, in particular, and said, we're going to allow the president to decide what these terms mean and we're not going to overturn his decision. >> when it comes, then, to the act of preserving these lands, is there a standard, then, to

help -- something of historical importance, here's something of scientific importance. are there standards to help define those? >> you know, there's really not, and that's another big part of the problem is that what is an object of historic or scenic significance, again, that's very much up to the interpretation of the president and what he determines is worthy of protection. >> there's a viewer off of twitter who says this. "get the federal government out of the real estate business. just return the power and land to the states." what's -- is there good and bad to that argument? >> that's a great question and a great point. a lot of debate goes on about whether these lands should remain federal. personally, i really enjoy spending time on our federal lands. i think a lot of them are absolutely worth protecting and keeping federal. the question is whether the current system we have is the best way to manage them and whether we really want to allow just one person to make these decisions that impact so many of us.

>> let's hear from lynn in june lake, california, for our guests. >> caller: yes, i live in the national forest and the land management is just so poor. the forest service says they don't have any money. people do not stay in their jobs for very long. they rotate people in and out of the office really quickly so nothing gets done. and our forests are just deteriorati deteriorating, and so it just seems like if you try to do anything on federal lands, then there's lawsuits and people are always suing each other. the national forest was writing a new forest plan that began in 2012. it was supposed to be completed in 2016. it's now 2019. it still isn't done. and just the amount of wasted money is just so hard to watch

as we watch nothing get done. >> miss hansen? >> thanks for that comment. i think you bring up a really great point. like i mentioned, i get to spend a lot of time on our federal lands. whether camping or hiking. i also noticed these problems in our forests, you know, we have a lot of buildup of flammable materials, which creates concerns about things like wildfires. i think a big problem and something i found through my research is that it tends to be more politically popular to designate new lands and to acquire new federal lands rather than to spend resources taking care of the lands we already have. and as a result, we have a huge maintenance backlog on our federal lands. and i think a lot could be improved by really focusing more on maintaining the lands we do v making sure we preserve those for future generations, rather than continuing to acquire more. >> from wyoming, mike joins us from graybull there.

hello, mike, good morning. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i'm just curious to know of all this federal land that everybody talks about and the biggest problem i can see in a lot of western states is there is a lot of it. and -- >> so the question to our guest is? >> caller: i want to know how come they're landlocked and the people that landlock them, you can't -- won't let you in to public land that our tax dollars pay for, but yet they can use it. >> miss hansen. >> yeah, that's a great question, when you're definitely right that federal land makes up a huge proportion of our total land in the west. a in utah, over half of our land is owned by the federal government and it makes me think of the story of san juan county commissioner who has expressed some concerns with these large designations in southern utah and he talked about his county. only 8% of his county is made up of private lands.

that means that when these monument designations are made and unilateral decisions are being made about how to manage those lands, it really restricts that area's ability to develop those local economy and even to just have certainty about what the future will hold for them. >> as far as legislative efforts, have there been any to make changes to the antiquities act or at least things that you think might be improvement to the act? >> there have. there have been efforts. recently, there have been some efforts to exempt utah from the antiquities act just like wyoming and alaska are exempt. and those haven't made a ton of headway yet. i think more promising than state-specific exemptions would be broader and clearer limits on the president's decisionmaking authority. so that might look like requiring congressional approval for monuments over a certain size threshold. it might look like requiring consultation with local stakeholders like we've already talked about. >> here is tom from lancaster, california.

hi. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to talk about something that happened under the last administration. our federal lands. under the grounds of wild horses. they looked for yeuranium all or the place on our federal lands. they sold it to the russians. as a tribal member on some of these lands, it was -- it was a scheme against the american public to look for uranium and sell it to russia. and this happens, like, the national parks systems have been set up. the tribal members that have tribal treaties, you've stolen the land like with bear's ear, it is incredible what happened. it's a genocide against the

native people. the reservations should be marked like the national parks are marked. >> okay. >> caller: so people know how big they are. >> that's tom from california. megan hansen, go ahead. >> thanks, tom. i think -- you bring up a lot of points there. the issue of wild horses. we talked about wildfire. there are a lot of these issues on federal lands that make them really complicated and i think that that should suggest even more strongly that these are big issues and we need more than one person making these big wide-sweeping decisions about how they'll be managed. you also talked about the impacts on native american tribes and that's definitely been an issue with bear's ears. i think it just goes to show that parties on both sides of the aisle, whether you're for monuments or against them, you would benefit either way from having this certainty and clear knowledge about the checks and the limits on the president's ability to designate and to alter and maybe even get rid of these monuments in the future. >> when it comes, then, to the efforts to stop the president if he has this power, where does

the role of civil lawsuits come in? are they effective? >> you know, that's a great question. i'm not sure about that. i do know that from all the litigation i've reviewed, we haven't seen a lot of progress or really any clarity come out of those. so i'm more optimistic about legislative changes that would enact clearer checks and balances on the president eets p power. >> from new jersey, ridgefield park. this is peter. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to know the mission of your organization. it just seems very suspicious it's called the center for growth and opportunity. and, you know, our country has become so overdeveloped and so polluted and you're so concerned about management of public lands, and i'd just like to know the mission of your organization. i feel like you maybe have some ulterior motives and represent some corporations that want to

do more development and that's what i have. that's -- >> oh. caller's gone. go ahead, megan hansen. >> yeah, sure, thanks for sthamt a statement and question. our mission at the center of growth and opportunity is to conduct research on policy-relevant areas and really as researchers, we're free to find the questions that we think are most worth pursuing and we do that by thinking about what policy areas most impact people's lives. and that's why we've identified public lands in the antiquities act as one of those areas. we're also doing research on a variety of areas including immigration policy, occupational licensing, and looking at how regulation and the regulatory environment impacts innovation and new technologies. so this is really just one among the many issue areas that we focus on. >> to his claim that the lands are already, or at least for -- by in large overdeveloped, is that something you agree with? >> i don't think that's really an accurate portrayal.

it depends on the lands that you're talking about. the federal state is so large and so varied and there are so many different landscapes with different -- they're all being used for different purposes across the u.s. some are being used for energy development. others are preserved just for recreation and some are preserved as wilderness. just for conservation of endangered species and wildlife. and i think that's a good thing. these lands are varied and we should use them for the various uses that are most valuable to the american people and we should definitely preserve them for future generations. >> this is sonya who is from tampa, florida. >> caller: hi. good morning. my question is with we just had a situation where a burial ground, a large african-american burial ground, had been -- they're not sure if the gra gravesite -- the graves have been relocated, how -- project being put on top of the grave site. does the antiquities act affect burial grounds, and how will you

protect future landmarks, grave sites, from being developed on top of without proper -- making sure that the grave sites have been -- the graves have been e relocated. i'll hang up and listen to your answer. thank you. >> thanks for that question. i think that's a great concern that you bring up and once again, how complex this issue is. i'm definitely not an expert on how the burial grounds are treated under the act, but i do think your point brings up, once again, the idea we should have consultation with local stakeholders. in this case, consultation should happen with nose wthose know the area, know the burial grounds and know the best way to protect them and be respectful of them. >> megan, i can't show you the whole op-ped, there's a op-ped by jonathan thompson. i'll read you the headline. qu "it's time to move the baureau f

land management out of d.c." is it too d.c.-centric and not enough outreach to these areas that are directly affected? >> absolutely. i think it's a huge problem that most the people who are making these decisions are often located thousands of miles away. they may have never visited the area that they are making decisions about. i think getting land managers closer to the land that they're managing is a great idea. >> doug in arizona. thanks for calling. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, good morning, megan. i'm a gold prospector in -- i live in tucson, arizona, and i prospect in the santa arita mountains, and for years, we've been able to get to our gold claims. federal mining claims. all of a sudden now we can't get to about 60% of them. because federal lands say that they've cordoned it off, put, like, three-string wire fencing all around it.-wire fencing all

around it. thousands and thousands and thousands of feet of it. probably hundreds of miles. and they -- the ranchers lease the rand for their cattle but they've been doing it for years. everybody's been getting along fine. and about five years ago, one day i went up there and i couldn't get in. and the ranchers were given these keys to get through these monstrous padlocks and huge chains. but nobody else can have them to get in. so i've got federal mining claims that i have to pay money for every year, and i can't -- i haven't been on them. in years. what do i do? >> i wish i could tell you what to do. thanks for sharing that story. once again, it shows us how complex these land management regimes are and how much they affect local people. it also -- i think your story also illustrates this problem

with uncertainty. when these land management decisions are being made really centrally, it leaves local people who use that land and may have been using it for a long time, leaves them in the dark about how they're going to bill packeted and how their lives might change all of a sudden because a land manager decided to put up a fence or change access. access to public lands is another key issue. >> this is from illinois. bob, good morning. >> caller: yes. good morning. i actually grew up in alaska even though i'm in illinois now. i'm 73 years old and i'm concerned about something that i have considered an antiquity, and it's not precisely what you're addressing, but it certainly hinges on it. i grew up with mt. mckinley, and then one morning a couple of years back, i woke up to denali. and during presidethe 1972 nati

claims act, development, there were comments about keeping things named the way they were, the way they were originally named, when statehood took place. what happened? can you explain that? >> that's a great question. i am definitely not an expert on how those naming conventions happen, but once again, i think your story speaks to this idea of central management of federal lands. central land managers coming in and changing the way things are managed often without the input of local people. >> from cathie in colorado, in g guneson. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm calling to ask about the speaker and her growth for opportunity organization. i understand that it's a koch-funded non-profit research group.

in the huntsman school of business. and that they, excuse me, received a $25 million pledge from the charles koch foundation just recently. >> thanks for that comment. we do, in fact, receive money from the charles koch foundation. among a variety of donors and individuals that support our mission. we are extremely thankful for their support. they allow us to do the research that we do. our research is completely independent from our funding which means that i as a researcher get to focus on the questions that i think are most meaningful and that i think have the most potential to help improve public policy and i'm sure thankful for all the denations that we get. >> you're part of the huntsman school of business. governor huntsman, what's his influence, i suppose, the research that you do and the topic of land management? >> yeah, he does not have any real formal interaction with the center. the huntsman business school is, of course, named after him and he has a lot of interaction

there, but we at the center for growth and opportunity, we're a completely independent organization and we are lucky to be affiliated with utah state. we're on campus there. >> aside from then if you don't see a legislative change, what other significant changes could you see or at least what other avenues could be explored if legislatively, nothing's going to happen? >> that's a great question. i think that having local people get involved and voice their concerns is a good way to help drive change. even if we don't see legislative changes now, i think it's important for local people to speak up and talk about how they're impacted by these changes in land management. >> this is, again, our guest is megan hansen with the growth of opportunity, growthopportunity.org, talking about the topic of federal land management. when did this become a concern, then, as far as your study is concerned, when did you start paying most attention to this? >> i think this has really been a concern throughout the history of antiquities act. when the law was passed, there

were a lot of discussions among members of congress who were concerned that the law might be used to designate really large areas and those who were sponsoring the bill said, no , no, you know, it's going to be used for the smallest area compatib compatible. throughout history, we've seen many monuments designated. in fact, almost two dozen monuments have been designated that a million acres in size. i think it's been a concern throughout history and perhaps is becoming more controversial and more visible right now thanks to social media and the internet and the ability of people to really voice their concerns. >> before we let you go, a viewer from utah calls us. this is mark. hello. >> caller: hello, my name is mark. i'm from monticello. the question is, i've retired out in monticello, utah, about three, four years ago. seeing an incredible increase in tourism and traffic coming into these areas. but i've not seen the land management. there's great people, just not

enough of them. so if they were going to do 1.3 million acres, how are they going to staff that up so there's gong to be adequate coverage? and are they thinking about creative partnerships between the federal government and private entities to help out in land management? thank you. >> great question, mark. thank you so much. i think you bring up a really great point, which is that as we've talked about, it's more popular to designate these lands than to take care of them. we have a huge maintenance backlog on federal lands and just establishing a national monument isn't going to do enough to actually preserve these areas especially if more and more tourists are coming to these areas and may not be facilities or rules or staff in place to make sure they're adequately protected. i think you also bring up a great solution, a great idea of solutions is private/public partnerships. the forest service has used these for decades to manage many recreation areas across the u.s. that could be a great option as well for national monuments. >> the website for the organization, growthopportunity.org. megan hansen serves as the

research director for the center of growth and opportunity. we thank you for your time. >> thank you so much. in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers make up their own mondays. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed in 40 years, but today that big idea is more relevant than ever. on television and online. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. earlier today a former mexican ambassador to the u.s. discussed migration and security issues along the southern border. he and representatives from the migration policy institute talked about the ongoing policy and diplomatic disputes between the u.s. and mexico over border security. hosted by the