[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8645-H8665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              COLORADO OUTDOOR RECREATION AND ECONOMY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 823.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 656 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 823.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1805


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 823) to provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, 
recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the State of 
Colorado, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Murphy of Florida in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in the first section of House Resolution 656 and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I would first like to thank Chairman Grijalva and 
Chairwoman Haaland for their support and advocacy of this bill.
  I stand today in support of my bill, H.R. 823, the Colorado Outdoor 
Recreation and Economy Act, or the CORE Act.
  As Representatives for the people, as legislators here in the Halls 
of Congress, our job is to fight for commonsense solutions that come 
directly from our communities.
  When our constituents raise their voices on issues that impact them, 
and when we are able to respond with legislation that benefits our 
districts and our State, that is when our work is most effective.
  I am proud that the CORE Act was crafted by Coloradans over the last 
decade. It is a product of collaboration, careful consultation, and 
negotiation.
  Local elected officials, community members, businesses, outdoor 
recreation and conservation groups, ranchers, sportsmen, they have all 
contributed their input and their passion for the outdoor areas that 
they love.
  Each title in this bill has been carefully vetted by a thoughtful 
group of local elected leaders and community members, and each title is 
well deserving of consideration on the House floor today.
  I will just give a brief overview of the bill.
  The CORE Act would conserve over 400,000 acres of public land, and it 
consists of four titles that Coloradans have been asking Congress to 
pass, as I said, for well over a decade.
  Title 1 is the Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp 
Hale Legacy Act. It establishes permanent protections for nearly 
100,000 acres of wilderness, recreation, and conservation areas in the 
White River National Forest along Colorado's Continental Divide.

  The title creates two new wildlife conservation areas, totaling 
approximately 12,000 acres. The Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation 
Area would protect Colorado's only migration corridor over Interstate 
70 for elk, bear, mule, deer, and other wildlife. The Williams Fork 
Wildlife Conservation Area would also enhance wildlife habitat for the 
greater sage grouse and other species.
  Title 1 also designates the first-ever national historic landscape at 
Camp Hale. This unprecedented designation speaks to the storied legacy 
of the Army's 10th Mountain Division in Colorado and around the world. 
As my colleagues may know, the soldiers that trained at Camp Hale led 
our Nation to victory in World War II and then went on to create the 
outdoor recreation industry as we know it today.
  The second title is the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act. This 
title, which has previously received bipartisan support in both the 
House and the Senate, provides permanent protections for nearly 61,000 
acres of land located in the heart of the San Juan Mountains in 
southwest Colorado. It designates some of the State's most iconic peaks 
as wilderness, including

[[Page H8646]]

two fourteeners, Mount Sneffels and Wilson Peak.
  The third title is the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act, 
which prevents new oil and gas development in one of Colorado's most 
treasured landscapes while also protecting private property rights. The 
Thompson Divide, through ranching and outdoor recreation, contributes 
$30 million a year to the statewide economy. It is an area that is 
simply too valuable to drill for oil and gas.
  This title also includes a pilot program to allow the capture of 
fugitive methane from both active and inactive coal mines in portions 
of Pitkin, Delta, Gunnison, and Garfield Counties.
  Madam Chair, this is a point that is worth underscoring. This 
provision that I mentioned was developed at the request of local 
elected leaders. Ultimately, I am thankful for their thoughtful input 
to improve the bill.
  The fourth and final title formally establishes the boundary for the 
Curecanti National Recreation Area, currently one of only a handful of 
National Park Service units without a formal designation by an act of 
Congress. This special place consists of three reservoirs that are a 
designation for boating, fishing, hiking, and camping. It is a long-
overdue formal designation that will allow the National Park Service to 
more effectively manage the area, and it also will help ensure that the 
Federal Government lives up to a longstanding commitment it made to the 
State of Colorado to provide new fishing access for sportsmen in the 
Gunnison River basin.
  Finally, I would like to call out an important addition to this bill 
that was included in the manager's amendment to honor the life of an 
outstanding individual who was truly loved by his family and friends, 
and he served as a pillar of his community. Sanford Morris Treat, Jr., 
who went by the name ``Sandy,'' was a World War II veteran who served 
in the 10th Mountain Division and trained at Camp Hale.
  I had the honor of meeting Sandy before his passing earlier this 
year, and it is due to his and his fellow veterans' unwavering advocacy 
that Camp Hale would be forever maintained as a National Historic 
Landscape under the CORE Act. Therefore, the manager's amendment 
includes language to designate the Sandy Treat Overlook as an 
interpretive site overlooking Camp Hale.
  It is my hope that those who visit it will be reminded of his service 
to our country, his zest for life, and his passion for protecting the 
legacy of Camp Hale.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues, respectfully, to support the CORE 
Act, not only to honor those who came before us, but also to protect 
our treasured places for generations to come.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 823, a bill that creates 
land restrictions for approximately 400,000 acres of land in Colorado 
in the form of new wilderness, permanent mineral withdrawals, as well 
as recreation and conservation areas.
  While the goals of the public lands legislation in this bill are 
certainly admirable and well-intended, and I have great respect for the 
bill's sponsor, my friend and fellow Coloradan, Congressman Neguse, it 
is clear that this proposal lacks the type of local consensus required 
for a bill of this scale.
  I am proud to call Colorado home, and I am honored to represent the 
Fifth District of Colorado. I truly believe our State is the most 
beautiful in the Union, and myself and the bill's sponsor and other 
Representatives from Colorado that you will hear from during our debate 
would agree with me on that. We love our State, and we are very proud 
of it.

  As is the case for most Western States, Colorado has a large amount 
of public lands, with roughly one-third of the State under Federal 
management. These rich and diverse public lands provide countless 
outdoor recreation opportunities, habitat for wildlife, and significant 
economic benefits for our rural communities and our State as a whole.
  Because of these diverse uses of our public lands, it is vital that 
the land management decisions we make find balance and common ground. I 
regret to say today that this bill before us falls short on both 
counts.
  To put the enormity of this bill into perspective, Madam Chairman, 
this bill affects a total acreage that is nine times the size of 
Washington, D.C. A bill of this magnitude should not be forced through 
along partisan party lines, yet that is what we are facing today.
  Public lands decisions should be made with local collaboration and 
input. They have real consequences for communities on the ground who 
live near these public lands.
  It is troubling to note that 65 percent of the lands affected by the 
bill before us are located in Congressman Tipton's district. Not only 
was Mr. Tipton not meaningfully consulted on this legislation, but he 
was not even made aware of it until the day that it was publicly 
announced.
  It is not against the law to write bills affecting other people's 
districts, but I think that consensus and collaboration require that 
they should be brought into the loop and be part of the process.
  Subsequent efforts to engage on this legislation and find compromise 
have been largely ignored. That lack of engagement sadly continues 
today.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Tipton, for instance, offered 10 good faith amendments that 
raised specific concerns that his constituents have brought to him 
concerning this bill. Only three of these were made in order by the 
Democrat-controlled Rules Committee.
  Substantial stakeholder concerns about this bill have been raised by 
impacted counties, recreation groups, forestry health advocates, as 
well as the relevant Federal agencies.
  One particularly worrying concern has been raised by the National 
Guard Bureau--not the State, but the national National Guard Bureau--
about this bill's impact on the Colorado Army National Guard's High 
Altitude Aviation Training Site, or HAATS, that has yet to be resolved.
  Proposed wilderness expansions in Colorado around the Colorado Army 
National Guard's HAATS, or High Altitude Aviation Training Site, are 
creating concerns about the future of the site's ability to ensure 
military readiness for the men and women who may be deployed to combat 
zones in the Middle East.
  This HAATS site is a treasure. It is the only place in the country 
where high-altitude rotary-wing aircraft can get the training in real-
life conditions that they will encounter overseas in places like 
Afghanistan or training for search and rescue in mountainous areas 
around the country or around the world.
  So this is a treasure. It is a unique site that must be protected. 
And it is a collection of sites. It is not just one landing zone. It is 
a multitude of landing zones.
  While the sponsors of the CORE Act have indicated that their goal is 
to protect HAATS, the only way to provide certainty for HAATS is to 
codify the existing Department of Defense guidance for aircraft flying 
over Colorado wilderness areas.
  As with any compromise, balance is key. There is no room for winner-
take-all mentalities if you want to achieve lasting public land 
management agreements. This bill, unfortunately, has chosen a winner-
take-all path that may deliver some great press releases momentarily 
but will ultimately fall short of becoming law. I believe this bill 
will not be supported in the other body and is certainly not supported 
by the administration.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, with great respect for my colleague from Colorado 
Springs, whom I certainly enjoy serving with, I would just say that 
local community support is so critical on public lands bills of this 
nature. That is why I am so proud that this bill has overwhelming 
support from the local communities that are impacted by it.
  One thing, I suspect, that you will not hear from my distinguished 
colleagues on this side of the aisle is a reference to any counties, 
cities, or towns directly impacted by this bill that ultimately don't 
support it.

[[Page H8647]]

  Just to give you a sense of some of those communities, the town of 
Crested Butte, the town of Carbondale, the city of Glenwood Springs, 
the town of Telluride, the town of Basalt, the town of Breckenridge, 
the town of Ophir, the town of Ridgway, the town of Mountain Village, 
the town of Snowmass Village, the town of Frisco, and the town of 
Dillon, they have all supported this bill.
  Garfield County supports a provision of the bill which impacts its 
county. San Miguel County does the same. Gunnison County, Eagle County, 
San Juan County, Summit County, Ouray County, and Pitkin County--I am, 
in some respects, left at a loss of words in terms of trying to 
understand what local community support my distinguished colleague is 
referencing in terms of it being lacking.
  And, of course, it makes perfect sense that these communities would 
so overwhelmingly support this bill because they have been engaged in 
important stakeholder input on this bill for 10 years, long before I 
came to Congress.
  This bill has been the product of a very robust community-driven 
stakeholder process, which is why it has overwhelming support of not 
just the local communities that are impacted by it, but, ultimately, by 
the people shown by just a recent empirical study that over 70 percent 
of the people on the western side of Colorado and writ at large in the 
State support the provisions of the CORE Act. That is why it has also 
earned the support of my distinguished colleague from Colorado, the 
dean of our delegation.
  Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado 
and laud him for taking on the mantle of supporting the Colorado 
Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act.
  Our State has some of the most remarkable outdoor landscapes in the 
country. As a fourth-generation Coloradan, I understand how important 
our public lands are to our livelihoods, our health, and, yes, our 
identity.
  Like many Coloradans, I have personal memories of camping and hiking 
with my family and using our public lands to teach my daughters about 
the importance of environmental stewardship and conservation.
  But preserving our public lands is not important just to those of us 
who enjoy exploring the outdoors; it is important to our State's 
economy.
  We can't allow ourselves to sit back and assume that the places we 
cherish today will be there for future generations to experience as 
well. Every 30 seconds, our Nation loses the equivalent of a football 
field of natural area due to human activity.
  Let me say that again. Every 30 seconds, our Nation loses a football 
field of natural area due to human activity. We are seeing this right 
now in our home State with the pressures of population growth.
  That is why, for more than 20 years, I have been working with my 
colleagues in Congress, with local elected officials, and with citizens 
across the State to protect the very few remaining special areas that 
we have left. That is why I am so honored that we are now beginning to 
see the fruits of all of this action.

  The legislation that we will vote on today will protect an additional 
400,000 acres of public lands in our State, including 70,000 acres of 
wilderness. It is part of our overall effort to preserve 1 million 
acres of public lands in our State, not just for wilderness, but also 
for multiple use, which is so critical for our State.
  Together, the CORE Act and the Colorado Wilderness Act, which I am 
the prime sponsor of, will help boost Colorado's multibillion-dollar 
outdoor recreation industry, which supports more than 220,000 jobs in 
our State. They will also help increase our Nation's tourism industry, 
lift nearby property values, and improve residents' overall quality of 
life.
  Our constituents have been clear on this issue: they want to protect 
our public lands. As Congressman Neguse noted, one recent poll found 
that as many as 90 percent of Colorado's residents believe that 
protecting our outdoor recreation economy is important to the future of 
our State.
  Our State has changed. Our economy is dependent on the preservation 
of our special remaining wild places. I know many of us in the 
congressional delegation would agree. That is why we are so united in 
this effort. That is why we are eager to take on this fight.
  Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to give the people of our 
State what they want and to vote for this important legislation.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I do agree with my colleague from Denver that the 
outdoor recreation industry in Colorado is a thriving and vital part of 
our State's economy. We have such good material, such a good 
environment to work with that it is no wonder.
  I would have to point out that, fortunately, the lands that are under 
consideration in this bill already have one form of protection or 
another due to being wilderness study areas or other types of Federal 
lands. The development that was being mentioned--one football field 
every 30 seconds--doesn't apply to these lands. These lands are not in 
that category.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. I would just note--and the gentleman and I have actually 
discussed this--as we have been preparing the maps for my bill, which 
we are going to be seeing in the Natural Resources Committee in the 
next few weeks, we have seen, even in areas that are protected as 
wilderness study areas or other BLM Federal lands, we have seen a 
steady erosion by people who are over loving these lands, and that is 
why we need these protections.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, I understand where the 
gentlewoman is coming from.
  Without getting into the philosophical area for time constraints over 
restricting lands that very few people can enter into as opposed to 
having lands as open as possible for as many people and many uses as 
possible, which I think is a balance we have to strike--there has got 
to be a place for both--I think we need to keep our discussion for the 
next part of our debate on the local collaboration, or lack thereof.
  Madam Chair, for that reason, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, when it comes to public lands management, Colorado has a 
long history of balancing the interests of a broad range of 
stakeholders, including the needs and interests of citizens who may not 
be the most vocal on the issues. This is accomplished through proactive 
outreach to communities and engagement with citizens and local leaders 
who know their areas best.
  This type of local engagement has proven to be effective on previous 
public lands efforts, such as Hermosa Creek and Chimney Rock in 
southwest Colorado. In both cases, there was an extensive and inclusive 
community outreach process with many months of bipartisan support, 
negotiations, and conversations with stakeholders from all sides of the 
debate.
  The result was the House passing bipartisan measures to be able to 
protect these individual and valuable open spaces, both of which have 
become law. Behind these efforts was a recognition of historic multiple 
uses of the land as well as for the communities who live there.
  For many decades, Colorado has responsibly developed natural 
resources on public lands, which has provided critical funding for 
emergency services, education, and infrastructure for rural communities 
that would otherwise be unable to have these services. While doing 
this, Colorado has also embraced a thriving outdoor economy and 
protected access to the public lands for historical uses, as well as 
for sportsmen and other recreational access.
  We have prioritized conservation of delicate ecosystems and habitats, 
protected cultural and historic sites, and defended private property 
and water rights. There are certainly disagreements on the most 
effective ways to be able to carry out these ideas, but most of us 
agree that the most effective approach to be able to work through these 
disagreements is by being able to listen to the local communities and 
those most affected by Federal decisions and finding a way to be able 
to

[[Page H8648]]

incorporate those ideas into balanced legislation.
  Unfortunately, we have not seen this same type of outreach 
negotiation and local engagement with the CORE Act as a whole. Some 
stakeholders and communities in the Third Congressional District were 
not included. It is important that we do not discount the Third 
District voices who feel like they were excluded or that their concerns 
were disregarded.
  Madam Chair, I have heard from numerous county commissioners who have 
not been involved in the legislative process for the CORE Act and have 
simply asked to have their concerns addressed by the House before a 
vote takes place. This is the same feedback I have repeatedly heard 
from stakeholders and local elected officials in the Third District 
following public meetings on these issues over the past few months.

  I am not saying that there is not support for the CORE Act in the 
Third District, because there is. Many of our resort and mountain 
communities are strongly behind the bill, and it is just as important 
to listen to their input as those in the rest of western Colorado.
  I am optimistic that we can find a balanced public lands bill that 
reflects all of these communities, but it can't happen if one side is 
left out of the conversation from the beginning. More outreach needs to 
happen, negotiations need to take place, and compromise needs to be 
made.
  The commissioners, other local elected officials, and stakeholders in 
the counties that have not yet been included in the experiences have 
knowledge and opinions that should be given due consideration when 
crafting public policy land bills that directly impact many of them and 
indirectly impacts all of them. We firmly are committed to giving all 
counties in the Third District the opportunity to be able to have their 
voices heard and their ideas included in any public lands legislation 
that impacts their region.
  During a House Natural Resources Committee on the CORE Act and before 
the House Rules Committee this week, I introduced amendments that 
included reasonable and necessary additions to the bill based on direct 
feedback from Third District stakeholders and officials.

                              {time}  1830

  I provided my colleagues from Colorado who sponsored this legislation 
in both the House and the Senate with a similar list of items for 
inclusion beforehand.
  These suggestions include protections for existing water and grazing 
rights; codification of the U.S. Army High-Altitude Aviation Training 
Site's flight guidelines over wilderness areas; allowing for current 
public land management activities to continue in recreation areas, and 
language to ensure that leaseholders in the Thompson Divide are fairly 
compensated for the value of their leases.
  These amendments are not controversial. They are not partisan. They 
do not disrupt or alter the outcomes of the bill. What these amendments 
do is ensure that there is no ambiguity in the intent of the 
legislation, as stated by the bill's sponsors and supporters. There is 
great harm in ambiguity, which is what will result if these amendments 
are not accepted.
  I have also offered two amendments to release wilderness study areas, 
at the request of counties in which they are located. Most of these 
areas have been deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation. That does 
not mean that they will not be protected public lands because they all 
have some measure of protection.
  Madam Chairwoman, responsible management is not always the result of 
more restrictive designations. Instead, it can also mean giving local 
communities greater flexibility to be able to address local land 
challenges.
  In recent testimony given before the House Natural Resources 
Committee, Montezuma County Commissioner Keenan Ertel made the argument 
for releasing wilderness study areas when they have been deemed 
unsuitable by the Federal land management agencies for wilderness 
protections. Seven years ago, the Menefee Mountain Wilderness Study 
Area was ravaged by fire. Years after the fire, noxious weeds consumed 
much of the landscape due to the stringent protections given in the 
area. The weed concerns continue to progress, as projected in this 
photo.
  Local agencies are limited in their ability to be able to proactively 
manage these invasive species because of the stringent wilderness 
protections that remain in place.
  If the Colorado delegation is truly vested in passing a statewide 
public lands bill that has broad local consensus, why aren't we 
including the removal of these areas that rely on Federal action to be 
able to allow for better management of these lands?
  I have suggested to my bicameral Colorado colleagues, and even 
submitted an amendment, but it was not adopted. I continue to hear that 
local concerns have been addressed, yet we cannot assure Montezuma 
County residents that theirs have even been considered.
  Along with allowing local communities greater access to be able to 
protect their cherished open spaces from potential wildfires, it also 
includes buffer zones between wilderness and nonwilderness areas.
  A look at the devastating wildfires in Colorado over the years shows 
us just how important this is. In 2013, the West Fork Complex fire, 
which burned over 100,000 acres in southwest Colorado, is a prime 
example of how forest fires have no regard for arbitrary lines, as 
shown on the map.
  We have, unfortunately, seen the aftermath of this fire and other 
fires, and they threaten the stability of roads and water quality and 
are greater erosion threats for many years to come.
  I raised this concern with the sponsors of the bill, suggesting that 
we increase the offsets for the trails running on the borders of the 
wilderness area from 50 to 150 feet. With this reasonable ask, I 
believe we can eliminate unnecessary risks to our forests and protect 
them from future forest fires that have the potential to jump across 
boundary lines onto other public and private lands. Yet, this amendment 
was not allowed to move to the floor for consideration, nor were 8 out 
of the 10 amendments that I introduced.
  Had there been greater outreach across the Third District, the CORE 
Act's sponsors could have heard more examples just like these that need 
to be addressed. This week alone, we received letters from Montezuma 
County, Dolores County, Rio Blanco County, Montrose County, Mesa 
County, all of which have various concerns about the CORE Act today. 
That is also accompanied by letters from individuals.
  Madam Chairwoman, I applaud the CORE Act sponsor, my Colorado 
colleague, Mr. Neguse. He has a passion for being able to protect 
public lands in Colorado. It happens to be a passion we share.
  However, Colorado's Third District, where most of this bill will have 
an impact, not Mr. Neguse's district--I would be remiss if I did not 
speak out on behalf of my constituents--have yet to have their voices 
heard in this process or their issues addressed.
  I am optimistic that we could eventually get broad community 
consensus through the Third District on the CORE Act, but first, there 
is outreach that needs to be done, issues to be worked out, and 
compromises to be made.
  There is no doubt that the CORE Act will pass the House tomorrow, 
that the bill will head to the Senate. However, in good conscience, 
given the concerns that we have heard out of the district that have not 
been addressed, I will have to reluctantly vote ``no'' on this current 
version of the bill.
  It is my hope that the Senate will consider my amendments, that they 
will be included, that continued outreach occurs, and that we include 
the ideas of all western Colorado.
  I stand willing and ready to be able to work with them.
  Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just a few points before I yield some time to my distinguished 
colleague from the Sixth Congressional District.
  I would first say, this reference to wilderness study areas and the 
notion that because, as my distinguished colleague from Colorado 
Springs mentioned, there are some wilderness study areas in certain 
areas, that, therefore, no further protections are needed, of course, 
as the gentleman from the

[[Page H8649]]

Third Congressional District just mentioned, in his effort to eliminate 
some of those wilderness study areas, the case in point that permanent 
protections are, in fact, needed. There is a reason why we pursue these 
permanent protections, and that is, ultimately, to ensure that the 
lands are protected for future generations, like my daughter, so that 
she can enjoy the same treasured public lands that I have had access 
to.
  I would also say, with respect to my colleague from the Third 
Congressional District, what I failed to hear during his remarks or, 
for that matter, the gentleman from Colorado Springs' remarks is, 
again, any reference to a single county that is directly impacted by 
this bill that opposes this bill.
  I understand the gentleman referenced Montezuma County, and I found 
the letter from Montezuma County a bit perplexing given that none of 
the CORE Act designations are in their county or even bordering their 
county.
  As I mentioned earlier, the San Miguel Board of County Commissioners, 
which is in the Third Congressional District, supports this bill. The 
Gunnison Board of County Commissioners, the Eagle Board of County 
Commissioners, the San Juan Board of County Commissioners, the Ouray 
Board of County Commissioners, the Pitkin Board of County 
Commissioners, and a variety of other counties have expressed support 
for the provisions of the bill that impact their particular county, 
including the Garfield Board of County Commissioners, which is in the 
Third Congressional District.
  So, make no mistake, I respect philosophical disagreements that may 
exist about the need to protect public lands, and there may be--in 
fact, there clearly is a disagreement there, and we are going to land 
on different sides of that debate.
  But facts matter. And, ultimately, the local communities across the 
State that are impacted by this bill directly have made clear that they 
support the CORE Act. As I said, it is no surprise that they do because 
they have been engaged in the debate around the CORE Act for a decade.
  I have each title of the CORE Act that has been introduced since 2011 
by Mr. Udall when he served in this Chamber, by Mr. Salazar, and, of 
course, by Senator Bennet in the upper Chamber. This bill is the 
product of a decade of collaboration.
  Ultimately, what I have heard from these county commissioners and so 
many others is that they are tired of waiting, Madam Chair.
  I recognize that I am new to Washington, but ultimately, I think our 
job here is to deliver results for the people who elect us to serve.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who has 
served in our armed services so bravely, to discuss the HAATS issue, in 
particular. Then, I am happy to yield to Mr. Tipton so that we can 
engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. CROW. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today in support of the Colorado 
Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act.
  I would first like to thank my colleagues and friends from the 
Colorado delegation, Congressman   Joe Neguse, and Senator Michael 
Bennet, for their dedicated, hard work on this important bill.
  Colorado is home to 4 national parks, 41 State parks, 960 wildlife 
species, and 6,000 miles of rivers. From hiking, to camping and skiing 
with my family, including my two children, who I am proud to say are 
fifth-generation Coloradans, I know that among the most important 
aspects of the Colorado way of life are the beautiful places where we 
live, work, and play.
  But we must act quickly to ensure that Colorado's many national 
treasures are protected for our children, our grandchildren, and the 
generations to come.
  The CORE Act will help us accomplish this by providing permanent 
protections for over 400,000 acres of Colorado's public lands. It 
unites and builds on many prior efforts by protecting four iconic 
landscapes in one single, all-encompassing conservation bill for all of 
Colorado.
  As an Army veteran, I am also thrilled to highlight the U.S. Army's 
10th Mountain Division, whose members trained at historic Camp Hale and 
fought valiantly in World War II. At the peak of the war, Camp Hale 
housed as many as 14,000 soldiers. They were trained in skiing, 
snowshoeing, mountain climbing, cold-weather survival skills, and 
winter combat to prepare themselves for the Alpine warfare that awaited 
them in northern Italy.
  In 1945, they broke through German mountain defenses, drawing forces 
away from other theaters and playing a critical role in winning World 
War II.
  Many of them came back afterward to help build Colorado's outdoor 
recreation industry that we now know, love, and cherish today.
  By passing this bill, we honor the 10th Mountain Division's legacy 
and the sacrifices of those soldiers by designating over 28,000 acres 
of land that constitutes Camp Hale as the Nation's first-ever National 
Historic Landscape.
  This measure ensures that people of all ages can recreate on the Camp 
Hale lands, walk in the footsteps of those soldiers who trained there, 
and protect the site for future generations so that history and legacy 
will live on.
  I am honored to work with my delegation colleagues on this effort. 
The CORE Act is a once-in-a-generation protection of lands to hand to 
our kids and grandkids so that they can continue to love Colorado as 
much as we do.
  I urge all Members to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) to give him a moment to respond. It seemed 
like he had something to say.
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chair, I think the gentleman mentioned Montrose 
County. Is it going to be impacted by Curecanti?

  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I appreciate Representative Tipton, my 
distinguished colleague, for mentioning that. I would say a few things.
  First, of the nine counties that are impacted, as I mentioned, eight 
of them have expressed support for the provisions of the bill that 
impact them.
  While I don't have the letter from Montrose County that apparently 
came in today--and I am happy to visit with the gentleman further about 
that letter--my understanding is that they expressed support still for 
the Curecanti title of the bill in their district.
  I also would just say this: If the gentleman is willing to make a 
commitment that he will vote for this bill if the Montrose Board of 
County Commissioners supports the bill--is that the gentleman's intent?
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chair, I have all the other issues that I have 
outlined, and I need those amendments to be able to do that. That does 
not make the bill bad, but it does make it an imperfect bill.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have 
an opportunity to talk. I would just say this: We had this similar 
debate in the Rules Committee on Monday. Again, I am new to Washington, 
so perhaps this is just the way the process works, but this notion that 
amendments are offered and then a representation is made by the 
gentleman that even if every amendment passed, they would not support 
the bill, fundamentally, for me, this process is about good faith, 
negotiation, and discussion to get to a consensus.
  I believe there are a number of amendments that the Representative, 
along with several others that have been proposed, that we are going to 
debate tonight. Some of those may, in fact, be amendments that we can 
agree to. But I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would approach the discussion on those amendments with that same 
good faith, with understanding that they would hope to get to yes, 
because a similar discussion happened earlier this year with respect to 
the Garfield Board of County Commissioners.
  Their nonsupport of the bill was justified and rationalized as a 
reason to oppose it. Of course, eventually, by working with those 
county commissioners, Senator Bennet's office and myself were able to 
negotiate a compromise so that they could be in a position to support 
the title of the bill that impacts that county, so that we could 
protect the treasured public lands in the Thompson Divide.
  Again, I believe it is important to underscore that point, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H8650]]

  Madam Chair, I would point out that Mr. Tipton offered 10 amendments 
in the Rules Committee, only three of which were adopted. There were 
seven amendments right there that were not even brought to the floor 
for debate. I think that that is unfortunate.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock) who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Water, Oceans, and Wildlife on the Natural Resources Committee.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairwoman, when I chaired the Public Lands Subcommittee, we 
set three overarching principles for the management of our public 
lands: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore good 
management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government 
as a good neighbor to those communities directly impacted by the public 
lands.
  This bill appears to me to be the opposite of all of these 
principles. It closes off public use and access, it consigns our lands 
to a policy of neglect, and it thumbs our nose at the wishes of many of 
the people in the affected region.
  H.R. 823 is a lopsided bill that offers a comparatively small, 28,000 
acres, for motorized access versus roughly 400,000 acres of new 
wilderness enclosures. So 7 percent of the land is provided for 
motorized access and 93 percent of the land is closed to that access. 
That means, Madam Chair, you can't drive in to enjoy a family camping 
trip, and you can't even bring bicycles.
  It withdraws all these lands from any kind of resource development, 
which means that taxpayers will not have the benefit of revenues that 
these lands could produce. Much of the acreage designated for 
wilderness restrictions does not even meet the legal requirements under 
the Wilderness Act, and yet they are imposed in disregard of that law. 
So, so much for the public's right to use the public lands.
  As the growing menace of wildfires attests, 45 years of neglect of 
sound forest management due to the so-called environmental laws of the 
1970s has abandoned our forests to themselves, and like any untended 
garden, an abandoned forest will grow and grow and grow until it chokes 
itself to death, and it is then consumed by catastrophic wildfire. 
Modern forest management broke this cycle of morbid overgrowth followed 
by catastrophic wildfire. I can tell you, in a State with a significant 
wildfire risk, this bill would further reduce the acres that have been 
identified as suitable for active forest management by approximately 
8,000 acres. So, so much for good management of the public lands.
  This bill flies in the face of significant local opposition, as 
expressed by many of the locally elected representatives of the 
communities affected by this legislation, as we have heard from Mr. 
Tipton. Rural county commissioners have warned that this bill will harm 
the economies of their local communities by removing multiple-use 
designations from these lands. In fact, when Republicans offered an 
amendment calling for consultation with the local communities that have 
been ignored by this legislation, that amendment was rejected on a 
party-line vote. So, so much for being a good neighbor to communities 
most affected by the Federal lands.
  Now, in the past, the Natural Resources Committee has prided itself 
on attempting to forge bipartisan consensus on its bills. Those days 
appear to be over. In fact, 65 percent of the lands affected by H.R. 
823 aren't even in the author's district. They are in the district of 
Mr. Tipton, who has just expressed his significant concerns over this 
legislation, who was never consulted before the bill was introduced, 
and who was barred from engaging the bill's sponsor during the 
committee's consideration of the bill on April 2. In this kangaroo 
proceeding, the bill's author acted as a witness, an advocate, and the 
chairman of the proceeding all at the same time.
  Every Republican Member from Colorado opposes this bill, and the bill 
is reported to us on a straight party-line vote. It is obvious that the 
majority has no interest in balancing the concerns of local residents, 
taxpayers, recreational user groups, and conservation groups, but 
instead feels entitled to impose its will over the pleas of the people 
most directly impacted. Fortunately, our system of government assures 
that such legislation, while it might pass one House, as I am sure it 
will tomorrow, but it will have no chance of becoming law--and rightly 
so.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, again, I think it is important to underscore 
the facts. While I appreciate the gentleman from California making his 
case, his characterization of local support or lack thereof on this 
bill is simply not consistent with the facts, because, again, I have 
yet to hear of a single community that is directly impacted by the CORE 
Act that opposes the title of the CORE Act that impacts that 
community--not one, Madam Chair. I have been waiting. Coloradans are 
waiting.
  Again, it is completely permissible to have a philosophical debate 
about whether or not to protect public lands. I happen to believe that 
these incredibly iconic places across our State ought to be protected. 
They ought to be preserved. My colleagues may disagree. That is their 
right. But it is important to stress the facts.
  To that point, the last point I will make, and just yet another area 
that apparently needs to be clarified, is around motorized recreation. 
Any characterization that the CORE Act mandates widespread closures of 
trails or roads is false. This bill does not close any existing roads, 
jeep trails, off-highway vehicle trails, motorcycle trails, or groomed 
snowmobile trails, not one.
  Facts matter, Madam Chair.
  I would ask the Chair how much time do I have remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who has a master's degree in forestry from 
Yale University.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, as much as I appreciate my colleagues' 
desire to do something good, I must rise in opposition today to H.R. 
823.

  As we all know, wilderness designations in theory implement natural 
management, meaning that man is to have a hands-off approach on the 
management of the forest. But this is a farce, because when 
catastrophic wildfires ignite, as they will under natural management, 
we often rush to put the fires out, which is just as much human 
management as thinning or other more recognized forestry management 
processes.
  We need wilderness areas in our country, and we need to manage them 
as such if we want to be intellectually honest in claiming them as 
wilderness areas. This works in areas like Yellowstone National Park 
where the predominant species is lodgepole pine that naturally burns to 
the ground approximately every century, like we saw when one-third of 
the park burned in the 1980s.
  The idea that we can preserve a forest is misguided. Forests are 
living organisms, and there is only one way to preserve a living 
organism: first you have to kill it. Take, for instance, a cucumber. If 
you want to make a pickle, the first thing you do to preserve a 
cucumber into a pickle is you boil it, you put it in vinegar, you put 
it in a jar, and you preserve it. If you want to preserve human tissue, 
you put the tissue in formaldehyde. There is a misnomer that we can 
preserve our forests because forests are living organisms.
  We should be discussing instead conservation. We should want to 
conserve our forests, like Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot 
proposed.
  Colorado's forests are currently in an unhealthy state. They are 
overstocked and infested with insects like the bark and pine beetle. I 
say that based on a report from the Colorado State Forest Service 2018 
Forest Health Report.
  It says that, for the seventh consecutive year, Colorado's most 
widespread and destructive insect pest was the spruce beetle. This 
insect has now affected more than 1.8 million cumulative acres since 
2000, with a total of 178,000 acres of active infestations occurring in 
high-level Engelmann spruce forests in 2018. A 4-year trend of tens of 
thousands of new acres infested annually indicates a continuing spread 
of

[[Page H8651]]

spruce beetle into previously uninfested forests.
  Moreover, more and more Coloradans are living closer to their forests 
and closer to the risk of wildfire.
  Again, from the report:

       A recent update to the CSFS-administered Colorado Wildfire 
     Risk Assessment Portal indicated that the population living 
     in areas at risk to wildland fire in Colorado increased to 
     approximately 50 percent from 2012 to 2017, surpassing 2.9 
     million people.

  Madam Chair, Colorado has some great places, some of which are 
incorporated into this bill. However, as my colleague from Colorado, 
Mr. Tipton, and others have alluded to, what the State needs is not an 
attempt at preservation. What they need is the application of science 
to the forests. They need conservation.
  Colorado needs the utilization and management of their forests to 
restore their health and well-being. These forests need thinning, 
prescribed fire, and selective timber harvest to restore the 
appropriate stand density and reduce the beetle epidemic.
  What these acres do not need is inaction.
  Wilderness prevents any action, which threatens not just the 
surrounding acreage and the communities that lie within those 
boundaries. Our congressional responsibility is to be good stewards of 
our lands and ensure that they are there for future generations.
  I have no doubt that was the sponsor's intent when writing this bill. 
However, we cannot just claim vast swaths of land and call our work 
done. Instead, we must be precise as to what we are designing and why.
  Wilderness, in this case, is not the answer. Natural management will 
not be followed because when life and property are at risk, we will 
spend vast resources to extinguish nature's management tools.
  Authorizing this action over the objections of State and Federal 
representation is not wise. The future will be our judge if this land 
is designated wilderness, and nature will deliver its verdict in time. 
None of us may even be alive when the verdict is delivered, but I 
desire for the Record to indicate that I argued on the side of sound 
science, that I argued to be responsible and use science and management 
to restore our forest resiliency, and that I argued to make our forest 
carbon sinks instead of carbon emitters.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from Arkansas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chairwoman, I argue for wildlife, for water, and 
for a better environment, and it is because of these reasons that I 
encourage my colleagues to vote against H.R. 823.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague 
from Arkansas. I know he has a deep experience in his field, I 
appreciate him on the Natural Resources Committee, and I enjoy serving 
with him on that committee.
  I would ask my distinguished colleague whether he would support the 
bill if we were to, say, amend the bill to give the Secretary 
unilateral power to do what the Secretary determines to be necessary 
for the control of fire and insects.
  Would the gentleman be amenable to that?
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEGUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. I would be amenable if we did that, but then it 
wouldn't be wilderness area.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Arkansas; and I will tell the gentleman that we don't need to amend the 
bill because that language is in the bill, repeatedly in the bill 
because I share your concerns regarding wildfire, as do my 
distinguished colleagues from Colorado.
  So we put great care to put into the bill language that reiterates 
``the Secretary may carry out any activity that the Secretary 
determines to be necessary for the control of fire, insects, and 
diseases.''
  So since we have that provision in the bill, I am hoping that the 
gentleman will join the bill, and I certainly hope that my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle will do the same, because I think this 
bill strikes the right balance in terms of protecting these incredible 
public lands and doing so in a way that ensures that we are not at risk 
of a wildfire and mitigating as best as we can.

  I would also tell the gentleman, of the 400,000 acres in the bill--
and I look forward to bringing my colleague from Arkansas to Colorado 
to see these public lands--only 73,000 of them would be designated as 
wilderness in this bill, and many of those acres are actually above the 
tree line or otherwise unforested.
  So, I think the language of the bill addresses the gentleman's 
concerns, and I appreciate his raising them. I also very much 
appreciate his quoting a personal hero of mine, and I suspect a hero of 
many of the Members in this Chamber, and that is Teddy Roosevelt, who, 
of course, was an esteemed conservationist in his time.
  I will share a quote that I have found to be very compelling: ``Here 
is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural 
resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for 
your children and your children's children.
  ``Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its 
beauty, its riches or its romance.
  Madam Chair, it is important that we not lose sight of the bigger 
picture, which is that this bill is protecting iconic places like the 
Thompson Divide in Colorado from oil and gas development.
  The ranchers, the citizens of that community, they have been waiting 
an awfully long time for the protections in this bill, which is why I 
am so proud to be able to carry the baton for them in the CORE Act.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I am ready to close, if that is where the 
gentleman from Colorado stands, also.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I am ready to close as well.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, let me say that I am informed that Garfield and Montrose 
Counties, although they are comfortable with certain portions of the 
bill, are not willing to endorse the bill as a whole.
  Also, I want to say that Colorado Springs Utilities in my district, 
representing about half a million people, and the Aurora Water District 
have raised concerns that the Camp Hale National Historic Landscape 
designation will negatively impact their existing and future water 
rights. These concerns have gone unaddressed.
  I finish by stating what the administration, the Office of Management 
and Budget, says about this bill, which means, basically, that they 
have concerns that, if not addressed, will result in a veto of this 
bill, and it will not become law.
  ``The administration opposes H.R. 823, the Colorado Outdoor 
Recreation and Economy Act. This bill would impose land restrictions on 
nearly 400,000 acres of land in Colorado and would reduce areas open 
for motorized recreation. The administration has pledged to expand 
access to America's public lands; increase hunting, fishing, and 
recreational opportunities nationwide; and enhance conservation 
stewardship. H.R. 823, however, would not achieve these goals in a 
balanced way, and the administration opposes it as it is currently 
drafted.''
  It goes on to say, among other things, ``Rural communities have 
raised concerns that the land-use restrictions included in H.R. 823 
would have negative effects on local economies, and, as evidenced by 
the committee process, it appears that local sentiment has not been 
adequately taken into account when developing this bill. The 
administration, therefore, opposes H.R. 823 in its current form, but it 
is willing to work with the Congress to improve it if the bill is 
considered further.''
  So if it were presented to the President in its current form, his 
advisers would recommend he veto it.
  I also have the understanding that the Senate will not take up this 
bill either.
  Maybe it is an interesting exercise that we are doing here, but it is 
not

[[Page H8652]]

anything that is going to result in a law.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's move 
on from here. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, it is important that we not divorce ourselves from the 
fate of this legislation. Whether it will become law or not is 
dependent on each and every one of us and where we stand on the bill.
  While I have great respect for my colleague from Colorado Springs, I 
think it is fitting that the closing that he offered cited President 
Trump and his threatened veto letter.
  For me, and for the people I represent, for the citizens of my State, 
this bill is not about the President. It is not about any of us in this 
Chamber. It is about them and the public lands that they are so blessed 
to have in their respective communities.
  I said this earlier--I will say it again--as a freshman lawmaker, I 
understand that I have not been in Congress long, but these pieces of 
legislation have been.
  Public lands are at the heart of who we are as Coloradans. You heard 
the dean of our delegation talk about our recent poll where 73 percent 
of Coloradans consider themselves outdoor recreation enthusiasts. 
Whether they live in Gunnison, Glenwood Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins, 
Eagle County, Summit County, and everywhere in between, 73 percent say 
the ability to live near, recreate on, and enjoy public lands, like 
national forests, parks, and trails, is a significant reason why they 
live in the West.
  Ninety percent believe that the outdoor recreation economy is 
important to the future of Colorado. It is why so many have labored on 
various components of this bill for so long--my predecessor, then-
Congressman, now-Governor Jared Polis; former Senator Mark Udall; 
former Congressman John Salazar; and, of course, Senator Bennet today 
leading this companion legislation in the Senate; and the countless 
county commissioners, mayors, city councilors, town trustees, 
conservationists, and ranchers who have worked to build consensus on 
this bill, literally for a decade.
  Many of them traveled here just a few months ago when we had a robust 
debate in the Committee on Natural Resources, and we were able to mark 
up this bill and send it here to the floor. They deserve to have their 
voices heard.
  My colleagues can say as often as they would like that there are 
local voices missing or ignored, but that does not make it true. We 
know that the communities impacted by this bill support it. That is a 
fact. There can be no dispute about that.
  We know that strong policy requires compromise, years of input, and, 
yes, vigorous debate. I am happy to participate in that debate, but the 
people of Colorado have made their voices clear on protecting these 
public lands.
  I mentioned the stakeholder process that we have been engaged in, 
that the communities have been engaged in, that this State has been 
engaged in for a decade, regardless of what party was in power or what 
election year. It was local communities and stakeholders coming to the 
table to craft the designations that you see on the map to protect 
these wonderful iconic places that you see to my right. They have been 
advocating for far too long not to see action from their elected 
officials.
  Madam Chair, it is time that Congress listen to the people of 
Colorado and vote to protect the places that my home State hold so 
dear. It is time to hold ourselves accountable. It is time we pass the 
CORE Act.
  Madam Chair, I urge swift adoption of H.R. 823, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 116-264, shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute 
rule, and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 823

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Colorado 
     Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of state.

                      TITLE I--CONTINENTAL DIVIDE

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Colorado Wilderness additions.
Sec. 103. Williams Fork Mountains Wilderness.
Sec. 104. Tenmile Recreation Management Area.
Sec. 105. Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area.
Sec. 106. Williams Fork Mountains Wildlife Conservation Area.
Sec. 107. Camp Hale National Historic Landscape.
Sec. 108. White River National Forest Boundary modification.
Sec. 109. Rocky Mountain National Park Potential Wilderness Boundary 
              adjustment.
Sec. 110. Administrative provisions.

                      TITLE II--SAN JUAN MOUNTAINS

Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. Additions to National Wilderness Preservation System.
Sec. 203. Special management areas.
Sec. 204. Release of wilderness study areas.
Sec. 205. Administrative provisions.

                       TITLE III--THOMPSON DIVIDE

Sec. 301. Purposes.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Area.
Sec. 304. Thompson Divide lease exchange.
Sec. 305. Greater Thompson Divide Fugitive Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot 
              Program.
Sec. 306. Effect.

              TITLE IV--CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Curecanti National Recreation Area.
Sec. 403. Acquisition of land; boundary management.
Sec. 404. General management plan.
Sec. 405. Boundary survey.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF STATE.

       In this Act, the term ``State'' means the State of 
     Colorado.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

                      TITLE I--CONTINENTAL DIVIDE

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Covered area.--The term ``covered area'' means any area 
     designated as wilderness by the amendments to section 2(a) of 
     the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 
     Public Law 103-77) made by section 102(a).
       (2) Historic landscape.--The term ``Historic Landscape'' 
     means the Camp Hale National Historic Landscape designated by 
     section 107(a).
       (3) Recreation management area.--The term ``Recreation 
     Management Area'' means the Tenmile Recreation Management 
     Area designated by section 104(a).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (5) Wildlife conservation area.--The term ``Wildlife 
     Conservation Area'' means, as applicable--
       (A) the Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area 
     designated by section 105(a); and
       (B) the Williams Fork Mountains Wildlife Conservation Area 
     designated by section 106(a).

     SEC. 102. COLORADO WILDERNESS ADDITIONS.

       (a) Designation.--Section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness 
     Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (18), by striking ``1993,'' and inserting 
     ``1993, and certain Federal land within the White River 
     National Forest that comprises approximately 6,896 acres, as 
     generally depicted as `Proposed Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness 
     Additions' on the map entitled `Proposed Ptarmigan Peak 
     Wilderness Additions' and dated June 24, 2019,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) Holy cross wilderness addition.--Certain Federal 
     land within the White River National Forest that comprises 
     approximately 3,866 acres, as generally depicted as `Proposed 
     Megan Dickie Wilderness Addition' on the map entitled `Holy 
     Cross Wilderness Addition Proposal' and dated June 24, 2019, 
     which shall be incorporated into, and managed as part of, the 
     Holy Cross Wilderness designated by section 102(a)(5) of 
     Public Law 96-560 (94 Stat. 3266).
       ``(24) Hoosier ridge wilderness.--Certain Federal land 
     within the White River National Forest that comprises 
     approximately 5,235 acres, as generally depicted as `Proposed 
     Hoosier Ridge Wilderness' on the map entitled `Tenmile 
     Proposal' and dated June 24, 2019, which shall be known as 
     the `Hoosier Ridge Wilderness'.
       ``(25) Tenmile wilderness.--Certain Federal land within the 
     White River National Forest

[[Page H8653]]

     that comprises approximately 7,624 acres, as generally 
     depicted as `Proposed Tenmile Wilderness' on the map entitled 
     `Tenmile Proposal' and dated June 24, 2019, which shall be 
     known as the `Tenmile Wilderness'.
       ``(26) Eagles nest wilderness additions.--Certain Federal 
     land within the White River National Forest that comprises 
     approximately 9,670 acres, as generally depicted as `Proposed 
     Freeman Creek Wilderness Addition' and `Proposed Spraddle 
     Creek Wilderness Addition' on the map entitled `Eagles Nest 
     Wilderness Additions Proposal' and dated June 24, 2019, which 
     shall be incorporated into, and managed as part of, the 
     Eagles Nest Wilderness designated by Public Law 94-352 (90 
     Stat. 870).''.
       (b) Applicable Law.--Any reference in the Wilderness Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) to the effective date of that Act 
     shall be considered to be a reference to the date of 
     enactment of this Act for purposes of administering a covered 
     area.
       (c) Fire, Insects, and Diseases.--In accordance with 
     section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), 
     the Secretary may carry out any activity in a covered area 
     that the Secretary determines to be necessary for the control 
     of fire, insects, and diseases, subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (d) Grazing.--The grazing of livestock on a covered area, 
     if established before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable 
     regulations as are considered to be necessary by the 
     Secretary, in accordance with--
       (1) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1133(d)(4)); and
       (2) the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of the report of 
     the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress 
     (H. Rept. 101-405).
       (e) Coordination.--For purposes of administering the 
     Federal land designated as wilderness by paragraph (26) of 
     section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 
     U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) (as added by subsection 
     (a)(2)), the Secretary shall, as determined to be appropriate 
     for the protection of watersheds, coordinate the activities 
     of the Secretary in response to fires and flooding events 
     with interested State and local agencies, including 
     operations using aircraft or mechanized equipment.

     SEC. 103. WILLIAMS FORK MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS.

       (a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), certain Federal land 
     in the White River National Forest in the State, comprising 
     approximately 8,036 acres and generally depicted as 
     ``Proposed Williams Fork Mountains Wilderness'' on the map 
     entitled ``Williams Fork Mountains Proposal'' and dated June 
     24, 2019, is designated as a potential wilderness area.
       (b) Management.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     except as provided in subsection (d), the potential 
     wilderness area designated by subsection (a) shall be managed 
     in accordance with--
       (1) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
       (2) this section.
       (c) Livestock Use of Vacant Allotments.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, in accordance with applicable laws 
     (including regulations), the Secretary shall publish a 
     determination regarding whether to authorize livestock 
     grazing or other use by livestock on the vacant allotments 
     known as--
       (A) the ``Big Hole Allotment''; and
       (B) the ``Blue Ridge Allotment''.
       (2) Modification of allotments.--In publishing a 
     determination pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     modify or combine the vacant allotments referred to in that 
     paragraph.
       (3) Permit or other authorization.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date on which a determination of the Secretary to 
     authorize livestock grazing or other use by livestock is 
     published under paragraph (1), if applicable, the Secretary 
     shall grant a permit or other authorization for that 
     livestock grazing or other use in accordance with applicable 
     laws (including regulations).
       (d) Range Improvements.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary permits livestock grazing 
     or other use by livestock on the potential wilderness area 
     under subsection (c), the Secretary, or a third party 
     authorized by the Secretary, may use any motorized or 
     mechanized transport or equipment for purposes of 
     constructing or rehabilitating such range improvements as are 
     necessary to obtain appropriate livestock management 
     objectives (including habitat and watershed restoration).
       (2) Termination of authority.--The authority provided by 
     this subsection terminates on the date that is 2 years after 
     the date on which the Secretary publishes a positive 
     determination under subsection (c)(3).
       (e) Designation as Wilderness.--
       (1) Designation.--The potential wilderness area designated 
     by subsection (a) shall be designated as wilderness, to be 
     known as the ``Williams Fork Mountains Wilderness''--
       (A) effective not earlier than the date that is 180 days 
     after the date of enactment this Act; and
       (B) on the earliest of--
       (i) the date on which the Secretary publishes in the 
     Federal Register a notice that the construction or 
     rehabilitation of range improvements under subsection (d) is 
     complete;
       (ii) the date described in subsection (d)(2); and
       (iii) the effective date of a determination of the 
     Secretary not to authorize livestock grazing or other use by 
     livestock under subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Secretary shall manage the Williams Fork Mountains Wilderness 
     in accordance with--
       (A) the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 
     note; Public Law 103-77); and
       (B) this title.

     SEC. 104. TENMILE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA.

       (a) Designation.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     approximately 17,122 acres of Federal land in the White River 
     National Forest in the State, as generally depicted as 
     ``Proposed Tenmile Recreation Management Area'' on the map 
     entitled ``Tenmile Proposal'' and dated June 24, 2019, are 
     designated as the ``Tenmile Recreation Management Area''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Recreation Management 
     Area are to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit 
     and enjoyment of present and future generations the 
     recreational, scenic, watershed, habitat, and ecological 
     resources of the Recreation Management Area.
       (c) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Recreation 
     Management Area--
       (A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances--
       (i) the purposes of the Recreation Management Area 
     described in subsection (b); and
       (ii) recreation opportunities, including mountain biking, 
     hiking, fishing, horseback riding, snowshoeing, climbing, 
     skiing, camping, and hunting; and
       (B) in accordance with--
       (i) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.);
       (ii) any other applicable laws (including regulations); and
       (iii) this section.
       (2) Uses.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall only allow such uses 
     of the Recreation Management Area as the Secretary determines 
     would further the purposes described in subsection (b).
       (B) Vehicles.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the 
     use of motorized vehicles in the Recreation Management Area 
     shall be limited to the roads, vehicle classes, and periods 
     authorized for motorized vehicle use on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (ii) New or temporary roads.--Except as provided in clause 
     (iii), no new or temporary road shall be constructed in the 
     Recreation Management Area.
       (iii) Exceptions.--Nothing in clause (i) or (ii) prevents 
     the Secretary from--

       (I) rerouting or closing an existing road or trail to 
     protect natural resources from degradation, as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate;
       (II) authorizing the use of motorized vehicles for 
     administrative purposes or roadside camping;
       (III) constructing temporary roads or permitting the use of 
     motorized vehicles to carry out pre- or post-fire watershed 
     protection projects;
       (IV) authorizing the use of motorized vehicles to carry out 
     any activity described in subsection (d), (e)(1), or (f); or
       (V) responding to an emergency.

       (C) Commercial timber.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), no project shall 
     be carried out in the Recreation Management Area for the 
     purpose of harvesting commercial timber.
       (ii) Limitation.--Nothing in clause (i) prevents the 
     Secretary from harvesting or selling a merchantable product 
     that is a byproduct of an activity authorized under this 
     section.
       (d) Fire, Insects, and Diseases.--The Secretary may carry 
     out any activity, in accordance with applicable laws 
     (including regulations), that the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary to prevent, control, or mitigate fire, insects, or 
     disease in the Recreation Management Area, subject to such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (e) Water.--
       (1) Effect on water management infrastructure.--Nothing in 
     this section affects the construction, repair, 
     reconstruction, replacement, operation, maintenance, or 
     renovation within the Recreation Management Area of--
       (A) water management infrastructure in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) any future infrastructure necessary for the development 
     or exercise of water rights decreed before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Applicable law.--Section 3(e) of the James Peak 
     Wilderness and Protection Area Act (Public Law 107-216; 116 
     Stat. 1058) shall apply to the Recreation Management Area.
       (f) Regional Transportation Projects.--Nothing in this 
     section precludes the Secretary from authorizing, in 
     accordance with applicable laws (including regulations), the 
     use or leasing of Federal land within the Recreation 
     Management Area for--
       (1) a regional transportation project, including--
       (A) highway widening or realignment; and
       (B) construction of multimodal transportation systems; or
       (2) any infrastructure, activity, or safety measure 
     associated with the implementation or use of a facility 
     constructed under paragraph (1).
       (g) Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section affects the 
     designation of the Federal land within the Recreation 
     Management Area for purposes of--
       (1) section 138 of title 23, United States Code; or
       (2) section 303 of title 49, United States Code.
       (h) Permits.--Nothing in this section alters or limits--
       (1) any permit held by a ski area or other entity; or
       (2) the acceptance, review, or implementation of associated 
     activities or facilities proposed or authorized by law or 
     permit outside the boundaries of the Recreation Management 
     Area.

[[Page H8654]]

  


     SEC. 105. PORCUPINE GULCH WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AREA.

       (a) Designation.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     approximately 8,287 acres of Federal land located in the 
     White River National Forest, as generally depicted as 
     ``Proposed Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area'' on 
     the map entitled ``Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area 
     Proposal'' and dated June 24, 2019, are designated as the 
     ``Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area'' (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Wildlife Conservation Area'').
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Wildlife Conservation 
     Area are--
       (1) to conserve and protect a wildlife migration corridor 
     over Interstate 70; and
       (2) to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and 
     enjoyment of present and future generations the wildlife, 
     scenic, roadless, watershed, and ecological resources of the 
     Wildlife Conservation Area.
       (c) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Wildlife 
     Conservation Area--
       (A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the 
     purposes described in subsection (b); and
       (B) in accordance with--
       (i) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.);
       (ii) any other applicable laws (including regulations); and
       (iii) this section.
       (2) Uses.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall only allow such uses 
     of the Wildlife Conservation Area as the Secretary determines 
     would further the purposes described in subsection (b).
       (B) Recreation.--The Secretary may permit such recreational 
     activities in the Wildlife Conservation Area that the 
     Secretary determines are consistent with the purposes 
     described in subsection (b).
       (C) Motorized vehicles and mechanized transport; new or 
     temporary roads.--
       (i) Motorized vehicles and mechanized transport.--Except as 
     provided in clause (iii), the use of motorized vehicles and 
     mechanized transport in the Wildlife Conservation Area shall 
     be prohibited.
       (ii) New or temporary roads.--Except as provided in clause 
     (iii) and subsection (e), no new or temporary road shall be 
     constructed within the Wildlife Conservation Area.
       (iii) Exceptions.--Nothing in clause (i) or (ii) prevents 
     the Secretary from--

       (I) authorizing the use of motorized vehicles or mechanized 
     transport for administrative purposes;
       (II) constructing temporary roads or permitting the use of 
     motorized vehicles or mechanized transport to carry out pre- 
     or post-fire watershed protection projects;
       (III) authorizing the use of motorized vehicles or 
     mechanized transport to carry out activities described in 
     subsection (d) or (e); or
       (IV) responding to an emergency.

       (D) Commercial timber.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), no project shall 
     be carried out in the Wildlife Conservation Area for the 
     purpose of harvesting commercial timber.
       (ii) Limitation.--Nothing in clause (i) prevents the 
     Secretary from harvesting or selling a merchantable product 
     that is a byproduct of an activity authorized under this 
     section.
       (d) Fire, Insects, and Diseases.--The Secretary may carry 
     out any activity, in accordance with applicable laws 
     (including regulations), that the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary to prevent, control, or mitigate fire, insects, or 
     disease in the Wildlife Conservation Area, subject to such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (e) Regional Transportation Projects.--Nothing in this 
     section or section 110(e) precludes the Secretary from 
     authorizing, in accordance with applicable laws (including 
     regulations), the use or leasing of Federal land within the 
     Wildlife Conservation Area for--
       (1) a regional transportation project, including--
       (A) highway widening or realignment; and
       (B) construction of multimodal transportation systems; or
       (2) any infrastructure, activity, or safety measure 
     associated with the implementation or use of a facility 
     constructed under paragraph (1).
       (f) Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section affects the 
     designation of the Federal land within the Wildlife 
     Conservation Area for purposes of--
       (1) section 138 of title 23, United States Code; or
       (2) section 303 of title 49, United States Code.
       (g) Water.--Section 3(e) of the James Peak Wilderness and 
     Protection Area Act (Public Law 107-216; 116 Stat. 1058) 
     shall apply to the Wildlife Conservation Area.

     SEC. 106. WILLIAMS FORK MOUNTAINS WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AREA.

       (a) Designation.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     approximately 3,528 acres of Federal land in the White River 
     National Forest in the State, as generally depicted as 
     ``Proposed Williams Fork Mountains Wildlife Conservation 
     Area'' on the map entitled ``Williams Fork Mountains 
     Proposal'' and dated June 24, 2019, are designated as the 
     ``Williams Fork Mountains Wildlife Conservation Area'' 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Wildlife Conservation 
     Area'').
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Wildlife Conservation 
     Area are to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit 
     and enjoyment of present and future generations the wildlife, 
     scenic, roadless, watershed, recreational, and ecological 
     resources of the Wildlife Conservation Area.
       (c) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Wildlife 
     Conservation Area--
       (A) in a manner that conserves, protects, and enhances the 
     purposes described in subsection (b); and
       (B) in accordance with--
       (i) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 
     Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.);
       (ii) any other applicable laws (including regulations); and
       (iii) this section.
       (2) Uses.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall only allow such uses 
     of the Wildlife Conservation Area as the Secretary determines 
     would further the purposes described in subsection (b).
       (B) Motorized vehicles.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the 
     use of motorized vehicles in the Wildlife Conservation Area 
     shall be limited to designated roads and trails.
       (ii) New or temporary roads.--Except as provided in clause 
     (iii), no new or temporary road shall be constructed in the 
     Wildlife Conservation Area.
       (iii) Exceptions.--Nothing in clause (i) or (ii) prevents 
     the Secretary from--

       (I) authorizing the use of motorized vehicles for 
     administrative purposes;
       (II) authorizing the use of motorized vehicles to carry out 
     activities described in subsection (d); or
       (III) responding to an emergency.

       (C) Bicycles.--The use of bicycles in the Wildlife 
     Conservation Area shall be limited to designated roads and 
     trails.
       (D) Commercial timber.--
       (i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), no project shall 
     be carried out in the Wildlife Conservation Area for the 
     purpose of harvesting commercial timber.
       (ii) Limitation.--Nothing in clause (i) prevents the 
     Secretary from harvesting or selling a merchantable product 
     that is a byproduct of an activity authorized under this 
     section.
       (E) Grazing.--The laws (including regulations) and policies 
     followed by the Secretary in issuing and administering 
     grazing permits or leases on land under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary shall continue to apply with regard to the land 
     in the Wildlife Conservation Area, consistent with the 
     purposes described in subsection (b).
       (d) Fire, Insects, and Diseases.--The Secretary may carry 
     out any activity, in accordance with applicable laws 
     (including regulations), that the Secretary determines to be 
     necessary to prevent, control, or mitigate fire, insects, or 
     disease in the Wildlife Conservation Area, subject to such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (e) Regional Transportation Projects.--Nothing in this 
     section or section 110(e) precludes the Secretary from 
     authorizing, in accordance with applicable laws (including 
     regulations), the use or leasing of Federal land within the 
     Wildlife Conservation Area for--
       (1) a regional transportation project, including--
       (A) highway widening or realignment; and
       (B) construction of multimodal transportation systems; or
       (2) any infrastructure, activity, or safety measure 
     associated with the implementation or use of a facility 
     constructed under paragraph (1).
       (f) Water.--Section 3(e) of the James Peak Wilderness and 
     Protection Area Act (Public Law 107-216; 116 Stat. 1058) 
     shall apply to the Wildlife Conservation Area.

     SEC. 107. CAMP HALE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDSCAPE.

       (a) Designation.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     approximately 28,676 acres of Federal land in the White River 
     National Forest in the State, as generally depicted as 
     ``Proposed Camp Hale National Historic Landscape'' on the map 
     entitled ``Camp Hale National Historic Landscape Proposal'' 
     and dated June 24, 2019, are designated the ``Camp Hale 
     National Historic Landscape''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Historic Landscape are--
       (1) to provide for--
       (A) the interpretation of historic events, activities, 
     structures, and artifacts of the Historic Landscape, 
     including with respect to the role of the Historic Landscape 
     in local, national, and world history;
       (B) the historic preservation of the Historic Landscape, 
     consistent with--
       (i) the designation of the Historic Landscape as a national 
     historic site; and
       (ii) the other purposes of the Historic Landscape;
       (C) recreational opportunities, with an emphasis on the 
     activities related to the historic use of the Historic 
     Landscape, including skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, 
     hiking, horseback riding, climbing, other road- and trail-
     based activities, and other outdoor activities; and
       (D) the continued environmental remediation and removal of 
     unexploded ordnance at the Camp Hale Formerly Used Defense 
     Site and the Camp Hale historic cantonment area; and
       (2) to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance for the 
     benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the 
     scenic, watershed, and ecological resources of the Historic 
     Landscape.
       (c) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Historic 
     Landscape in accordance with--
       (A) the purposes of the Historic Landscape described in 
     subsection (b); and
       (B) any other applicable laws (including regulations).
       (2) Management plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare a 
     management plan for the Historic Landscape.

[[Page H8655]]

       (B) Contents.--The management plan prepared under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include plans for--
       (i) improving the interpretation of historic events, 
     activities, structures, and artifacts of the Historic 
     Landscape, including with respect to the role of the Historic 
     Landscape in local, national, and world history;
       (ii) conducting historic preservation activities;
       (iii) managing recreational opportunities, including the 
     use and stewardship of--

       (I) the road and trail systems; and
       (II) dispersed recreation resources;

       (iv) the conservation, protection, restoration, or 
     enhancement of the scenic, watershed, and ecological 
     resources of the Historic Landscape, including conducting the 
     restoration and enhancement project under subsection (d); and
       (v) environmental remediation and, consistent with 
     subsection (e)(2), the removal of unexploded ordnance.
       (3) Explosive hazards.--The Secretary shall provide to the 
     Secretary of the Army a notification of any unexploded 
     ordnance (as defined in section 101(e) of title 10, United 
     States Code) that is discovered in the Historic Landscape.
       (d) Camp Hale Restoration and Enhancement Project.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a restoration 
     and enhancement project in the Historic Landscape--
       (A) to improve aquatic, riparian, and wetland conditions in 
     and along the Eagle River and tributaries of the Eagle River;
       (B) to maintain or improve recreation and interpretive 
     opportunities and facilities; and
       (C) to conserve historic values in the Camp Hale area.
       (2) Coordination.--In carrying out the project described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall coordinate with--
       (A) the United States Army Corps of Engineers;
       (B) the Camp Hale-Eagle River Headwaters Collaborative 
     Group;
       (C) the National Forest Foundation;
       (D) the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
     Environment;
       (E) the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office;
       (F) units of local government; and
       (G) other interested organizations and members of the 
     public.
       (e) Environmental Remediation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army shall continue 
     to carry out the projects and activities of the Department of 
     the Army in existence on the date of enactment of this Act 
     relating to cleanup of--
       (A) the Camp Hale Formerly Used Defense Site; or
       (B) the Camp Hale historic cantonment area.
       (2) Removal of unexploded ordnance.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Army may remove 
     unexploded ordnance (as defined in section 101(e) of title 
     10, United States Code) from the Historic Landscape, as the 
     Secretary of the Army determines to be appropriate in 
     accordance with applicable law (including regulations).
       (B) Action on receipt of notice.--On receipt from the 
     Secretary of a notification of unexploded ordnance under 
     subsection (c)(3), the Secretary of the Army may remove the 
     unexploded ordnance in accordance with--
       (i) the program for environmental restoration of formerly 
     used defense sites under section 2701 of title 10, United 
     States Code;
       (ii) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.); and
       (iii) any other applicable provision of law (including 
     regulations).
       (3) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection 
     modifies any obligation in existence on the date of enactment 
     of this Act relating to environmental remediation or removal 
     of any unexploded ordnance located in or around the Camp Hale 
     historic cantonment area, the Camp Hale Formerly Used Defense 
     Site, or the Historic Landscape, including such an obligation 
     under--
       (A) the program for environmental restoration of formerly 
     used defense sites under section 2701 of title 10, United 
     States Code;
       (B) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
     and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.); or
       (C) any other applicable provision of law (including 
     regulations).
       (f) Interagency Agreement.--The Secretary and the Secretary 
     of the Army shall enter into an agreement--
       (1) to specify--
       (A) the activities of the Secretary relating to the 
     management of the Historic Landscape; and
       (B) the activities of the Secretary of the Army relating to 
     environmental remediation and the removal of unexploded 
     ordnance in accordance with subsection (e) and other 
     applicable laws (including regulations); and
       (2) to require the Secretary to provide to the Secretary of 
     the Army, by not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and periodically thereafter, as 
     appropriate, a management plan for the Historic Landscape for 
     purposes of the removal activities described in subsection 
     (e).
       (g) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) affects the jurisdiction of the State over any water 
     law, water right, or adjudication or administration relating 
     to any water resource;
       (2) affects any water right in existence on or after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, or the exercise of such a 
     water right, including--
       (A) a water right under an interstate water compact 
     (including full development of any apportionment made in 
     accordance with such a compact);
       (B) a water right decreed within, above, below, or through 
     the Historic Landscape;
       (C) a water right held by the United States;
       (D) the management or operation of any reservoir, including 
     the storage, management, release, or transportation of water; 
     and
       (E) the construction or operation of such infrastructure as 
     is determined to be necessary by an individual or entity 
     holding water rights to develop and place to beneficial use 
     those rights, subject to applicable Federal, State, and local 
     law (including regulations);
       (3) constitutes an express or implied reservation by the 
     United States of any reserved or appropriative water right;
       (4) alters or limits--
       (A) a permit held by a ski area;
       (B) the implementation of activities governed by a ski area 
     permit; or
       (C) the authority of the Secretary to modify or expand an 
     existing ski area permit;
       (5) prevents the Secretary from closing portions of the 
     Historic Landscape for public safety, environmental 
     remediation, or other use in accordance with applicable laws; 
     or
       (6) affects--
       (A) any special use permit in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (B) the renewal of a permit described in subparagraph (A).
       (h) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the general fund 
     of the Treasury a special account, to be known as the ``Camp 
     Hale Historic Preservation and Restoration Fund''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Camp Hale Historic Preservation and 
     Restoration Fund $10,000,000, to be available to the 
     Secretary until expended, for activities relating to historic 
     interpretation, preservation, and restoration carried out in 
     and around the Historic Landscape.
       (i) Designation of Overlook.--The interpretive site located 
     beside United States Route 24 in the State, at 39.431N 
     106.323W, is hereby designated as the `'Sandy Treat 
     Overlook''.

     SEC. 108. WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--The boundary of the White River National 
     Forest is modified to include the approximately 120 acres 
     comprised of the SW 1/4, the SE 1/4, and the NE 1/4 of the SE 
     1/4 of sec. 1, T. 2 S., R. 80 W., 6th Principal Meridian, in 
     Summit County in the State.
       (b) Land and Water Conservation Fund.--For purposes of 
     section 200306 of title 54, United States Code, the 
     boundaries of the White River National Forest, as modified 
     under subsection (a), shall be considered to be the 
     boundaries of the White River National Forest as in existence 
     on January 1, 1965.

     SEC. 109. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK POTENTIAL WILDERNESS 
                   BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     the ongoing maintenance and use of portions of the Trail 
     River Ranch and the associated property located within Rocky 
     Mountain National Park in Grand County in the State.
       (b) Boundary Adjustment.--Section 1952(b) of the Omnibus 
     Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 
     Stat. 1070) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Boundary adjustment.--The boundary of the Potential 
     Wilderness is modified to exclude the area comprising 
     approximately 15.5 acres of land identified as `Potential 
     Wilderness to Non-wilderness' on the map entitled `Rocky 
     Mountain National Park Proposed Wilderness Area Amendment' 
     and dated January 16, 2018.''.

     SEC. 110. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Fish and Wildlife.--Nothing in this title affects the 
     jurisdiction or responsibility of the State with respect to 
     fish and wildlife in the State.
       (b) No Buffer Zones.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this title or an amendment made 
     by this title establishes a protective perimeter or buffer 
     zone around--
       (A) a covered area;
       (B) a wilderness area or potential wilderness area 
     designated by section 103;
       (C) the Recreation Management Area;
       (D) a Wildlife Conservation Area; or
       (E) the Historic Landscape.
       (2) Outside activities.--The fact that a nonwilderness 
     activity or use on land outside of a covered area can be seen 
     or heard from within the covered area shall not preclude the 
     activity or use outside the boundary of the covered area.
       (c) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file maps and 
     legal descriptions of each area described in subsection 
     (b)(1) with--
       (A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Force of law.--Each map and legal description filed 
     under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this title, except that the Secretary may 
     correct any typographical errors in the maps and legal 
     descriptions.
       (3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the appropriate offices of the Forest 
     Service.
       (d) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire any land or 
     interest in land within the boundaries of an area described 
     in subsection (b)(1) only through exchange, donation, or 
     purchase from a willing seller.
       (2) Management.--Any land or interest in land acquired 
     under paragraph (1) shall be incorporated into, and 
     administered as a part of, the wilderness area, Recreation 
     Management Area, Wildlife Conservation Area, or Historic 
     Landscape, as applicable, in which the land or interest in 
     land is located.
       (e) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act,

[[Page H8656]]

     the areas described in subsection (b)(1) are withdrawn from--
       (1) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public 
     land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under mining laws; and
       (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.
       (f) Military Overflights.--Nothing in this title or an 
     amendment made by this title restricts or precludes--
       (1) any low-level overflight of military aircraft over any 
     area subject to this title or an amendment made by this 
     title, including military overflights that can be seen, 
     heard, or detected within such an area;
       (2) flight testing or evaluation over an area described in 
     paragraph (1); or
       (3) the use or establishment of--
       (A) any new unit of special use airspace over an area 
     described in paragraph (1); or
       (B) any military flight training or transportation over 
     such an area.

                      TITLE II--SAN JUAN MOUNTAINS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Covered land.--The term ``covered land'' means--
       (A) land designated as wilderness under paragraphs (27) 
     through (29) of section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act 
     of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) (as added by 
     section 202); and
       (B) a Special Management Area.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (3) Special management area.--The term ``Special Management 
     Area'' means each of--
       (A) the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area designated 
     by section 203(a)(1); and
       (B) the Liberty Bell East Special Management Area 
     designated by section 203(a)(2).

     SEC. 202. ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 
                   SYSTEM.

       Section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 
     U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) (as amended by section 
     102(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(27) Lizard head wilderness addition.--Certain Federal 
     land in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National 
     Forests comprising approximately 3,141 acres, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled `Proposed Wilson, Sunshine, 
     Black Face and San Bernardo Additions to the Lizard Head 
     Wilderness' and dated September 6, 2018, which is 
     incorporated in, and shall be administered as part of, the 
     Lizard Head Wilderness.
       ``(28) Mount sneffels wilderness additions.--
       ``(A) Liberty bell and last dollar additions.--Certain 
     Federal land in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison 
     National Forests comprising approximately 7,235 acres, as 
     generally depicted on the map entitled `Proposed Liberty Bell 
     and Last Dollar Additions to the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness, 
     Liberty Bell East Special Management Area' and dated 
     September 6, 2018, which is incorporated in, and shall be 
     administered as part of, the Mount Sneffels Wilderness.
       ``(B) Whitehouse additions.--Certain Federal land in the 
     Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests 
     comprising approximately 12,465 acres, as generally depicted 
     on the map entitled `Proposed Whitehouse Additions to the Mt. 
     Sneffels Wilderness' and dated September 6, 2018, which is 
     incorporated in, and shall be administered as part of, the 
     Mount Sneffels Wilderness.
       ``(29) Mckenna peak wilderness.--Certain Federal land in 
     the State of Colorado comprising approximately 8,884 acres of 
     Bureau of Land Management land, as generally depicted on the 
     map entitled `Proposed McKenna Peak Wilderness Area' and 
     dated September 18, 2018, to be known as the `McKenna Peak 
     Wilderness'.''.

     SEC. 203. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS.

       (a) Designation.--
       (1) Sheep mountain special management area.--The Federal 
     land in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison and San 
     Juan National Forests in the State comprising approximately 
     21,663 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Sheep Mountain Special Management Area'' and dated 
     September 19, 2018, is designated as the ``Sheep Mountain 
     Special Management Area''.
       (2) Liberty bell east special management area.--The Federal 
     land in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National 
     Forests in the State comprising approximately 792 acres, as 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Proposed Liberty 
     Bell and Last Dollar Additions to the Mt. Sneffels 
     Wilderness, Liberty Bell East Special Management Area'' and 
     dated September 6, 2018, is designated as the ``Liberty Bell 
     East Special Management Area''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Special Management Areas 
     is to conserve and protect for the benefit and enjoyment of 
     present and future generations the geological, cultural, 
     archaeological, paleontological, natural, scientific, 
     recreational, wilderness, wildlife, riparian, historical, 
     educational, and scenic resources of the Special Management 
     Areas.
       (c) Management.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall manage the Special 
     Management Areas in a manner that--
       (A) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources and 
     values of the Special Management Areas described in 
     subsection (b);
       (B) subject to paragraph (3), maintains or improves the 
     wilderness character of the Special Management Areas and the 
     suitability of the Special Management Areas for potential 
     inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System; and
       (C) is in accordance with--
       (i) the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     1600 et seq.);
       (ii) this title; and
       (iii) any other applicable laws.
       (2) Prohibitions.--The following shall be prohibited in the 
     Special Management Areas:
       (A) Permanent roads.
       (B) Except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements 
     for the administration of the Federal land, to provide access 
     for abandoned mine cleanup, and to protect public health and 
     safety--
       (i) the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, or 
     mechanical transport (other than as provided in paragraph 
     (3)); and
       (ii) the establishment of temporary roads.
       (3) Authorized activities.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may allow any activities 
     (including helicopter access for recreation and maintenance 
     and the competitive running event permitted since 1992) that 
     have been authorized by permit or license as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act to continue within the Special 
     Management Areas, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary may require.
       (B) Permitting.--The designation of the Special Management 
     Areas by subsection (a) shall not affect the issuance of 
     permits relating to the activities covered under subparagraph 
     (A) after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (C) Bicycles.--The Secretary may permit the use of bicycles 
     in--
       (i) the portion of the Sheep Mountain Special Management 
     Area identified as ``Ophir Valley Area'' on the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Sheep Mountain Special Management Area'' and dated 
     September 19, 2018; and
       (ii) the portion of the Liberty Bell East Special 
     Management Area identified as ``Liberty Bell Corridor'' on 
     the map entitled ``Proposed Liberty Bell and Last Dollar 
     Additions to the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness, Liberty Bell East 
     Special Management Area'' and dated September 6, 2018.
       (d) Applicable Law.--Water and water rights in the Special 
     Management Areas shall be administered in accordance with 
     section 8 of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (Public Law 
     103-77; 107 Stat. 762), except that, for purposes of this 
     Act--
       (1) any reference contained in that section to ``the lands 
     designated as wilderness by this Act'', ``the Piedra, 
     Roubideau, and Tabeguache areas identified in section 9 of 
     this Act, or the Bowen Gulch Protection Area or the Fossil 
     Ridge Recreation Management Area identified in sections 5 and 
     6 of this Act'', or ``the areas described in sections 2, 5, 
     6, and 9 of this Act'' shall be considered to be a reference 
     to ``the Special Management Areas''; and
       (2) any reference contained in that section to ``this Act'' 
     shall be considered to be a reference to ``the Colorado 
     Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act''.

     SEC. 204. RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS.

       (a) Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Study Area.--Subtitle E of 
     title II of Public Law 111-11 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 2408 (16 U.S.C. 460zzz-7) as 
     section 2409; and
       (2) by inserting after section 2407 (16 U.S.C. 460zzz-6) 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 2408. RELEASE.

       ``(a) In General.--Congress finds that, for the purposes of 
     section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)), the portions of the Dominguez 
     Canyon Wilderness Study Area not designated as wilderness by 
     this subtitle have been adequately studied for wilderness 
     designation.
       ``(b) Release.--Any public land referred to in subsection 
     (a) that is not designated as wilderness by this subtitle--
       ``(1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); 
     and
       ``(2) shall be managed in accordance with this subtitle and 
     any other applicable laws.''.
       (b) Mckenna Peak Wilderness Study Area.--
       (1) In general.--Congress finds that, for the purposes of 
     section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)), the portions of the McKenna Peak 
     Wilderness Study Area in San Miguel County in the State not 
     designated as wilderness by paragraph (29) of section 2(a) of 
     the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 
     Public Law 103-77) (as added by section 202) have been 
     adequately studied for wilderness designation.
       (2) Release.--Any public land referred to in paragraph (1) 
     that is not designated as wilderness by paragraph (29) of 
     section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 
     U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) (as added by section 
     202)--
       (A) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); 
     and
       (B) shall be managed in accordance with applicable laws.

     SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Fish and Wildlife.--Nothing in this title affects the 
     jurisdiction or responsibility of the State with respect to 
     fish and wildlife in the State.
       (b) No Buffer Zones.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this title establishes a 
     protective perimeter or buffer zone around covered land.
       (2) Activities outside wilderness.--The fact that a 
     nonwilderness activity or use on land outside of the covered 
     land can be seen or heard from within covered land shall not 
     preclude the activity or use outside the boundary of the 
     covered land.
       (c) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary or the Secretary of the 
     Interior, as appropriate,

[[Page H8657]]

     shall file a map and a legal description of each wilderness 
     area designated by paragraphs (27) through (29) of section 
     2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 
     note; Public Law 103-77) (as added by section 202) and the 
     Special Management Areas with--
       (A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Force of law.--Each map and legal description filed 
     under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as 
     if included in this title, except that the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, may correct any 
     typographical errors in the maps and legal descriptions.
       (3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the appropriate offices of the Bureau of 
     Land Management and the Forest Service.
       (d) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary or the Secretary of the 
     Interior, as appropriate, may acquire any land or interest in 
     land within the boundaries of a Special Management Area or 
     the wilderness designated under paragraphs (27) through (29) 
     of section 2(a) of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 
     U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) (as added by section 
     202) only through exchange, donation, or purchase from a 
     willing seller.
       (2) Management.--Any land or interest in land acquired 
     under paragraph (1) shall be incorporated into, and 
     administered as a part of, the wilderness or Special 
     Management Area in which the land or interest in land is 
     located.
       (e) Grazing.--The grazing of livestock on covered land, if 
     established before the date of enactment of this Act, shall 
     be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable 
     regulations as are considered to be necessary by the 
     Secretary with jurisdiction over the covered land, in 
     accordance with--
       (1) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1133(d)(4)); and
       (2) the applicable guidelines set forth in Appendix A of 
     the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
     of the House of Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 
     101st Congress (H. Rept. 101-405) or H.R. 5487 of the 96th 
     Congress (H. Rept. 96-617).
       (f) Fire, Insects, and Diseases.--In accordance with 
     section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), 
     the Secretary with jurisdiction over a wilderness area 
     designated by paragraphs (27) through (29) of section 2(a) of 
     the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 
     Public Law 103-77) (as added by section 202) may carry out 
     any activity in the wilderness area that the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary for the control of fire, insects, 
     and diseases, subject to such terms and conditions as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       (g) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the covered land and the 
     approximately 6,590 acres generally depicted on the map 
     entitled ``Proposed Naturita Canyon Mineral Withdrawal Area'' 
     and dated September 6, 2018, is withdrawn from--
       (1) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public 
     land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under mining laws; and
       (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.

                       TITLE III--THOMPSON DIVIDE

     SEC. 301. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) subject to valid existing rights, to withdraw certain 
     Federal land in the Thompson Divide area from mineral and 
     other disposal laws; and
       (2) to promote the capture of fugitive methane emissions 
     that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere--
       (A) to reduce methane gas emissions; and
       (B) to provide--
       (i) new renewable electricity supplies and other beneficial 
     uses of fugitive methane emissions; and
       (ii) increased royalties for taxpayers.

     SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Fugitive methane emissions.--The term ``fugitive 
     methane emissions'' means methane gas from those Federal 
     lands in Garfield, Gunnison, Delta, or Pitkin County in the 
     State generally depicted on the pilot program map as 
     ``Fugitive Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot Program Area'' that 
     would leak or be vented into the atmosphere from an active, 
     inactive or abandoned underground coal mine.
       (2) Pilot program.--The term ``pilot program'' means the 
     Greater Thompson Divide Fugitive Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot 
     Program established by section 305(a)(1).
       (3) Pilot program map.--The term ``pilot program map'' 
     means the map entitled ``Greater Thompson Divide Fugitive 
     Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot Program Area'' and dated June 17, 
     2019.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) Thompson divide lease.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Thompson Divide lease'' means 
     any oil or gas lease in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act within the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection 
     Area.
       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``Thompson Divide lease'' does 
     not include any oil or gas lease that--
       (i) is associated with a Wolf Creek Storage Field 
     development right; or
       (ii) before the date of enactment of this Act, has expired, 
     been cancelled, or otherwise terminated.
       (6) Thompson divide map.--The term ``Thompson Divide map'' 
     means the map entitled ``Greater Thompson Divide Area Map'' 
     and dated June 13, 2019.
       (7) Thompson divide withdrawal and protection area.--The 
     term ``Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Area'' means 
     the Federal land and minerals generally depicted on the 
     Thompson Divide map as the ``Thompson Divide Withdrawal and 
     Protection Area''.
       (8) Wolf creek storage field development right.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Wolf Creek Storage Field 
     development right'' means a development right for any of the 
     Federal mineral leases numbered COC 007496, COC 007497, COC 
     007498, COC 007499, COC 007500, COC 007538, COC 008128, COC 
     015373, COC 0128018, COC 051645, and COC 051646, and 
     generally depicted on the Thompson Divide map as ``Wolf Creek 
     Storage Agreement''.
       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``Wolf Creek Storage Field 
     development right'' does not include any storage right or 
     related activity within the area described in subparagraph 
     (A).

     SEC. 303. THOMPSON DIVIDE WITHDRAWAL AND PROTECTION AREA.

       (a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Area is withdrawn 
     from--
       (1) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public 
     land laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.
       (b) Surveys.--The exact acreage and legal description of 
     the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Area shall be 
     determined by surveys approved by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture.

     SEC. 304. THOMPSON DIVIDE LEASE EXCHANGE.

       (a) In General.--In exchange for the relinquishment by a 
     leaseholder of all Thompson Divide leases of the leaseholder, 
     the Secretary may issue to the leaseholder credits for any 
     bid, royalty, or rental payment due under any Federal oil or 
     gas lease on Federal land in the State, in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Amount of Credits.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount of 
     the credits issued to a leaseholder of a Thompson Divide 
     lease relinquished under subsection (a) shall--
       (A) be equal to the sum of--
       (i) the amount of the bonus bids paid for the applicable 
     Thompson Divide leases;
       (ii) the amount of any rental paid for the applicable 
     Thompson Divide leases as of the date on which the 
     leaseholder submits to the Secretary a notice of the decision 
     to relinquish the applicable Thompson Divide leases; and
       (iii) the amount of any expenses incurred by the 
     leaseholder of the applicable Thompson Divide leases in the 
     preparation of any drilling permit, sundry notice, or other 
     related submission in support of the development of the 
     applicable Thompson Divide leases as of January 28, 2019, 
     including any expenses relating to the preparation of any 
     analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (B) require the approval of the Secretary.
       (2) Exclusion.--The amount of a credit issued under 
     subsection (a) shall not include any expenses paid by the 
     leaseholder of a Thompson Divide lease for legal fees or 
     related expenses for legal work with respect to a Thompson 
     Divide lease.
       (c) Cancellation.--Effective on relinquishment under this 
     section, and without any additional action by the Secretary, 
     a Thompson Divide lease--
       (1) shall be permanently cancelled; and
       (2) shall not be reissued.
       (d) Conditions.--
       (1) Applicable law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, each exchange under this section shall be conducted 
     in accordance with--
       (A) this Act; and
       (B) other applicable laws (including regulations).
       (2) Acceptance of credits.--The Secretary shall accept 
     credits issued under subsection (a) in the same manner as 
     cash for the payments described in that subsection.
       (3) Applicability.--The use of a credit issued under 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the laws (including 
     regulations) applicable to the payments described in that 
     subsection, to the extent that the laws are consistent with 
     this section.
       (4) Treatment of credits.--All amounts in the form of 
     credits issued under subsection (a) accepted by the Secretary 
     shall be considered to be amounts received for the purposes 
     of--
       (A) section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191); 
     and
       (B) section 20 of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 
     U.S.C. 1019).
       (e) Wolf Creek Storage Field Development Rights.--
       (1) Conveyance to secretary.--As a condition precedent to 
     the relinquishment of a Thompson Divide lease, any 
     leaseholder with a Wolf Creek Storage Field development right 
     shall permanently relinquish, transfer, and otherwise convey 
     to the Secretary, in a form acceptable to the Secretary, all 
     Wolf Creek Storage Field development rights of the 
     leaseholder.
       (2) Limitation of transfer.--An interest acquired by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (1)--
       (A) shall be held in perpetuity; and
       (B) shall not be--
       (i) transferred;
       (ii) reissued; or
       (iii) otherwise used for mineral extraction.

     SEC. 305. GREATER THOMPSON DIVIDE FUGITIVE COAL MINE METHANE 
                   USE PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Fugitive Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Bureau of 
     Land Management a pilot program, to be known as the ``Greater 
     Thompson

[[Page H8658]]

     Divide Fugitive Coal Mine Methane Use Pilot Program''.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the pilot program is to 
     promote the capture, beneficial use, mitigation, and 
     sequestration of fugitive methane emissions--
       (A) to reduce methane emissions;
       (B) to promote economic development;
       (C) to produce bid and royalty revenues;
       (D) to improve air quality; and
       (E) to improve public safety.
       (3) Plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan--
       (i) to complete an inventory of fugitive methane emissions 
     in accordance with subsection (b);
       (ii) to provide for the leasing of fugitive methane 
     emissions in accordance with subsection (c); and
       (iii) to provide for the capping or destruction of fugitive 
     methane emissions in accordance with subsection (d).
       (B) Coordination.--In developing the plan under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall coordinate with--
       (i) the State;
       (ii) Garfield, Gunnison, Delta, and Pitkin Counties in the 
     State;
       (iii) lessees of Federal coal within the counties referred 
     to in clause (ii);
       (iv) interested institutions of higher education in the 
     State; and
       (v) interested members of the public.
       (b) Fugitive Methane Emission Inventory.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete an 
     inventory of fugitive methane emissions.
       (2) Conduct.--The Secretary may conduct the inventory under 
     paragraph (1) through, or in collaboration with--
       (A) the Bureau of Land Management;
       (B) the United States Geological Survey;
       (C) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (D) the United States Forest Service;
       (E) State departments or agencies;
       (F) Garfield, Gunnison, Delta, or Pitkin County in the 
     State;
       (G) the Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District;
       (H) institutions of higher education in the State;
       (I) lessees of Federal coal within a county referred to in 
     subparagraph (F);
       (J) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
       (K) the National Center for Atmospheric Research; or
       (L) other interested entities, including members of the 
     public.
       (3) Contents.--The inventory under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) the general location and geographic coordinates of each 
     vent, seep, or other source producing significant fugitive 
     methane emissions;
       (B) an estimate of the volume and concentration of fugitive 
     methane emissions from each source of significant fugitive 
     methane emissions including details of measurements taken and 
     the basis for that emissions estimate;
       (C) an estimate of the total volume of fugitive methane 
     emissions each year;
       (D) relevant data and other information available from--
       (i) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (ii) the Mine Safety and Health Administration;
       (iii) Colorado Department of Natural Resources;
       (iv) Colorado Public Utility Commission;
       (v) Colorado Department of Health and Environment; and
       (vi) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; 
     and
       (E) such other information as may be useful in advancing 
     the purposes of the pilot program.
       (4) Public participation; disclosure.--
       (A) Public participation.--The Secretary shall provide 
     opportunities for public participation in the inventory under 
     this subsection.
       (B) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the inventory 
     under this subsection publicly available.
       (C) Disclosure.--Nothing in this subsection requires the 
     Secretary to publicly release information that--
       (i) poses a threat to public safety;
       (ii) is confidential business information; or
       (iii) is otherwise protected from public disclosure.
       (5) Use.--The Secretary shall use the inventory in carrying 
     out--
       (A) the leasing program under subsection (c); and
       (B) the capping or destruction of fugitive methane 
     emissions under subsection (d).
       (c) Fugitive Methane Emission Leasing Program.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and in 
     accordance with this section, not later than 1 year after the 
     date of completion of the inventory required under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall carry out a program to encourage the 
     use and destruction of fugitive methane emissions.
       (2) Fugitive methane emissions from coal mines subject to 
     lease.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall authorize the holder 
     of a valid existing Federal coal lease for a mine that is 
     producing fugitive methane emissions to capture for use, or 
     destroy by flaring, the fugitive methane emissions.
       (B) Conditions.--The authority under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be--
       (i) subject to valid existing rights; and
       (ii) subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (C) Limitations.--The program carried out under paragraph 
     (1) shall only include fugitive methane emissions that can be 
     captured for use, or destroyed by flaring, in a manner that 
     does not--
       (i) endanger the safety of any coal mine worker; or
       (ii) unreasonably interfere with any ongoing operation at a 
     coal mine.
       (D) Cooperation.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall work cooperatively 
     with the holders of valid existing Federal coal leases for 
     mines that produce fugitive methane emissions to encourage--

       (I) the capture of fugitive methane emissions for 
     beneficial use, such as generating electrical power, 
     producing usable heat, transporting the methane to market, 
     transforming the fugitive methane emissions into a different 
     marketable material; or
       (II) if the beneficial use of the fugitive methane 
     emissions is not feasible, the destruction of the fugitive 
     methane emissions by flaring.

       (ii) Guidance.--In furtherance of the purposes of this 
     paragraph, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidance for the 
     implementation of Federal authorities and programs to 
     encourage the capture for use, or destruction by flaring, of 
     fugitive methane emissions while minimizing impacts on 
     natural resources or other public interest values.
       (E) Royalties.--The Secretary shall determine whether any 
     fugitive methane emissions used or destroyed pursuant to this 
     paragraph are subject to the payment of a royalty under 
     applicable law.
       (3) Fugitive methane emissions from abandoned coal mines.--
       (A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, notwithstanding section 303, subject to valid 
     existing rights, and in accordance with section 21 of the 
     Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 241) and any other applicable 
     law, the Secretary shall--
       (i) authorize the capture for use, or destruction by 
     flaring, of fugitive methane emissions from abandoned coal 
     mines on Federal land; and
       (ii) make available for leasing such fugitive methane 
     emissions from abandoned coal mines on Federal land as the 
     Secretary considers to be in the public interest.
       (B) Source.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall offer for lease each significant vent, seep, 
     or other source of fugitive methane emissions from abandoned 
     coal mines.
       (C) Bid qualifications.--A bid to lease fugitive methane 
     emissions under this paragraph shall specify whether the 
     prospective lessee intends--
       (i) to capture the fugitive methane emissions for 
     beneficial use, such as generating electrical power, 
     producing usable heat, transporting the methane to market, 
     transforming the fugitive methane emissions into a different 
     marketable material;
       (ii) to destroy the fugitive methane emissions by flaring; 
     or
       (iii) to employ a specific combination of--

       (I) capturing the fugitive methane emissions for beneficial 
     use; and
       (II) destroying the fugitive methane emission by flaring.

       (D) Priority.--
       (i) In general.--If there is more than 1 qualified bid for 
     a lease under this paragraph, the Secretary shall select the 
     bid that the Secretary determines is likely to most 
     significantly advance the public interest.
       (ii) Considerations.--In determining the public interest 
     under clause (i), the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration--

       (I) the size of the overall decrease in the time-integrated 
     radiative forcing of the fugitive methane emissions;
       (II) the impacts to other natural resource values, 
     including wildlife, water, and air; and
       (III) other public interest values, including scenic, 
     economic, recreation, and cultural values.

       (E) Lease form.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and provide to 
     prospective bidders a lease form for leases issued under this 
     paragraph.
       (ii) Due diligence.--The lease form developed under clause 
     (i) shall include terms and conditions requiring the leased 
     fugitive methane emissions to be put to beneficial use or 
     flared by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of 
     the lease.
       (F) Royalty rate.--The Secretary shall develop a minimum 
     bid and royalty rate for leases under this paragraph to 
     advance the purposes of this section, to the maximum extent 
     practicable.
       (d) Sequestration.--If, by not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, any significant fugitive 
     methane emissions from abandoned coal mines on Federal land 
     are not leased under subsection (c)(3), the Secretary shall, 
     in accordance with applicable law, take all reasonable 
     measures--
       (1) to cap those fugitive methane emissions at the source 
     in any case in which the cap will result in the long-term 
     sequestration of all or a significant portion of the fugitive 
     methane emissions; or
       (2) if sequestration under paragraph (1) is not feasible, 
     destroy the fugitive methane emissions by flaring.
       (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report detailing--
       (1) the economic and environmental impacts of the pilot 
     program, including information on increased royalties and 
     estimates of avoided greenhouse gas emissions; and
       (2) any recommendations by the Secretary on whether the 
     pilot program could be expanded geographically to include 
     other significant sources of fugitive methane emissions from 
     coal mines.

[[Page H8659]]

  


     SEC. 306. EFFECT.

       Except as expressly provided in this title, nothing in this 
     title--
       (1) expands, diminishes, or impairs any valid existing 
     mineral leases, mineral interest, or other property rights 
     wholly or partially within the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and 
     Protection Area, including access to the leases, interests, 
     rights, or land in accordance with applicable Federal, State, 
     and local laws (including regulations);
       (2) prevents the capture of methane from any active, 
     inactive, or abandoned coal mine covered by this title, in 
     accordance with applicable laws; or
       (3) prevents access to, or the development of, any new or 
     existing coal mine or lease in Delta or Gunnison County in 
     the State.

              TITLE IV--CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Curecanti National Recreation Area, Proposed Boundary'', 
     numbered 616/100,485C, and dated August 11, 2016.
       (2) National recreation area.--The term ``National 
     Recreation Area'' means the Curecanti National Recreation 
     Area established by section 402(a).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 402. CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--Effective beginning on the earlier of 
     the date on which the Secretary approves a request under 
     subsection (c)(2)(B)(i)(I) and the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, there shall be established 
     as a unit of the National Park System the Curecanti National 
     Recreation Area, in accordance with this Act, consisting of 
     approximately 50,667 acres of land in the State, as generally 
     depicted on the map as ``Curecanti National Recreation Area 
     Proposed Boundary''.
       (b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of 
     the National Park Service.
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     National Recreation Area in accordance with--
       (A) this title; and
       (B) the laws (including regulations) generally applicable 
     to units of the National Park System, including section 
     100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 
     100753, and 102101 of title 54, United States Code.
       (2) Dam, powerplant, and reservoir management and 
     operations.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this title affects or 
     interferes with the authority of the Secretary--
       (i) to operate the Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project 
     under the reclamation laws;
       (ii) to operate the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit of the Colorado 
     River Storage Project under the Act of April 11, 1956 
     (commonly known as the ``Colorado River Storage Project 
     Act'') (43 U.S.C. 620 et seq.); or
       (iii) under the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-12 et seq.).
       (B) Reclamation land.--
       (i) Submission of request to retain administrative 
     jurisdiction.--If, before the date that is 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation submits to the Secretary a request for the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation to retain administrative 
     jurisdiction over the minimum quantity of land within the 
     land identified on the map as ``Lands withdrawn or acquired 
     for Bureau of Reclamation projects'' that the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation identifies as necessary for the effective 
     operation of Bureau of Reclamation water facilities, the 
     Secretary may--

       (I) approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the 
     request; and
       (II) if the request is approved under subclause (I), make 
     any modifications to the map that are necessary to reflect 
     that the Commissioner of Reclamation retains management 
     authority over the minimum quantity of land required to 
     fulfill the reclamation mission.

       (ii) Transfer of land.--

       (I) In general.--Administrative jurisdiction over the land 
     identified on the map as ``Lands withdrawn or acquired for 
     Bureau of Reclamation projects'', as modified pursuant to 
     clause (i)(II), if applicable, shall be transferred from the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation to the Director of the National 
     Park Service by not later than the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (II) Access to transferred land.--

       (aa) In general.--Subject to item (bb), the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation shall retain access to the land transferred to 
     the Director of the National Park Service under subclause (I) 
     for reclamation purposes, including for the operation, 
     maintenance, and expansion or replacement of facilities.
       (bb) Memorandum of understanding.--The terms of the access 
     authorized under item (aa) shall be determined by a 
     memorandum of understanding entered into between the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director of the National 
     Park Service not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Management agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may enter into management 
     agreements, or modify management agreements in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, relating to the authority 
     of the Director of the National Park Service, the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management, or the Chief of the Forest Service to manage 
     Federal land within or adjacent to the boundary of the 
     National Recreation Area.
       (B) State land.--The Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     management agreements for any land administered by the State 
     that is within or adjacent to the National Recreation Area, 
     in accordance with the cooperative management authority under 
     section 101703 of title 54, United States Code.
       (4) Recreational activities.--
       (A) Authorization.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall allow boating, boating-related 
     activities, hunting, and fishing in the National Recreation 
     Area in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws.
       (B) Closures; designated zones.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Superintendent of the National Recreation Area, may designate 
     zones in which, and establish periods during which, no 
     boating, hunting, or fishing shall be permitted in the 
     National Recreation Area under subparagraph (A) for reasons 
     of public safety, administration, or compliance with 
     applicable laws.
       (ii) Consultation required.--Except in the case of an 
     emergency, any closure proposed by the Secretary under clause 
     (i) shall not take effect until after the date on which the 
     Superintendent of the National Recreation Area consults 
     with--

       (I) the appropriate State agency responsible for hunting 
     and fishing activities; and
       (II) the Board of County Commissioners in each county in 
     which the zone is proposed to be designated.

       (5) Landowner assistance.--On the written request of an 
     individual that owns private land located not more than 3 
     miles from the boundary of the National Recreation Area, the 
     Secretary may work in partnership with the individual to 
     enhance the long-term conservation of natural, cultural, 
     recreational, and scenic resources in and around the National 
     Recreation Area--
       (A) by acquiring all or a portion of the private land or 
     interests in private land located not more than 3 miles from 
     the boundary of the National Recreation Area by purchase, 
     exchange, or donation, in accordance with section 403;
       (B) by providing technical assistance to the individual, 
     including cooperative assistance;
       (C) through available grant programs; and
       (D) by supporting conservation easement opportunities.
       (6) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, all 
     Federal land within the National Recreation Area is withdrawn 
     from--
       (A) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public 
     land laws;
       (B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.
       (7) Grazing.--
       (A) State land subject to a state grazing lease.--
       (i) In general.--If State land acquired under this title is 
     subject to a State grazing lease in effect on the date of 
     acquisition, the Secretary shall allow the grazing to 
     continue for the remainder of the term of the lease, subject 
     to the related terms and conditions of user agreements, 
     including permitted stocking rates, grazing fee levels, 
     access rights, and ownership and use of range improvements.
       (ii) Access.--A lessee of State land may continue its use 
     of established routes within the National Recreation Area to 
     access State land for purposes of administering the lease if 
     the use was permitted before the date of enactment of this 
     Act, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     may require.
       (B) State and private land.--The Secretary may, in 
     accordance with applicable laws, authorize grazing on land 
     acquired from the State or private landowners under section 
     403, if grazing was established before the date of 
     acquisition.
       (C) Private land.--On private land acquired under section 
     403 for the National Recreation Area on which authorized 
     grazing is occurring before the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the lessee, may 
     allow the continuation and renewal of grazing on the land 
     based on the terms of acquisition or by agreement between the 
     Secretary and the lessee, subject to applicable law 
     (including regulations).
       (D) Federal land.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) allow, consistent with the grazing leases, uses, and 
     practices in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the continuation and renewal of grazing on Federal land 
     located within the boundary of the National Recreation Area 
     on which grazing is allowed before the date of enactment of 
     this Act, unless the Secretary determines that grazing on the 
     Federal land would present unacceptable impacts (as defined 
     in section 1.4.7.1 of the National Park Service document 
     entitled ``Management Policies 2006: The Guide to Managing 
     the National Park System'') to the natural, cultural, 
     recreational, and scenic resource values and the character of 
     the land within the National Recreation Area; and
       (ii) retain all authorities to manage grazing in the 
     National Recreation Area.
       (E) Termination of leases.--Within the National Recreation 
     Area, the Secretary may--
       (i) accept the voluntary termination of a lease or permit 
     for grazing; or
       (ii) in the case of a lease or permit vacated for a period 
     of 3 or more years, terminate the lease or permit.
       (8) Water rights.--Nothing in this title--
       (A) affects any use or allocation in existence on the date 
     of enactment of this Act of any water, water right, or 
     interest in water;
       (B) affects any vested absolute or decreed conditional 
     water right in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, including any water right held by the United States;
       (C) affects any interstate water compact in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (D) authorizes or imposes any new reserved Federal water 
     right; or
       (E) shall be considered to be a relinquishment or reduction 
     of any water right reserved or appropriated by the United 
     States in the State on or before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

[[Page H8660]]

       (9) Fishing easements.--
       (A) In general.--Nothing in this title diminishes or alters 
     the fish and wildlife program for the Aspinall Unit developed 
     under section 8 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (commonly known 
     as the ``Colorado River Storage Project Act'') (70 Stat. 110, 
     chapter 203; 43 U.S.C. 620g), by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Colorado 
     Division of Wildlife (including any successor in interest to 
     that division) that provides for the acquisition of public 
     access fishing easements as mitigation for the Aspinall Unit 
     (referred to in this paragraph as the ``program'').
       (B) Acquisition of fishing easements.--The Secretary shall 
     continue to fulfill the obligation of the Secretary under the 
     program to acquire 26 miles of class 1 public fishing 
     easements to provide to sportsmen access for fishing within 
     the Upper Gunnison Basin upstream of the Aspinall Unit, 
     subject to the condition that no existing fishing access 
     downstream of the Aspinall Unit shall be counted toward the 
     minimum mileage requirement under the program.
       (C) Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (i) develop a plan for fulfilling the obligation of the 
     Secretary described in subparagraph (B); and
       (ii) submit to Congress a report that--

       (I) includes the plan developed under clause (i); and
       (II) describes any progress made in the acquisition of 
     public access fishing easements as mitigation for the 
     Aspinall Unit under the program.

     SEC. 403. ACQUISITION OF LAND; BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Acquisition.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may acquire any land or 
     interest in land within the boundary of the National 
     Recreation Area.
       (2) Manner of acquisition.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), land 
     described in paragraph (1) may be acquired under this 
     subsection by--
       (i) donation;
       (ii) purchase from willing sellers with donated or 
     appropriated funds;
       (iii) transfer from another Federal agency; or
       (iv) exchange.
       (B) State land.--Land or interests in land owned by the 
     State or a political subdivision of the State may only be 
     acquired by purchase, donation, or exchange.
       (b) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
       (1) Forest service land.--
       (A) In general.--Administrative jurisdiction over the 
     approximately 2,560 acres of land identified on the map as 
     ``U.S. Forest Service proposed transfer to the National Park 
     Service'' is transferred to the Secretary, to be administered 
     by the Director of the National Park Service as part of the 
     National Recreation Area.
       (B) Boundary adjustment.--The boundary of the Gunnison 
     National Forest shall be adjusted to exclude the land 
     transferred to the Secretary under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Bureau of land management land.--Administrative 
     jurisdiction over the approximately 5,040 acres of land 
     identified on the map as ``Bureau of Land Management proposed 
     transfer to National Park Service'' is transferred from the 
     Director of the Bureau of Land Management to the Director of 
     the National Park Service, to be administered as part of the 
     National Recreation Area.
       (3) Withdrawal.--Administrative jurisdiction over the land 
     identified on the map as ``Proposed for transfer to the 
     Bureau of Land Management, subject to the revocation of 
     Bureau of Reclamation withdrawal'' shall be transferred to 
     the Director of the Bureau of Land Management on 
     relinquishment of the land by the Bureau of Reclamation and 
     revocation by the Bureau of Land Management of any withdrawal 
     as may be necessary.
       (c) Potential Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The withdrawal for reclamation purposes of 
     the land identified on the map as ``Potential exchange 
     lands'' shall be relinquished by the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation and revoked by the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management and the land shall be transferred to the National 
     Park Service.
       (2) Exchange; inclusion in national recreation area.--On 
     transfer of the land described in paragraph (1), the 
     transferred land--
       (A) may be exchanged by the Secretary for private land 
     described in section 402(c)(5)--
       (i) subject to a conservation easement remaining on the 
     transferred land, to protect the scenic resources of the 
     transferred land; and
       (ii) in accordance with the laws (including regulations) 
     and policies governing National Park Service land exchanges; 
     and
       (B) if not exchanged under subparagraph (A), shall be added 
     to, and managed as a part of, the National Recreation Area.
       (d) Addition to National Recreation Area.--Any land within 
     the boundary of the National Recreation Area that is acquired 
     by the United States shall be added to, and managed as a part 
     of, the National Recreation Area.

     SEC. 404. GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds are 
     made available to carry out this title, the Director of the 
     National Park Service, in consultation with the Commissioner 
     of Reclamation, shall prepare a general management plan for 
     the National Recreation Area in accordance with section 
     100502 of title 54, United States Code.

     SEC. 405. BOUNDARY SURVEY.

       The Secretary (acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service) shall prepare a boundary survey and legal 
     description of the National Recreation Area.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part B of House Report 116-264. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Curtis

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. CURTIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
                          TITLE V--APPLICATION

     SEC. 501. APPLICATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     shall not apply to any lands or waters in the Third 
     Congressional District of Colorado as in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Curtis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CURTIS. Madam Chair, before I begin, I would like to list the 
number of areas where I likely agree with my good friend from Colorado 
(Mr. Neguse).
  We share a State, a boundary, and our States are beautiful and full 
of public lands and recreational opportunities and areas that are 
majestic and are great treasures in our wonderful country.
  I believe personally that strong, pragmatic legislation to solve 
these local land managements is very important and far superior to 
efforts like the Antiquities Act. I thank my colleague for the years 
that have gone into this bill and his personal time to build consensus 
in the area.
  I found myself in his position just several months ago, offering a 
bill in my State. I believe the Congressman supported that bill, and I 
thank him for that support. It was a million acres of public land 
designation in my State. While not everybody got what they wanted, we 
were able to approach it from a prospect where I was able to get 
ranchers, environmentalists, outdoor enthusiasts to support that bill.
  The major difference between our two bills and why I stand today is 
that, on my bill, I was able to claim support from my local county 
commissioners. Every elected official in the State, my Governor, the 
State legislature, and the entire delegation of Utah were able to 
support that.
  While I want my friend from Colorado to succeed in his endeavor, I 
feel moving this bill without the support of the entire delegation and 
its members who represent the impacted land is a mistake.
  I am told that half of the Colorado delegation opposes this bill, 
including a Member who represents 65 percent of the land covered by the 
bill. While I applaud the consensus that has been put into this, I 
don't believe there is enough consensus to get this bill across the 
finish line and into law.
  With that said, in anticipation of the gentleman from Colorado's 
question, if this amendment passes, yes, I will support his bill. 
However, that is my second choice, and I think a poor, distant second 
choice to my first choice, which is that we would be able to find 
consensus with the other members of the delegation and move forward.
  I can't support a bill that lacks the consensus needed to continue 
through the Senate process, and I truly hope that Mr. Neguse and Mr. 
Tipton can work together to work out their remaining concerns.
  I have had other Members of Congress make proposals in my district, 
especially in San Juan and Emery Counties. I know firsthand that 
proposals made in another Member's district sometimes can cause 
problems. In fact, in my case, it has made it more difficult to resolve 
those public land issues.
  Similarly, on a practical level, any proposal that is not supported 
by all Members of Congress who represent that area doesn't have the 
consensus to get signed into the law. We all have a

[[Page H8661]]

duty to represent these local communities in Congress, and that 
consensus is vital for success in any public lands bill.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have great respect for my colleague from 
the State of Utah. I enjoy working with him on the Committee on Natural 
Resources and have enjoyed being able to partner with him on a number 
of efforts surrounding regenerative agriculture and many other 
subjects.
  I would say that I oppose this amendment. The distinguished 
gentleman, I believe, mentioned--I hope I am quoting him right--that 
when his bill passed the Chamber, and I believe the bill earlier this 
year that passed our committee, that I was proud to vote for, he had 
the support of conservationists in his State, county commissioners, 
local elected officials, the Governor, and his congressional 
delegation.
  I would tell the distinguished gentleman that he may not be aware 
that, in our case, we have the support of conservationists, county 
commissioners, local elected officials, and our Governor.
  The gentleman is correct that the only support that seems to be 
missing is from Republican colleagues in the State's delegation, and 
that is a shame. I would hope that a bill that has this volume of 
support from local communities, as has been well established during the 
course of this very vigorous and robust debate, would earn the support 
of my friends on the other side of the aisle who also have the great 
privilege of representing the State that we love so much.
  With respect to the more esoteric point on legislating in areas that 
an individual may not specifically represent, my understanding--again, 
I have been in Congress here for only 10 months. But my sense of it 
thus far is that we take votes literally every day on bills that impact 
our respective districts and, of course, areas far outside of our 
districts.
  During the 114th Congress, just by way of example--I was not here. I 
believe my friends on the other side of the aisle who are gathered here 
today were. They voted to pass H.R. 8, which was the North American 
Energy Security Infrastructure Act of 2015, out of the House.
  This was a bill widely opposed by many Democrats who were concerned 
that the bill would lead to increased opportunities for constructing 
natural gas pipelines across Federal lands in their home districts. 
That, of course, did not stop my colleagues from voting for that bill. 
They searched their conscience. They made the conclusion that they 
reached. And that is their right.
  I would only say that it is the right of every Member on this 
particular bill to, again, search their conscience as to whether or not 
they believe areas like the Thompson Divide ought to be protected. If 
they believe that those areas should be protected, then they ought to 
vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to reemphasize my praise for the 
Congressman from Colorado. The consensus that he mentioned is not a 
simple thing and should be applauded.
  I simply make a plea and request that the gentleman will continue to 
seek for that consensus, and particularly that of my colleagues and 
particularly his colleagues from Colorado, to see if he can get that 
final consensus needed to push this across the finish line.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to 
yield.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, we will continue to do that important work, 
and I appreciate the gentleman's statement in that regard. And I concur 
with it.
  It is worth mentioning--I don't know that it has been mentioned yet 
during this debate: We have worked very hard. I have a stack of emails. 
This is literally 35, 40 pages of emails, exchanges between my staff 
who work on public lands with the Representative from the Third 
Congressional District over the last 8 months, working, trying to get 
that consensus.
  I will certainly pledge to the gentleman that we are going to keep 
doing it.
  Mr. Chair, with that, I am ready to close as well, but I will reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Crow). The question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 27, line 2, insert ``and veteran outreach and 
     engagement'' before ``activities''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to start by recognizing the hard work of Chairman Grijalva, 
and perhaps even more important, Congressman Neguse, my good friend, 
for his work on the underlying bill and the amount of time, energy, 
passion, and commitment that he devotes to the conservation and, yes, 
the preservation of Colorado's public lands. They are, in fact, iconic 
features of our American landscape and crucial engines for its 
recreational industry and State economy.
  It is our duty to protect these treasured lands and to be responsible 
stewards so that future generations can enjoy them as much as we do 
today. We recognize how irreplaceable and rich these lands are, not 
simply for the value they bring to our country's vast ecological 
diversity but, also, for their contribution to our Nation's history.
  One such area is Camp Hale. Decades ago, Camp Hale served as a base 
for our servicemembers to train in mountain warfare.
  I am sure the Chair is excited to know that the training campground 
gave us the 10th Mountain Division, the famed and heroic mountain 
fighters, who, through their dedication, service, and sacrifice, helped 
our country achieve victory in World War II. And, upon returning home, 
it was these veterans who drew upon their training and experiences to 
help build Colorado's flourishing outdoor industry.
  The legislation recognizes the significance of Camp Hale and, as 
such, designated it as a National Historic Landscape, the first such 
designation of its kind.
  Yet, to fully honor Camp Hale's legacy, we should take every measure 
to ensure today's veterans are provided the opportunity to actively 
participate in the stewardship of this unique landscape.
  As I sit here today in the Chamber, I hear a call, a loud call, for a 
bipartisan amendment that everybody can get their arms around, so, Mr. 
Chair, I offer mine.
  My amendment strengthens the underlying legislation by including 
veteran outreach and engagement activities as part of the management 
plan for Camp Hale.
  Public lands are important vehicles to connect veterans to our 
national heritage and history. Many initiatives and programs have 
demonstrated the unique opportunities that the outdoors offer veterans 
to reconnect, recover, and heal after they return from the battlefield.
  We should ensure today's veterans are a part of the management of 
Camp

[[Page H8662]]

Hale. By doing so, we honor not only the legacy of Camp Hale and the 
servicemembers who trained there but, also, those who continue to serve 
this country today.
  While I am not from Colorado, I recognize that veterans across the 
country will flock to this wonderful, historic-designated area and 
engage in the activities and the outreach for veterans.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and 
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I will agree there is a good amendment here 
that we can all support.
  The underlying bill designated 28,000-some-odd acres surrounding Camp 
Hale as the first-ever National Historic Landscape.
  Now, Camp Hale was a U.S. Army training facility for what became the 
10th Mountain Division, and it was established in 1942 in Colorado to 
provide winter and mountain warfare training during World War II. It 
was also used during the Cold War as well.
  This amendment would add veteran outreach and engagement activities 
to the proposed management plan. It is a good amendment. It would 
rightfully prioritize outreach and involvement of our Nation's 
veterans, so I would agree with the amendment and ask that my 
colleagues vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 79, line 11, strike ``or''.
       Page 79, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 79, after line 15, insert the following:
       (F) constitutes an express or implied Federal reservation 
     of any water or water rights with respect to the National 
     Recreation area.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of my 
amendment addressing water rights in the Curecanti National Recreation 
Area.
  For years, my staff and I have engaged in numerous conversations 
regarding the Curecanti National Recreation Area, and there has been 
bipartisan agreement in these discussions that water rights in the 
region should remain intact.
  This area brings in millions of visitors each year and provides 
recreation opportunities that include fishing, hiking, camping, and 
more. While it might be an outdoor enthusiast's paradise, it is also a 
source of Colorado's most precious resource: water.
  This amendment ensures that there are no unintended consequences in 
this legislation for longstanding water rights in the impacted area.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to encourage my colleagues to be able to 
support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition, though I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, the section of the bill that the 
Representative referenced, in my reading of the bill and in my 
understanding of the bill, already includes some language that is 
nearly identical regarding Federal water rights.
  But, that being said, I made a pledge to the distinguished gentleman 
from Utah just a few moments ago in the debate that we would continue 
working to try to get to consensus. So I will support this amendment, 
and I will encourage my colleagues on this side of the aisle in good 
faith to support this amendment as well, and I hope the sponsor of this 
amendment would take that good faith and recognize the same.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his support for the 
amendment.
  One of the important points of it, as with some of the subsequent 
amendments that we have, is to make sure that we are codifying the 
language so that it is understood.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the support, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 53, after line 15, insert the following:
       (c) Grazing.--The grazing of livestock on covered land, if 
     established before the date of enactment of this Act, shall 
     be allowed to continue subject to such reasonable regulations 
     as are considered to be necessary by the Secretary with 
     jurisdiction over the covered land.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support my amendment to be 
able to protect longstanding grazing rights in the Thompson Divide.
  Since the days of Colorado's pioneers, grazing rights have always 
played an essential role in the economy and the way of life. 
Generations of Coloradans have followed suit and continued to build a 
robust ranching community, including around the Thompson Divide.
  In my roundtable discussions with local communities affected by 
Federal public lands, I routinely hear how important ranching is and 
the importance of protecting grazing rights, and this is true of the 
Thompson Divide. The permanent withdrawal of mineral and energy 
development in the region should not suppress any existing grazing 
rights.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I would like to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment would add language regarding existing 
grazing to a public land withdrawal that protects a sensitive landscape 
and its ranchers from mining.
  As a reminder, the CORE Act is supported by many ranchers who have 
been involved with the Thompson Divide Coalition over the years and by 
the North Thompson and Coal Basin Cattlemen's Association because the 
bill would protect their ranching heritage on these lands for future 
generations.
  So, ultimately, I don't think that this amendment is necessary, and I 
do worry about the potential for unintended consequences. For example, 
I hope that adding it does not somehow imply that the many withdrawals 
that Congress routinely enacts without such language would somehow 
restrict grazing; although, I know that that is not my colleague's 
intent.
  Mr. Chair, I would ask the gentleman--I mean, if the gentleman is

[[Page H8663]]

willing to support the underlying bill if his amendment is adopted, 
then I would be happy to support it.
  Mr. Chair, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  I think what is actually important is precisely the words that the 
gentleman used: unintended consequences that can come.
  This is a perfecting amendment to be able to make sure that we are 
codifying the importance of those grazing rights within those 
communities, something that is important to not only the Thompson 
Divide area but many of our ranchers who happen to have some grazing 
leases on public lands throughout the western slope of Colorado, 
something that is going to be important, but specifically to this bill, 
to make sure that we are codifying the right to have grazing within the 
Thompson Divide area with the mineral rights withdrawal that the 
gentleman is proposing.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, while I appreciate my colleague's statement--
and I don't know that I heard a particular answer to the fundamental 
question as to whether or not he would be supportive of this bill were 
his amendment to pass--again, I think we are trying to approach this in 
a good faith way. We want to find consensus.
  So, if the Representative from the Third Congressional District 
believes that this amendment is necessary to protect the ranching 
heritage on these lands for future generations, which is obviously a 
goal that he and I both share, I will support the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I am no longer in opposition and will encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 
appreciate his support, actually, for this. This actually shows how we 
can make progress when we do have communication.
  In terms of what was going on, something was lacking on some of these 
issues going into the CORE Act. Unfortunately, another eight amendments 
which I had proposed were not allowed to be discussed on this floor 
tonight. We have other concerns that have been expressed through our 
counties, through our communities, through individuals to be able to 
address as well.
  But I am appreciative of the gentleman's support on this amendment 
and for recognizing the importance of grazing rights in not only 
Garfield County but throughout the West.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Pappas). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 82, line 3, strike ``2,560'' and all that follows 
     through line 8, and insert ``915 acres of land identified on 
     the map titled `Curecanti National Recreation Area U.S. 
     Forest Service/National Park Service Interagency Agreement 
     Exhibit Map, Soap Creek Area' dated June 2017 is transferred 
     to the Secretary, to be administered by the Director of the 
     National Park Service as Part of the National Recreation 
     Area.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the opportunity to address the Colorado Outdoor 
Recreation and Economy Act on the floor. We want to be able to ensure 
that the land being transferred from the Forest Service to the National 
Park Service management comply with the current memorandum of 
understanding.
  During testimony before the Committee on Natural Resources committee 
hearing on the CORE Act on April 2, 2019, Acting Deputy Chief of the 
U.S. Forest Service, Chris French, identified the Soap Creek area 
within the Curecanti National Recreation Area as appropriate for 
continued active forest management, including fuel treatments, under 
the existing memoranda of understanding between the Forest Service and 
the National Parks Service.
  This is a good amendment to be able to support. I would encourage my 
colleagues to get behind this and hope we can continue to have the 
continued cooperation that we are finally starting to be able to see on 
the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It does not 
reflect agency recommendations or on-the-ground support of title IV of 
this bill. Veiled behind the claim of compliance with existing 
management, this amendment is contrary to a longstanding agreement to 
transfer 2,560 acres of Forest Service land to the National Park 
Service, which is reflected in the CORE Act as written.
  Both agencies have agreed that the transfer would benefit both the 
national recreation area and the national forest, and the proposal has 
long enjoyed broad public support. This amendment is an attempt to both 
reduce the acreage included in the national recreation area and to 
prevent the most effective management of these lands.
  And I think it is important, Mr. Chair, because we have talked a lot 
about stakeholder involvement, community-driven processes, and we have 
yet to receive any letter opposing a provision of the bill impacting a 
county in which that county ultimately has acreage involved; any letter 
of opposition. The only letter, in fact, that we have received of 
communication is from Gunnison County. Gunnison County strongly opposes 
this amendment. They were never consulted by the sponsor on this 
amendment, despite the area in question being in their county.
  So ultimately, I would oppose this amendment, and I would encourage 
all members, respectfully, to vote against it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a current memorandum of 
understanding, something that the Forest Service itself, Chief Deputy 
Chris French, identified as an appropriate area for continued 
activities.
  You know, one of the big challenges that we have in the Third 
Congressional District of Colorado happens to be forest management. We 
have seen forests literally burn to the ground. Simply to be able to 
have active, good forest management, to make sure that we are standing 
up, being able to protect our communities seems to me to be a sensible 
approach to be able to address something within something as expansive 
as the CORE Act.
  The gentleman mentioned conversations with, I assume, a county 
commissioner out of Gunnison County. We did have some contact with him 
today. We are going to be citing back to him conversations he had with 
our legislative director on this issue. So there was communication that 
had taken place on this. I would invite the gentleman to actually come 
to Montrose County to be able to visit with people who deal in the 
forest products areas, to be able to see how they are going to 
responsibly be able to deal with some of the treatment areas, to be 
able to protect our communities, to be able to protect our watersheds, 
to be able to protect endangered species.
  I think this is an appropriate amendment to the CORE Act, and I will 
encourage its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, with much respect to my colleague from the 
Third Congressional District, I have been to Montrose many times. It is 
a beautiful part of our State and there are wonderful people who call 
that community home. What I would say, again, I find it a bit ironic, 
with all of

[[Page H8664]]

the discussion around local support and whether or not local 
communities support provisions of the bill or do not, on the one hand, 
we don't have a single communication that I am aware of from a county 
that is impacted by a provision of this bill opposing the title that 
impacts that county. We do not have one.
  The only letter of opposition, or the only communication that we have 
from a county opposing any of the matters that we are discussing today 
happens to be a communication from a county that opposes the amendment 
offered by the gentleman. And so, again, I struggle to understand the 
consistency there, but nonetheless, contextually I just want to make 
sure we fully explain the rationale behind the 2017 interagency 
agreement that my distinguished friend mentioned, because ironically 
enough, the agreement that the sponsor mentioned that ultimately the 
amendment is grounded in for the purposes of, ``managing recreational 
facilities while congressional action is expected to legislatively 
establish the Curecanti National Recreation Area.''
  So in 2008 and 2009 these agencies all agreed that the transfer of 
the full acreage, 2,560 acres, that that was something they supported, 
and they were hoping that Congress would do something about it. Ten 
years later, it is 2019, and we have done nothing. Ultimately, the 
agencies came together on an interagency agreement in 2017 to at least 
do something in the interim with the hopes that Congress would step up 
and fill the void and codify those protections, which is precisely the 
opportunity that we have now before us. That is why I oppose this 
amendment and would encourage others to do the same.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate my colleague's 
comments, his passion. I am glad he has been to Montrose to be able to 
be there. I hope he spent a lot of money while he was there. We would 
appreciate that.
  But it is interesting, going back to a comment that the gentleman 
made earlier, that just saying it doesn't make it so. We are hearing 
comments that there is broad-based support, there is no opposition. 
However, Montrose County, which the gentleman just cited, they may 
support a provision, but they oppose the CORE Act. So to be able to say 
there is broad, unanimous support is probably something that I think is 
not taking into consideration some of the concerns that we have heard.
  I have just held round tables throughout our district, and there were 
concerns. And as I noted in my floor speech earlier, to be able to see 
some support, there is--because there is a lot of common ground in 
Colorado. It is just that we have not gone through all of the elements 
to be able to get this bill to the point where we will have what I 
think we would all like to be able to have, and that is unanimous 
consent to be able to move forward.
  When we are looking at this specific amendment--again, this is 
something that is being recommended, not by me but by the Forest 
Service, when we are talking about those management provisions to be 
able to maintain that current memorandum of understanding. This is, I 
think, something that is probably important for our area, an area where 
I travel, happen to live, and something that I hope that you will 
consider, and you will support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would say, with respect to the 
technicalities in terms of active forest management and the interagency 
agreement, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. And I 
appreciate the gentleman's point and, ultimately, we have clearly 
landed on different sides of that issue.
  But, again, and I hate to belabor the point, it is important for 
those, you know, who may be watching these proceedings thousands of 
miles away back home in our home State for them to just appreciate the 
facts.
  So we are clear, there are nine counties directly impacted by this 
legislation. There is one county, in my understanding, that my friend 
from the Third Congressional District is citing when he mentions 
potential opposition to the bill. But what he is not clarifying, or 
rather what has not been clarified, is there is no county of those nine 
that oppose the provision of the bill that impacts their community; not 
one. We have been here for an hour, and I have yet to hear of a single 
county, or a town, or a city council for that matter.
  Facts matter. This bill has local support, and that local support 
extends to this title of the bill. The Gunnison County commissioners 
and the community in Gunnison have made that clear, which is why I 
would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, we often hear the comment on this floor on 
public lands bills: These lands belong to all Americans. I appreciate 
and I do respect the support for the CORE Act in terms of the 
individual communities, but I think it belies the lifestyle on the 
western slope of Colorado, in particular. The people that traverse, 
work within different counties, feel the impacts on their businesses, 
have the impact of water flowing through those communities coming from 
another county, those are the issues that I think, unfortunately, are 
not taken into consideration by this bill.
  I urge support of this amendment. It is a good piece of work to be 
able to make sure that we are dealing with good forest management.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Crow

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 116-264.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 37, after line 19, insert the following:
       (g) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     military aviation training on Federal public lands in 
     Colorado, including the training conducted at the High-
     Altitude Army National Guard Aviation Training Site, is 
     critical to the national security of the United States and 
     the readiness of the Armed Forces.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Crow) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to highlight the Colorado Army National Guard's High-
Altitude Aviation Training Site, or HAATS, a program that all members 
of the Colorado delegation value deeply and support.
  HAATS offers a hands-on experience for helicopter pilots in the 
science of flying at high altitudes where air pressure is significantly 
lower, and engines run hotter. Learning these skills is critical to 
successfully execute military operations and rescue missions in 
mountain terrain.
  Each year HAATS trains over 400 air crews from all branches and 
components, including the National Guard, the Army, Army Reserves, and 
allies around the globe.
  As a combat veteran, I served three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
two of which were in Afghanistan where the terrain is rugged, 
unforgiving, and high altitude. The pilots with whom I served received 
HAATS training. Their skill, composure under pressure, and dedication 
is worthy of our praise.
  With this amendment we honor the HAATS mission and recognize how 
crucial that mission is to our national security and the readiness of 
our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8665]]

  

  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I genuinely appreciate my colleague's position 
on this. In fact, he will probably recall, and I believe he voted for--
and our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) did as well--my amendment, 
to be able to recognize the importance of this issue to the national 
defense of the United States. We passed that through. 417-6, as I 
recall, was the vote total that was on there.
  So I applaud the recognition of the importance of high-altitude 
training facilities.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Crow, for his service to this 
country. That is the importance of people being able and willing to put 
their lives on the line for this Nation, but we do need, I think, 
ultimately, to be able to go one step further.
  While this recognizes the importance of it, it does not codify it. 
That is something that I think is really essential to making sure that 
the men and women in the United States military have the safest 
opportunities to be able to do the training that they need to be able 
to carry out the missions of this country.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my friend from 
Colorado. This is certainly an example of the Colorado delegation 
working together, talking and collaborating, trying to figure out the 
best path forward for our State and the interests of all of our 
districts.
  This is an issue, as I talked about earlier, that is very personal to 
me. I served in Afghanistan, and like I mentioned earlier, the pilots 
with whom I served received this critical training. My life and the 
life of my soldiers relied on this training being conducted and the 
important mission that HAATS performs every year for all of our 
services.
  But I also learned something else in the Army that--and you don't 
have to take my word for it--one of the best ways to get information, 
the best way to figure out what the soldiers and the troops need, is 
you talk to the folks on the ground, you talk to the folks on the front 
line.
  Mr. Chair, I applaud the work of Senator Bennet and my very good 
friend and colleague Congressman   Joe Neguse for doing just that, 
reaching out to our military commanders.
  I want to read, very briefly, a letter that was sent to them by Major 
General Michael Loh, who not only is a pilot but is the commander of 
the Colorado National Guard. He said:

       I am writing to express the support of the Colorado 
     Department of Military and Veterans Affairs for the Colorado 
     Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act through the diligent 
     efforts of staff within the department, the offices of the 
     bill's sponsors, and the Department of Defense, who have 
     mitigated prior concerns related to military overflight of 
     the potential wilderness areas identified in the bill.

  That is our commander. That is our top commander of the Colorado 
National Guard that manages this facility, the pilots, and the training 
that occurs, saying: Thank you. You did your work. The delegation 
reached out. You have mitigated our concerns. Move forward.
  What else do we need other than that word of our commanders?   Joe 
Neguse and Michael Bennet worked very hard to make sure they were 
addressing the concerns, and we should take their word for it, not 
ours.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), my friend.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I want to say a deep note of gratitude to my 
distinguished colleague and my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Crow), 
who served our country so bravely and so honorably. We are all deeply 
grateful for his service in the Armed Forces and, of course, his 
service today in this Chamber.
  I don't know that I could say it any better than he did. I believe 
that this amendment reaffirms the support that we have for HAATS across 
our Colorado delegation and for the reasons he already so eloquently 
stated.
  I think, ultimately, any further codification, as my colleague from 
the Third Congressional District had referenced, would be a solution in 
search of a problem.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage every Member of this Chamber to support Mr. 
Crow's important amendment.
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Chair, in closing, I would like to stress again the 
importance of honoring HAATS and its critical mission.
  In July, I was pleased to join 416 of my colleagues, including Mr. 
Tipton, in voting for an amendment that has language that we can all 
get behind.
  Again, I reiterate the fact that you don't have to take anyone's word 
for it sitting here having this debate tonight. The commanders on the 
ground, the people managing this facility, managing the pilots, in 
fact, the pilot himself with the responsibility to make sure that this 
mission has to go forward, have blessed this effort and said that their 
concerns are mitigated and that they are happy to support this effort.
  So we, I think, owe it to our generals, to our soldiers, and to our 
troops to defer to their better judgment on this because they know this 
better than we do.
  Mr. Chair, I am very happy to support this amendment, and I urge all 
others to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Crow) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pappas, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 823) to 
provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation 
management areas, and conservation areas in the State of Colorado, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________