have to help others also achieve greatness. i think ittion, means you are free. you are free to pursue your dreams, your passions and to speak your mind, and free to live your life. i also think it means responsibility, meaning you are responsible to contribute to our society, be productive, be passionate, be creative. >> voices from the road on c-span. megan hansen joins us from salt lake city, the research director for the center for growth and opportunity to talk about the management of public land. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: how does your organization involve itself directly with this topic? opportunity is a university-based research center located on utah state in northern utah.

i live in on of the most beautiful places in the country surrounded by adderall land. they are a huge topic in utah and across the west. they are one of many of the issues that we study. we are interested in doing research that can help inform better public policy and improve request. host: when it comes to management, what is the approach of the aderholt government -- federal government? guest: we have focused on the antiquities act, a law over 100 years old and passed to allow the president to set aside areas of federal land for permanent protection. they are set aside to protect their scenic and historic importance. the most beautiful places like arches national park and zion were originally protected through the antiquities act. i wanted to understand why do the laws that have allowed for

the protection of these beautiful areas that we love, also created so much controversy and conflict. how would you -- host: how would you answer that question? aest: the root cause is that -- that it gives no clear limits. the president can designate any area as a national monument, we have seen recently in the rsntroversy over bears ea national monument. in 2016, president obama designated it, named for a pair of twin buttes. a lot of local people were upset, they felt like they had not been adequately consulted and they had a lot of uncertainty about how they would be able to use these lands for things like hunting, grazing, and recreation. a year later, in 2017, president

trump decided to reduce the size from its 1.3 million acres to just over 200,000 acres. when that reduction happened, once again there was a lot of controversy. a lot of local people saying i thought this area would be protect did, and once again we saw that unilateral power and the ability to establish monuments and to change them created a a lot of controversy. host: what is the typical justification of a president to expand the amount protected or decrease it? guest: it depends on the president. presidents throughout history have used it to establish monuments or decrease the size. the justification is that these areas may be need to be expanded adequately protect the objects of significance on those lands, or reduced because the area is too large. does say thees act smallest area competitor -- compatible, but does not provide

real guidance on what that means. there's been a lot of ability for presidents to determine for themselves what they think that means. host: if the president decides to make these steps, is he required to consult with members of his administration or with congress, or the state itself and making these decisions? guest: that is one of the key problems, there is no requirement of consultation with congress or with local stakeholders. that is one of the recommendations that we make, some kind of requirement for consultation with congress or with local state holders would help achieve more cooperative management and reduce controversy. host: if you want to ask her landions about federal management and the approach that the president takes and what should be done you can call us. on the eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000. those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001

. one of those efforts in reforming the antiquities act, you said more consultation is needed and that should be written into law. can you expand on that? tost: one option would be require consultation with local leaders such as the state governor in the relative state. another option would be to require notice and comment period. we already require a notice and comment period where the public can comment and provide their input about the local area and the likely impact of a monument designation. it would give experts who might have good knowledge and the ability to help us better manage these areas. it would give us opportunity to learn before we decide how we will manage the areas. host: if i must state and i want access to the state for mining rights, these kind of decisions help or hinder those causes.

as a state, how much access when they get if the president decided to expand? does that mean it closes them to mining and other efforts? guest: not necessarily. it is important to remember that we are not talking about taking federal land and turning them into private land. we are talking about land already federal and changing the way that they manage. they remain federal land. a monument management plan can change the way the area is managed and restrict things like mineral development and recreation can be district -- can be restricted. it depends on the plan put in place. host: the into kitty's act was signed into law in 1906. -- the antiquities act was signed into law in 1906, why hasn't it been looked into? guest: it is an old law. there have been discussions

about reforming it, but there have not been any major reforms. there have been some reforms that are state specific, so wyoming and alaska are exempt from the antiquities act, meaning congressional approval would need to be gotten. beside those changes, we have not gotten a lot of consensus on how to reform the law. a big reason is that the law's terms are vague. i mentioned the law says that the smallest area compatible with management should be designated, but there is a a lot of disagreement about what that term means and it is up for interpretation. there has also been a lot of lawsuits and litigation that has resulted from this controversy. courts have generally deferred to congress and said, we are -- deferred to the president and said we will allow the president to decide what the terms mean and we will not overturn his

decisions. the acten it comes to of preserving these lands, is ?here a standard here's something of historical arecientific importance, there standards to define those? guest: there is not. that is part of the problem. what is an object that has historic significance. that is up to the interpretation of the president and what he determines is worthy of protection. host: there is a viewer who says get the federal government out of the real estate business, return the land to the states. is there a good and bad to that argument? guest: that is a great point. a lot of debate goes on about whether they should remain federal. personally i enjoy spending time on federal land. i believe some of them are absolutely worth protecting and keeping federal. the question is whether the current system is the best way to manage them and if we want to

allow one person who makes these decisions. host: let us hear from lynn in california. you are on. go ahead. caller: hello. , was in the national forest and the land management is just saysor, the forest service they do not have money. people do not stay in their jobs for very long. they rotate people in and out of the office quickly, and are forests are just deteriorating. it just seems like if you try to do anything on federal land and there is lawsuits and people are always suing each other. indian national forest was writing a new forest plan that was supposed to be completed in 2016, it is now 2019 and is still not done.

just the amount of wasted money is so hard to watch as we watch nothing get done. ms. hansen. guest: you bring up a great point. like i mentioned, i get to spend a lot of time on federal land and i am very grateful for that. i have also noticed these problems, we have a lot of buildup of flammable materials, which creates concerns about wildfires. a big problem, and something that i found is that it tends to be more politically popular to designate new land and to acquire new land rather than to spend resources taking care of the land that we already have. we have a huge maintenance backlog. byot could be improved really focusing more on maintaining the land that we do have and making sure we preserve it for future generations rather

than continuing to acquire more. host: wyoming, mike joins us. hello, good morning. caller: good morning. the biggest problem i can see and a lot of western states is that there is a lot of it. the question is? caller: i want to know how long they are landlocked and the people that they landlocked them, they will not let you into public land that our tax dollars pay for, yet they can use it. guest: that is a great question. you are right that federal land makes up a huge proportion of our total land in the west. over half of our land is owned by the federal government and it makes me think of the story of the san juan county commissioner concerns withsed

these large designations. he talked about his county, only 8% is made up of private land. when these designations are made and a unit around -- unilateral decisions are being made, it restricts that area's ability to develop their local economy and for the citizens to have certainty. host: as far as legislative efforts, have there been any to make changes or things that you think the improvements to the act? guest: recently there have been efforts to exempt utah from the antiquities act just like wyoming and alaska, and those have not made a ton of headway. thannk more promising state specific exemptions would be broader and clearer limits on the president's decision-making authorities. that might look like me -- requiring congressional appraisal -- approval or

consultation with local stakeholders. host: tom from california. hello. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about something that happened under the last administration. under the grounds of wild horses. they looked for uranium all over the place of our federal lands and sold it to the russians. as a tribal member on some of a schemeds, it was against the american public to look for uranium and sell it to russia. happens, like the national park systems that have been set up. the tribal members that have tribal treaties, you have stolen the man -- the land like with bear's ear.

it is incredible what happens, it is a genocide against the native people. the reservations should be marked like the national parks are marked. so people know how big they are. --t: that is tom from pat from california, go ahead. guest: you bring up a points. the issue of wild horses. we talked about wildfires. there are a lot of issues that make them complicated. and i think that should should just even more strongly that these are issues and we need more than one person making these sweeping decisions about how they will be manage. the impactlked about on native american tribes, and that has been an issue. i think it just goes to show that parties on both sides of the aisle, whether you are for or against monuments, he would benefit from having this certainty and clear knowledge about the checks and limits on the president's ability to

designate, alter, or get rid of monuments. host: when it comes to the efforts to stop the president, where does the role of civil laws come in? are they effective? guest: i am not sure about that. i know from all of the litigation i have reviewed, we have not seen progress or clarity come out of those. i am more optimistic about legislative changes that would enact clear checks and balances on the president's power. host: new jersey, this is peter. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i would like to know the mission of your organization. it seems very suspicious, it is called the center for growth and opportunity. has become so polluted,ped, and so and you are so concerned about management of public land.

i would just like to know the mission of your organization. i feel like you maybe have some all terrier motives and reppert rior motives and represent some corporation. host: the colors gone. go ahead. -- the caller is don. go ahead. to conductmission is research on policy relevant areas. as researchers we are free to find the questions most worth pursuing, and we do that by thinking about what areas impact people's lives. that is why we have identified the antiquities act as one of these areas. policy,at immigration and how regulatory impacts technology. this is one of the issues. host: his claim that the lands

are developed, is that something you agree with? guest: i do not inc. that is an accurate portrayal. it depends on the land that it is to -- that you are talking about. there are so many different landscapes and all being used for different purposes. energye being used for development and others are preserved for recreation or as wilderness for conservation of wildlife. i think that is a good thing. they are varied and we should useful for what is the american people. we should definitely preserve them. sonia, froms florida. caller: my question is, we just had a situation where a aerial ground, a large african-american burial ground, the graves have been relocated. on housing project was put

top of the gravesite. does the antiquities act affect burial grounds, and how will you protect future landmarks, gravesites from being developed on top of without proper assurance that the graves have been locate -- relocated? guest: i think that is a great concern you bring up and it shows how complex the issue is. i am not an expert as how these burial grounds are treated. your point brings up the idea that we should have a consultation with local stakeholders. in this case, consultation should happen with those who know the area and are familiar with the burial grounds and know the best way to protect them. host: i cannot show you the full somebody --here is there is one that is called "

time to move the bureau of land management out of washington, d.c.." toohere a sense that it is d.c. centric and there is not enough outreach to the areas directly affected? guest: absolutely. i think it is a huge problem that most of the people living in -- making these decisions are located thousands of miles away. they have never visited the area. i have been getting -- i think getting managers closer to that land they are managing is a great idea. host: dug, in arizona. caller: good morning. i am a gold cross get -- prospector in tucson, and i prospect in the santa rita mountains. for years we have been able to get to the global -- to the gold claims. all of a sudden we cannot get to 60% of them because a federal land cited that they have

it offate -- cordined and put fencing around it, thousands of feet of it, hundreds of miles. lease the land for their cattle, but they have been doing it for years, and everybody has been getting along fine. about five years ago, i went up there and i could not get in. the ranchers were given the keys to get through these monstrous padlocks and chains, but nobody else can have them. claimsfederal mining that i have to pay money for every year, and i have not been on them in years. what do i do? you,: i wish i could tell but it shows once -- shows us how complex these regimes are

and how much they act local people. alsonk your story illustrates this problem with uncertainty. when these decisions are being made centrally, local people who use the land and may have been using it for a long time leaves them in the dark about how they will be impacted and how their lives will change because the manager decided to put up a fence or change access. access to public land is another key issue. host: this is bob, from illinois. guest: good -- caller: good morning, i grew up in alaska. i am 73 years old. i am concerned about something ist i have considered and it not precisely what you are addressing, it hinges on it. mckinley,with mount and then one morning a couple of .ears back i woke up to denali

1972 native land claims act development, there were comments about keeping things named that the way that they were originally when statehood took place. what happened? can you explain it? not an expert on how those naming convictions -- conventions happened. your story speaks to the idea of central management of federal land and managers coming in and changing the way that things are managed, often without the input of local people. host: from kathy, in colorado. in morning. caller: good morning. about theng to ask speaker and her growth for opportunity organization.

i understand that it is a co-funded nonprofit research group. i am in the huntsman school of business and they received $25 million pledge from the charles koch foundation recently. guest: thank you. we do receive money from the charles koch foundation among a variety of donors and individuals. we are thankful for their support, they allow us to do the research that we do. our research is independent from our funding. i get to focus on the questions that are most meaningful and have the most potential to help public policy and i am thankful for the donations. host: you are part of the huntsman school of business. governor huntsman, what is his influence on the topic of land management? guest: he does not have any real

formal interaction with the center. the huntsman business school's name after him and he has -- is named after him. we are completely independent, and we are lucky to be affiliated with utah state. host: if you do not see a legislative change, what other significant changes could you see or what avenues could be explored if legislatively, nothing will happen. having localk that people get involved and voice their concerns is a good way to help drive change, even if we do not see it now. i think it is important for local people to speak up and talk about how they are affected. is our guest, megan hansen with the center of group -- growth and opportunity, talking about federal land management. when did this become a concern?

when did you start paying attention to this? guest: this has been a concern throughout the history of the antiquities act, when the law was passed there was a lot of discussions that were concerned that the law may be used to designate large areas. sponsoring said no, it is going to be used for the smallest area compatible. throughout history we have seen many monuments designated, almost two dozen that are over one million acres in size. it has been a concern throughout history, and perhaps it is becoming more controversial and visible right now tanks to social media, the internet and the people -- the ability for people to voice their concerns. host: a viewer from utah, mark. hello. caller: hello. is, i retired about three or four years ago. i have seen incredible increase in tourist and traffic coming

in. i have not seen the land management, they are great people but not enough of them. how are they going to staff that so there is adequate coverage? i think it is about creative partnerships between the federal government and private entities to help out their land management. thank you. guest: great question. i think you bring up a good point, which is that, as we talked about it is more popular to designate than to take care of the lands. we have a huge maintenance backlog and establishing a national monument will not do enough to preserve these areas, especially if more tourists are -- thered they may not may not be facilities or staff in place. you bring up a great solution, it is a public and private partnership. the forest service has used these to manage its recreation areas that would be a great

option. ,ost: the website groupopportunity.org. megan hansen serves as the research direc >> in preparation for the fourth of july in washington dc, a bradley fighting vehicle was delivered to the lincoln memorial. the president requested the vehicles be placed around the mall for the lincoln memorial speech.

[vehicle sounds] >> today on c-span. we are live with former vice president joe biden and jill biden for their july 4 presidential campaign stop in marshalltown, iowa. then at 6:00 p.m., president donald trump at the lincoln memorial for the fourth of july celebration. at 8:00, former speechwriters for former presidents bill clinton, george w. bush, and former first lady michelle obama discuss their work at the

university of chicago institute of politics. watch today on c-span. british prime minister theresa may delivered a statement to the house of commons about her recent trip to the g20 in that -- japan. whether saudiut arabia should host the g20 in 2020. like to make a statement on my final g20 and final european council as prime minister. we discussed some of the biggest global challenges facing our nation, including climate change, terrorist propaganda online, risks to the global economy, and rising tensions in the gulf. terrorist propaganda online, risks to the global economy and rising tensions in the gulf. these discussions were difficult but in the end productive. i