[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H737-H757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF 2021

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to designate certain lands in the 
State of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness Preservation 
System, and for other purposes, will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each further amendment printed in part B of 
House Report 117-6 not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc 
pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 147, shall be considered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the 
proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on 
Natural Resources or his designee to offer amendments en bloc 
consisting further amendments printed in part B of House Report 117-6, 
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or 
their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


       Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 147, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 
10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 28, printed in part B 
of House Report 117-6, offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado:


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Barragan of California

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                     TITLE IX--OUTDOORS FOR ALL ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Outdoors for All Act''.

     SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Eligible entity.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (i) a State;
       (ii) a political subdivision of a State, including--

       (I) a city; and
       (II) a county;

       (iii) a special purpose district, including park districts; 
     and
       (iv) an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     5304)).
       (B) Political subdivisions and indian tribes.--A political 
     subdivision of a State or an Indian tribe shall be considered 
     an eligible entity only if the political subdivision or 
     Indian tribe represents or otherwise serves a qualifying 
     urban area.
       (2) Outdoor recreation legacy partnership grant program.--
     The term ``Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant 
     Program'' means the program established under section 903(a).
       (3) Qualifying urban area.--The term ``qualifying urban 
     area'' means an area identified by the Census Bureau as an 
     ``urban area'' in the most recent census.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 903. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish an outdoor 
     recreation legacy partnership grant program under which the 
     Secretary may award grants to eligible entities for 
     projects--
       (1) to acquire land and water for parks and other outdoor 
     recreation purposes; and
       (2) to develop new or renovate existing outdoor recreation 
     facilities.

[[Page H738]]

       (b) Matching Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--As a condition of receiving a grant under 
     subsection (a), an eligible entity shall provide matching 
     funds in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution in an 
     amount equal to not less than 100 percent of the amounts made 
     available under the grant.
       (2) Sources.--The matching amounts referred to in paragraph 
     (1) may include amounts made available from State, local, 
     nongovernmental, or private sources.

     SEC. 904. ELIGIBLE USES.

       (a) In General.--A grant recipient may use a grant awarded 
     under this title--
       (1) to acquire land or water that provides outdoor 
     recreation opportunities to the public; and
       (2) to develop or renovate outdoor recreational facilities 
     that provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the public, 
     with priority given to projects that--
       (A) create or significantly enhance access to park and 
     recreational opportunities in an urban neighborhood or 
     community;
       (B) engage and empower underserved communities and youth;
       (C) provide opportunities for youth employment or job 
     training;
       (D) establish or expand public-private partnerships, with a 
     focus on leveraging resources; and
       (E) take advantage of coordination among various levels of 
     government.
       (b) Limitations on Use.--A grant recipient may not use 
     grant funds for--
       (1) grant administration costs;
       (2) incidental costs related to land acquisition, including 
     appraisal and titling;
       (3) operation and maintenance activities;
       (4) facilities that support semiprofessional or 
     professional athletics;
       (5) indoor facilities such as recreation centers or 
     facilities that support primarily non-outdoor purposes; or
       (6) acquisition of land or interests in land that restrict 
     access to specific persons.

     SEC. 905. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.

       In carrying out the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership 
     Grant Program, the Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct an initial screening and technical review of 
     applications received; and
       (2) evaluate and score all qualifying applications.

     SEC. 906. REPORTING.

       (a) Annual Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the last 
     day of each report period, each State lead agency that 
     receives a grant under this title shall annually submit to 
     the Secretary performance and financial reports that--
       (1) summarize project activities conducted during the 
     report period; and
       (2) provide the status of the project.
       (b) Final Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     earlier of the date of expiration of a project period or the 
     completion of a project, each State lead agency that receives 
     a grant under this title shall submit to the Secretary a 
     final report containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. PROMOTING HEALTH AND WELLNESS FOR VETERANS AND 
                   SERVICEMEMBERS.

       The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture are encouraged to ensure servicemember and 
     veteran access to public lands designated by this Act for the 
     purposes of outdoor recreation and to participate in outdoor-
     related volunteer and wellness programs.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

     TITLE IX--SOUTHWESTERN OREGON WATERSHED AND SALMON PROTECTION

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Southwestern Oregon 
     Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 902. WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LAND, CURRY COUNTY AND 
                   JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OREGON.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible federal land.--The term ``eligible Federal 
     land'' means--
       (A) any federally owned land or interest in land depicted 
     on the Maps as within the Hunter Creek and Pistol River 
     Headwaters Withdrawal Proposal or the Rough and Ready and 
     Baldface Creeks Mineral Withdrawal Proposal; or
       (B) any land or interest in land located within such 
     withdrawal proposals that is acquired by the Federal 
     Government after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Maps.--The term ``Maps'' means--
       (A) the Bureau of Land Management map entitled ``Hunter 
     Creek and Pistol River Headwaters Withdrawal Proposal'' and 
     dated January 12, 2015; and
       (B) the Bureau of Land Management map entitled ``Rough and 
     Ready and Baldface Creeks Mineral Withdrawal Proposal'' and 
     dated January 12, 2015.
       (b) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     eligible Federal land is withdrawn from all forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land 
     laws;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (3) operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal 
     leasing laws.
       (c) Availability of Maps.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Maps shall be made 
     available to the public at each appropriate office of the 
     Bureau of Land Management.
       (d) Existing Uses Not Affected.--Except with respect to the 
     withdrawal under subsection (b), nothing in this section 
     restricts recreational uses, hunting, fishing, forest 
     management activities, or other authorized uses allowed on 
     the date of enactment of this Act on the eligible Federal 
     land in accordance with applicable law.


        Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier of California

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE IX--ROSIE THE RIVETER/WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT NATIONAL HISTORICAL 
                             PARK ADDITIONS

     SEC. 901. ROSIE THE RIVETER/WORLD WAR II HOME FRONT NATIONAL 
                   HISTORICAL PARK ADDITIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Rosie the 
     Riveter National Historic Site Expansion Act''.
       (b) Additions.--The Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home 
     Front National Historical Park Establishment Act of 2000 (16 
     U.S.C. 410ggg et seq.) is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 2(b), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Not later than 180 days after areas are added to the park 
     administratively or by Federal law, the Secretary shall 
     update the map to include the added areas.''.
       (2) By adding at the end of section 2, the following:
       ``(c) Additional Areas Included.--In addition to areas 
     included under subsection (b), the park shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) The Nystrom Elementary School-The Maritime Building, 
     as listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
       ``(2) Such other areas as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.''.
       (3) By amending section 3(e)(2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Other property.--Within the boundaries of the park, 
     the Secretary may acquire lands, improvements, waters, or 
     interests therein, by donation, purchase, exchange or 
     transfer. Any lands, or interests therein, owned by the State 
     of California or any political subdivision thereof, may be 
     acquired only by donation. When any tract of land is only 
     partly within such boundaries, the Secretary may acquire all 
     or any portion of the land outside of such boundaries in 
     order to minimize the payment of severance costs. Land so 
     acquired outside of the boundaries may be exchanged by the 
     Secretary for non-Federal lands within the boundaries.''.


         Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Garamendi of California

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA NATIONAL HERITAGE 
                   AREA.

       Section 6001(a)(4)(A) of the John D. Dingell, Jr. 
     Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Public Law 116-
     9) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     addition, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage 
     Area shall include the area depicted as `Rio Vista/Expansion 
     Area' on the map entitled `Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     National Heritage Area Proposed Boundary Expansion' and dated 
     February 2021.''


        Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Keating of Massachusetts

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       Effective September 26, 2018, section 8(a) of Public Law 
     87-126 (16 U.S.C. 459b-7(a)) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``2018'' and inserting ``2028''.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Lieu of California

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

  TITLE IX--SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY 
                          ADJUSTMENT STUDY ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Santa Monica Mountains 
     National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Study Act''.

     SEC. 902. RESOURCE STUDY OF THE LOS ANGELES COASTAL AREA, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the 
     coastline and adjacent areas to the Santa Monica Bay from 
     Will Rogers State Beach to Torrance Beach, including the 
     areas in and around Ballona Creek and the Baldwin Hills and 
     the San Pedro section of the City of Los Angeles, excluding 
     the Port of Los Angeles north of Crescent Avenue.
       (b) Special Resource Study.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a special resource 
     study of the study area.
       (2) Contents.--In conducting the study under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall--
       (A) evaluate the national significance of the study area;
       (B) determine the suitability and feasibility of 
     designating the study area as a unit of the National Park 
     System;
       (C) consider other alternatives for preservation, 
     protection, and interpretation of the study area by the 
     Federal Government, State or local government entities, or 
     private and nonprofit organizations;

[[Page H739]]

       (D) consult with interested Federal agencies, State or 
     local governmental entities, private and nonprofit 
     organizations, or any other interested individuals; and
       (E) identify cost estimates for any Federal acquisition, 
     development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance 
     associated with the alternatives.
       (3) Applicable law.--The study required under paragraph (1) 
     shall be conducted in accordance with section 100507 of title 
     54, United States Code.
       (4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which 
     funds are first made available for the study under paragraph 
     (1), 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 that 
     describes--
       (A) the results of the study; and
       (B) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. McEachin of Virginia

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

        TITLE IX--GREAT DISMAL SWAMP NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Great Dismal Swamp 
     National Heritage Area Act''.

     SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Great Dismal Swamp National Heritage Area.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) States.--The term ``States'' means the States of 
     Virginia and North Carolina.
       (4) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means--
       (A) the cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and 
     Suffolk in the State of Virginia;
       (B) Isle of Wight County in the State of Virginia;
       (C) Camden, Currituck, Gates, and Pasquotank counties in 
     the State of North Carolina; and
       (D) any other areas in the States that--
       (i) have heritage aspects that are similar to the areas 
     described in subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C); and
       (ii) are adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, those areas.

     SEC. 903. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with State 
     and local organizations and governmental agencies, Tribal 
     governments, non-profit organizations, and other appropriate 
     entities, shall conduct a study to assess the suitability and 
     feasibility of designating the study area as a National 
     Heritage Area, to be known as the ``Great Dismal Swamp 
     National Heritage Area''.
       (b) Requirements.--The study shall include analysis, 
     documentation, and determinations on whether the study area--
       (1) has an assemblage of natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources that--
       (A) represent distinctive aspects of the people and 
     cultures of the United States;
       (B) are worthy of recognition, conservation, 
     interpretation, and continuing use; and
       (C) would be best managed--
       (i) through partnerships among public and private entities; 
     and
       (ii) by linking diverse and sometimes noncontiguous 
     resources and active communities;
       (2) reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife 
     that are a valuable part of the story of the United States;
       (3) provides outstanding opportunities--
       (A) to conserve natural, historic, cultural, or scenic 
     features; and
       (B) for recreation and education;
       (4) contains resources that--
       (A) are important to any identified themes of the study 
     area; and
       (B) retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting 
     interpretation;
       (5) includes residents, business interests, nonprofit 
     organizations, and State, local, and Tribal governments, and 
     other appropriate entities that--
       (A) are involved in the planning of the Heritage Area;
       (B) have developed a conceptual financial plan that 
     outlines the roles of all participants in the Heritage Area, 
     including the Federal Government; and
       (C) have demonstrated support for the designation of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (6) has a potential management entity to work in 
     partnership with the individuals and entities described in 
     paragraph (5) to develop the Heritage Area while encouraging 
     State and local economic activity; and
       (7) has a conceptual boundary map that is supported by the 
     public.

     SEC. 904. REPORT.

       Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds are 
     first made available to carry out this title, 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 that describes--
       (1) the findings of the study under section 3; and
       (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.


       Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                    TITLE IX--NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Heritage Area Act 
     of 2021''.

     SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility study'' 
     means a study conducted by the Secretary, or conducted by one 
     or more other interested parties and reviewed and approved by 
     the Secretary, in accordance with the criteria and processes 
     required by section 905, to determine whether a study area 
     meets the criteria to be designated by Federal statute as a 
     National Heritage Area.
       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' means any 
     Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, 
     or other community the name of which is included on the list 
     most recently published by the Secretary of the Interior 
     pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian 
     Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131).
       (3) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local 
     coordinating entity'' means the entity designated by Federal 
     statute to--
       (A) carry out, in partnership with other individuals and 
     entities, the management plan for a National Heritage Area; 
     and
       (B) operate a National Heritage Area, including through the 
     implementation of projects and programs among diverse 
     partners in a National Heritage Area.
       (4) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for a National Heritage Area required 
     under this title.
       (5) National heritage area.--The term ``National Heritage 
     Area'' means--
       (A) each National Heritage Area, National Heritage 
     Corridor, Natural Preservation Commission, National Heritage 
     Canalway, National Heritage Route, Heritage Corridor, 
     Cultural Heritage Corridor, Heritage Partnership, and 
     National Heritage Partnership, the Shenandoah Valley 
     Battlefields National Historic District, or other area 
     designated by Federal statute with the explicit purpose of 
     establishing a national heritage area designated by Congress 
     before or on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) each National Heritage Area designated by Federal 
     statute after the date of enactment of this Act, unless the 
     law designating the area exempts that area from the National 
     Heritage Area System by specific reference to this title.
       (6) National heritage area system.--The term ``National 
     Heritage Area System'' means the system of National Heritage 
     Areas established by this title.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means a specific 
     geographic area that is the subject of a feasibility study 
     under section 905.
       (9) Tribal government.--The term ``Tribal government'' 
     means the governing body of an Indian Tribe.

     SEC. 903. NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--In order to recognize certain areas of the 
     United States that tell nationally significant stories and to 
     conserve, enhance, and interpret the areas' natural, 
     historic, scenic, and cultural resources that together 
     illustrate significant aspects of our country's heritage, 
     there is established a National Heritage Area System through 
     which the Secretary may provide technical and financial 
     assistance to local coordinating entities to support the 
     establishment, development, and continuity of National 
     Heritage Areas.
       (b) National Heritage Area System.--The National Heritage 
     Area System shall be composed of all National Heritage Areas.
       (c) Relationship to the National Park System.--
       (1) Relationship to national park units.--The Secretary 
     shall encourage participation and assistance by any unit of 
     the National Park System located near or encompassed by any 
     National Heritage Area in local initiatives for that National 
     Heritage Area that conserve and interpret resources 
     consistent with an approved management plan for the National 
     Heritage Area.
       (2) Applicability of laws.--National Heritage Areas shall 
     not be--
       (A) considered to be units of the National Park System; or
       (B) subject to the authorities applicable to units of the 
     National Park System.

     SEC. 904. NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA SYSTEM MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after a National 
     Heritage Area is included in the National Heritage Area 
     System outlined by this title, the local coordinating entity 
     of the National Heritage Area shall submit to the Secretary 
     for approval a management plan for the National Heritage 
     Area.
       (2) Requirements.--The management plan shall--
       (A) incorporate an integrated and cooperative approach for 
     the protection, enhancement, and interpretation of the 
     natural, cultural, historic, scenic, and recreational 
     resources of the National Heritage Area;
       (B) be developed using a comprehensive planning approach 
     that includes--
       (i) opportunities for stakeholders, including community 
     members, local and regional governments, Tribal governments, 
     businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other interested 
     parties--

       (I) to be involved in the planning process; and
       (II) to review and comment on draft management plans; and

[[Page H740]]

       (ii) documentation of the planning and public participation 
     processes, including a description of--

       (I) the means by which the management plan was prepared;
       (II) the stakeholders involved in the process; and
       (III) the timing and method of stakeholder involvement;

       (C) include--
       (i) an inventory of--

       (I) the resources located in the National Heritage Area; 
     and
       (II) any other property in the National Heritage Area 
     that--

       (aa) is related to the themes of the National Heritage 
     Area; and
       (bb) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained 
     because of the significance of the property;
       (ii) comprehensive policies, strategies and recommendations 
     for the conservation, funding, management, and development of 
     the National Heritage Area;
       (iii) a description of actions that the Federal, Tribal, 
     State, and local governments, private organizations, and 
     individuals have agreed to take to protect the natural, 
     historical, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the National Heritage Area;
       (iv) a program of implementation for the management plan by 
     the local coordinating entity that includes a description 
     of--

       (I) actions to facilitate ongoing collaboration among 
     partners to promote plans for resource protection, 
     restoration, and construction; and
       (II) specific commitments for implementation that have been 
     made by the local coordinating entity or any government, 
     organization, or individual for the first 5 years of 
     operation;

       (v) the identification of sources of funding for carrying 
     out the management plan;
       (vi) analysis and recommendations for means by which 
     Federal, Tribal, State, and local programs, including the 
     role of the National Park Service in the National Heritage 
     Area, may best be coordinated to carry out this subsection; 
     and
       (vii) an interpretive plan for the National Heritage Area; 
     and
       (D) recommend policies and strategies for resource 
     management that consider and detail the application of 
     appropriate land and water management techniques, including 
     the development of intergovernmental and interagency 
     cooperative agreements to protect the natural, historical, 
     cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the National Heritage Area.
       (3) Exceptions.--The requirements in paragraph (2) shall 
     not apply to management plans in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Evaluations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year before the 
     authorization for Federal funding expires for a National 
     Heritage Area, the Secretary shall--
       (A) conduct an evaluation of the accomplishments of that 
     National Heritage Area; and
       (B) prepare and submit a report detailing the evaluation 
     required by subparagraph (A) to--
       (i) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (ii) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Evaluation components.--An evaluation prepared under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) assess the progress of the local coordinating entity 
     with respect to--
       (i) accomplishing the purposes of the authorizing 
     legislation for the National Heritage Area; and
       (ii) achieving the goals and objectives of the approved 
     management plan for the National Heritage Area;
       (B) analyze the Federal, Tribal, State, local, and private 
     investments in the National Heritage Area to assess the 
     impact of the investments; and
       (C) review the management structure, partnership 
     relationships, and funding of the National Heritage Area.
       (3) Results of evaluation.--Based upon the evaluation under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall prepare a report with 
     recommendations for the National Park Service's continued 
     role, if any, with respect to the National Heritage Area. If 
     the report recommends that Federal funding for the National 
     Heritage Area be--
       (A) continued, the report shall include an analysis of--
       (i) ways in which Federal funding for the National Heritage 
     Area may be reduced or eliminated over time;
       (ii) the appropriate time period necessary to achieve the 
     recommended reduction or elimination; and
       (iii) justification for the continued funding in light of 
     other National Park Service core responsibilities and 
     priorities; or
       (B) eliminated, the report shall include a description of 
     potential impacts on conservation, interpretation, and 
     sustainability of the National Heritage Area.
       (4) Updates; additional evaluations.--
       (A) Updates.--The Secretary may satisfy the requirement 
     under paragraph (1) for a National Heritage Area by updating 
     an evaluation that was completed for that National Heritage 
     Area not more than 5 years before another evaluation would 
     otherwise be required under paragraph (1).
       (B) Additional evaluations.--The Secretary may conduct 
     additional evaluations as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (c) Coordination.--The head of any Federal agency planning 
     to conduct activities that may have an impact on a designated 
     National Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and 
     coordinate these activities with the Secretary and the local 
     coordinating entity to the maximum extent practicable.

     SEC. 905. STUDY AREAS.

       (a) Feasibility Studies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out or certify a 
     study to assess the suitability and feasibility of 
     designating a specific geographic area as a National Heritage 
     Area to be included in the National Heritage Area System.
       (2) Preparation.--The feasibility study shall be carried 
     out--
       (A) by the Secretary in consultation with Tribal, State, 
     and local historic preservation officers, State and local 
     historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and 
     other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies; or
       (B) by interested individuals or entities, if the Secretary 
     certifies that the completed study meets the requirements of 
     paragraph (4).
       (3) Certification.--Not later than 1 year after receiving a 
     study carried out by interested individuals or entities under 
     paragraph (2)(B) the Secretary shall review and certify 
     whether the study meets the requirements of paragraph (4).
       (4) Requirements.--A study under paragraph (1) shall 
     include analysis, documentation, and determination on whether 
     the study area--
       (A) has an assemblage of natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources that--
       (i) represent distinct aspects of the heritage of the 
     United States;
       (ii) are worthy of recognition, conservation, 
     interpretation, and continuing use; and
       (iii) would be best managed--

       (I) through partnerships among public and private entities; 
     and
       (II) by linking diverse and sometimes noncontiguous 
     resources;

       (B) reflects traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife 
     that are a valuable part of the story of the United States;
       (C) provides outstanding opportunities--
       (i) to conserve natural, historic, cultural, or scenic 
     features; and
       (ii) for recreation and education;
       (D) contains resources that--
       (i) are important to any identified themes of the study 
     area; and
       (ii) retain a degree of integrity capable of supporting 
     interpretation;
       (E) includes Tribal governments, residents, business 
     interests, nonprofit organizations, and State and local 
     governments that--
       (i) are involved in the planning of the study area;
       (ii) have developed a conceptual financial plan that 
     outlines the roles of all participants in the study area, 
     including the Federal Government; and
       (iii) have demonstrated support for the designation of the 
     study area;
       (F) has a potential local coordinating entity to work in 
     partnership with the individuals and entities described in 
     paragraph (1) to develop the study area while encouraging 
     State and local economic activity; and
       (G) has a conceptual boundary map that is supported by the 
     public.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--For each study carried out under 
     subsection (a), 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 that describes--
       (A) the findings of the study described in subsection (a) 
     for that study area; and
       (B) any conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.
       (2) Timing.--
       (A) With respect to a study carried out by the Secretary in 
     accordance with paragraph (2)(A)(i), the Secretary shall 
     submit a report under subparagraph (A) not later than 3 years 
     after the date on which funds are first made available to 
     carry out the study.
       (B) With respect to a study carried out by interested 
     individuals or entities in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(A)(ii), the Secretary shall submit a report under 
     subparagraph (A) not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the Secretary certifies under paragraph (2)(B) that the 
     study meets the requirements of paragraph (3).

     SEC. 906. LOCAL COORDINATING ENTITIES.

       (a) Duties.--For any year that Federal funds have been made 
     available under this title for a National Heritage Area, the 
     local coordinating entity for that National Heritage Area 
     shall--
       (1) submit to the Secretary an annual report that describes 
     the activities, expenses, and income of the local 
     coordinating entity (including grants to any other entities 
     during the year that the report is made);
       (2) make available to the Secretary for audit all records 
     relating to the expenditure of Federal funds and any matching 
     funds; and
       (3) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     organizations receiving the funds make available to the 
     Secretary for audit all records concerning the expenditure of 
     the funds.
       (b) Authorities.--The local coordinating entity may, 
     subject to the prior approval of the Secretary, for the 
     purposes of preparing and implementing the approved 
     management

[[Page H741]]

     plan for the National Heritage Area, use Federal funds made 
     available through this title to--
       (1) make grants to Indian Tribes, a State, a local 
     government, nonprofit organizations, and other parties within 
     the National Heritage Area;
       (2) enter into cooperative agreements with or provide 
     technical assistance to the Indian Tribes, State, a local 
     government, nonprofit organizations, Federal agencies, and 
     other interested parties;
       (3) hire and compensate staff, which may include 
     individuals with expertise in natural, cultural, and historic 
     resources conservation; economic and community development; 
     and heritage planning;
       (4) obtain money or services, including those provided 
     under other Federal laws or programs;
       (5) contract for goods or services; and
       (6) support activities of partners and any other activities 
     that further the purposes of the National Heritage Area and 
     are consistent with the approved management plan.
       (c) Prohibitions on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The 
     local coordinating entity may not use Federal funds received 
     under this title to acquire real property or any interest in 
     real property.
       (d) Heritage Area Commissions.--
       (1) Section 804(j) of division B of H.R. 5666 (Appendix D) 
     as enacted into law by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106-554 
     (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A- 295; 123 Stat. 
     1294; 128 Stat. 3802) is amended by striking ``shall 
     terminate'' and all that follows through the period and 
     inserting ``shall terminate on September 30, 2034.''.
       (2) Section 295D(d) of Public Law 109-338 (120 Stat. 1833; 
     130 Stat. 962) is amended by striking ``shall terminate'' and 
     all that follows through the period and inserting ``shall 
     terminate on September 30, 2034.''.

     SEC. 907. PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to--
       (1) abridge the rights of any property owner, whether 
     public or private, including the right to refrain from 
     participating in any plan, project, program, or activity 
     conducted within the National Heritage Area;
       (2) require any property owner to permit public access 
     (including Federal, Tribal, State, or local government 
     access) to such property or to modify any provisions of 
     Federal, Tribal, State, or local law with regard to public 
     access or use of private lands;
       (3) alter any duly adopted land use regulation or any 
     approved land use plan or any other regulatory authority of 
     any Federal, Tribal, or State, or local government, or to 
     convey any land use or other regulatory authority to any 
     local coordinating entity;
       (4) authorize or imply the reservation or appropriation of 
     water or water rights;
       (5) diminish the authority of the State to manage fish and 
     wildlife including the regulation of fishing and hunting 
     within the National Heritage Area;
       (6) create any liability, or have any effect on any 
     liability under any other law, of any private property owner 
     with respect to any persons injured on such private property;
       (7) affect the authority of any Federal official to provide 
     technical or financial assistance under any other law;
       (8) modify any law or regulation authorizing Federal 
     officials to manage Federal land under their control or limit 
     the discretion of Federal land managers to implement approved 
     land use plans within the boundaries of a National Heritage 
     Area, nor shall this title be construed to modify, alter, or 
     amend any authorized uses of these Federal lands; or
       (9) enlarge or diminish the treaty rights of any Indian 
     Tribe within the National Heritage Area.

     SEC. 908. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2037, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated not more than $750,000 for each 
     National Heritage Area.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts made available under subsection 
     (a) shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Cost-sharing Requirement.--
       (1) Federal share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including any law designating a National Heritage Area, 
     the Federal share of the total cost of any activity funded 
     with appropriations authorized by subsection (a) shall not be 
     more than 50 percent.
       (2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of 
     the total cost of any activity funded with appropriations 
     authorized by subsection (a) may be in the form of in-kind 
     contributions of goods or services fairly valued.
       (3) Exception.--Notwithstanding section 909(b), for each 
     National Heritage Area established before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act without a non-Federal cost share 
     requirement or with a non-Federal cost share requirement of 
     less than 50 percent--
       (A) the non-Federal cost share requirement, or lack 
     thereof, shall remain at the previously enacted level for 2 
     full fiscal years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act; and
       (B) after the period referred to in subparagraph (A), the 
     non-Federal cost share requirement shall increase by 10 
     percent annually until the non-Federal share is consistent 
     with paragraph (1).
       (d) Authority to Provide Assistance.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary may provide assistance 
     to a National Heritage Area during any fiscal year for which 
     appropriations are authorized under subsection (a).

     SEC. 909. STATUTORY CLARIFICATION.

       (a) Authorization Limitations.--Any provision of law 
     enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act that 
     provides for a termination, expiration, or other time 
     limitation on the authorization for a National Heritage Area 
     is hereby superceded and shall have no effect.
       (b) Funding Limitations.--Any provision of law enacted 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act that provides 
     for a termination, expiration, or other limitation on the 
     time or amount of an authorization of appropriations for a 
     National Heritage Area is hereby superceded and shall have no 
     effect.
       (c) Evaluations.--Any provision of law enacted before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act that requires the Secretary 
     to conduct an evaluation of or submit a report on the 
     accomplishments of a National Heritage Area is hereby 
     superceded and shall have no effect.
       (d) Other Authorities.--Any provision of law enacted before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act that provides for the 
     establishment, management, administration, operation, or 
     otherwise affects a National Heritage Area and is not 
     explicitly otherwise provided for in this title shall not be 
     affected by this title.


         Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. O'Halleran of Arizona

       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

  TITLE IX--CASA GRANDE RUINS NATIONAL MONUMENT BOUNDARY MODIFICATION

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Casa Grande Ruins National 
     Monument Boundary Modification Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 902. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) Casa Grande Ruin Reservation was--
       (A) set aside on March 2, 1889;
       (B) proclaimed as the first archaeological preserve in the 
     United States on June 22, 1892; and
       (C) redesignated as the ``Casa Grande Ruins National 
     Monument'' on August 3, 1918;
       (2) the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument protects 1 of 
     the finest architectural examples of 14th century Hohokam 
     culture in the Southwest, which was known to early Spanish 
     explorers as the ``Great House'';
       (3) Casa Grande is only part of the story of an ancient 
     town that may have covered 2 square miles; and
       (4) recent surveys and research have determined that the 
     area of the Great House and the village surrounding the Great 
     House extends beyond the existing boundary of the Casa Grande 
     Ruins National Monument.

     SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) BIA land.--The term ``BIA land'' means the 
     approximately 7.41 acres of Federal land administered by the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, to be transferred to the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the National Park Service, as 
     generally depicted on the map.
       (2) BLM land.--The term ``BLM land Parcel A'' means the 
     approximately 3.8 acres of Federal land administered by the 
     Bureau of Land Management, for which administrative 
     jurisdiction is to be transferred to the National Park 
     Service, as generally depicted on the map.
       (3) BLM land parcel b.--The term ``BLM land parcel B'' 
     means the approximately 3.7 acres of Federal land 
     administered by the Bureau of Land Management for which 
     administrative jurisdiction is to be transferred to the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, as generally depicted on the map.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Casa 
     Grande Ruins National Monument Proposed Boundary 
     Adjustment'', numbered 303-120,734B, and dated June 2020.
       (5) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Casa Grande 
     Ruins National Monument in the State.
       (6) NPS land.--The term ``NPS land'' means the 
     approximately 3.5 acres of Federal land administered by the 
     National Park Service, for which administrative jurisdiction 
     is to be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as 
     generally depicted on the map.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Arizona.

     SEC. 904. ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN LAND.

       (a) Acquisition of Land.--The Secretary may acquire by 
     donation, exchange, or purchase with donated or appropriated 
     funds, from willing sellers only, lands or interests in land 
     generally depicted on the map as State land or private land, 
     as generally depicted on the map, to be administered as part 
     of the Monument.
       (b) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--
       (1) Withdrawal.--The BIA land, BLM land parcel A and BLM 
     land parcel B are withdrawn from--
       (A) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under 
     the public land laws;

[[Page H742]]

       (B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (C) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
     laws and mineral materials laws.
       (2) Transfer of administrative jurisdiction.--
       (A) BLM land parcel a.--Administrative jurisdiction over 
     the BLM land parcel A is transferred from the Bureau of Land 
     Management to the National Park Service.
       (B) BLM land parcel b.--Administrative jurisdiction over 
     BLM land parcel B is transferred from the Bureau of Land 
     Management to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       (C) BIA land.--Administrative jurisdiction over the BIA 
     land is transferred from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the 
     National Park Service.
       (D) NPS land.--Administrative jurisdiction over the NPS 
     land is transferred from the National Park Service to the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       (c) Administration; Boundary Modification.--Upon the 
     acquisition of land or an interest in land pursuant to 
     subsection (a), and with respect to the lands transferred by 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
       (1) administer any acquired land or interest in land, and 
     land transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     National Park Service, as part of the Monument, in accordance 
     with the laws generally applicable to units of the National 
     Park System, including applicable provisions of division A of 
     subtitle I of title 54, United States Code; and
       (2) modify the boundary of the Monument to reflect the 
     transfers of lands, and any acquired lands or interests in 
     lands.
       (d) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and 
     available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
       (e) Compensation.--Except in a case in which land or an 
     interest in land is acquired by donation, as consideration 
     for the acquisition of land or an interest in land or under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall--
       (1) pay fair market value for the land or interest in land; 
     or
       (2) convey to the State or private landowner, as 
     applicable, Federal land or an interest in Federal land, of 
     equal value located in the State.

     SEC. 905. ADMINISTRATION OF STATE TRUST LAND.

       The Secretary may enter into an agreement with the State to 
     provide for the cooperative management by the Secretary and 
     the State of the approximately 200 acres of State land, as 
     generally depicted on the map.


         Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. O'Halleran of Arizona

       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:

 TITLE IX--SUNSET CRATER VOLCANO NATIONAL MONUMENT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Sunset Crater Volcano 
     National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act''.

     SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     approximately 97.71 acres of Forest Service land identified 
     as ``Proposed transfer from USDA Forest Service to National 
     Park Service'' on the Map.
       (2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Sunset 
     Crater Volcano National Monument Draft Proposed Boundary 
     Adjustment'', numbered 039/80,053d, and dated March 2020.
       (3) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Sunset 
     Crater Volcano National Monument established by Presidential 
     Proclamation 1911 (54 U.S.C. 320301 note; 46 Stat. 3023) and 
     redesignated by section 15 of the Smith River National 
     Recreation Area Act (Public Law 101-612; 104 Stat. 3222).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 903. SUNSET CRATER VOLCANO NATIONAL MONUMENT BOUNDARY 
                   MODIFICATION.

       (a) Boundary Modification.--The boundary of the Monument is 
     modified to include the Federal land.
       (b) Map Availability.--The Map shall be on file and 
     available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     National Park Service.
       (c) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction to National 
     Park Service.--Administrative jurisdiction over the Federal 
     land is transferred from the Forest Service to the National 
     Park Service.
       (d) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     Secretary shall administer the Federal land added to the 
     Monument under subsection (a)--
       (1) as part of the Monument; and
       (2) in accordance with applicable laws (including 
     regulations).


         Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Panetta of California

       At the end of the bill add the following:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. FIRE, INSECTS, AND DISEASES.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit the authority 
     of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture under section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), in accordance with existing laws 
     (including regulations).


            Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Pingree of Maine

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

               TITLE IX--YORK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``York River Wild and Scenic River 
     Act''.

     SEC. 902. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATION.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(_) York river, maine.--Segments of the main stem and its 
     tributaries in the State of Maine, Bass Cove Creek, Cider 
     Hill Creek, Cutts Ridge Brook, Dolly Gordon Brook, Libby 
     Brook, Rogers Brook, Smelt Brook, totaling approximately 30.8 
     miles, to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     as a recreational river:
       ``(A) The approximately 0.95-mile segment of Bass Cove 
     Creek from the outlet of Boulter Pond in York, Maine, and 
     extending downstream to its confluence with the York River in 
     York, Maine.
       ``(B) The approximately 3.77-mile segment of Cider Hill 
     Creek from the Middle Pond dam in York, Maine, and extending 
     downstream to its confluence with the York River in York, 
     Maine.
       ``(C) The approximately 2.15-mile segment of Cutts Ridge 
     Brook from its headwaters in Kittery, Maine, and extending 
     downstream to its confluence with the York River in York, 
     Maine.
       ``(D) The approximately 3.17-mile segment of Dolly Gordon 
     Brook from its headwaters in York, Maine, and extending 
     downstream to its confluence with the York River in York, 
     Maine.
       ``(E) The approximately 1.65-mile segment of Libby Brook 
     from its headwaters in Kittery, Maine, and extending 
     downstream to its confluence with Dolly Gordon Brook in York, 
     Maine.
       ``(F) The approximately 2.43-mile segment of Rogers Brook 
     from its headwaters in Eliot, Maine, and extending downstream 
     to its confluence with the York River in York, Maine.
       ``(G) The approximately 4.54-mile segment of Smelt Brook 
     from the Bell Marsh Reservoir dam in York, Maine, and 
     extending downstream to its confluence with the York River in 
     York, Maine.
       ``(H) The approximately 12.14-mile segment of the York 
     River from the outlet of York Pond in Eliot, Maine, and 
     extending downstream to the Route 103 Bridge in York, Maine, 
     including Barrell Mill Pond in York, Maine.''.

     SEC. 903. MANAGEMENT OF YORK RIVER, MAINE SEGMENTS.

       (a) Process.--
       (1) In general.--The York River, Maine segments shall be 
     managed in accordance with--
       (A) the stewardship plan; and
       (B) such amendments to the stewardship plan as the 
     Secretary determines are consistent with this section and as 
     are approved by the Stewardship Committee.
       (2) Comprehensive management plan.--The stewardship plan 
     shall be considered to satisfy the requirements for a 
     comprehensive management plan under section 3(d) of the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(d)).
       (b) Committee.--The Secretary shall coordinate management 
     responsibilities under this title with the Stewardship 
     Committee, as specified in the stewardship plan.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--In order to provide for the long-term 
     protection, preservation, and enhancement of the York River, 
     Maine segments, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements pursuant to sections 10(e) and 11(b)(1) of the 
     Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1281(e) and 1282(b)(1)) 
     with--
       (A) the State of Maine;
       (B) the municipalities of Eliot, Kittery, South Berwick, 
     and York in Maine; and
       (C) appropriate local, regional, or State planning, 
     environmental, or recreational organizations.
       (2) Consistency.--Each cooperative agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall be consistent with the 
     stewardship plan and may include provisions for financial or 
     other assistance from the United States.
       (d) Land Management.--
       (1) Zoning ordinances.--For the purpose of the York River, 
     Maine segments, the zoning ordinances adopted by the 
     municipalities named in subsection (c)(1)(B), including 
     provisions for conservation of floodplains, wetlands, and 
     watercourses associated with the York River, Maine segments, 
     shall be deemed to satisfy the standards and requirements of 
     section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1277(c)).
       (2) Acquisition of lands.--The authority of the Secretary 
     to acquire land for the purposes of the York River, Maine 
     segments shall be--
       (A) limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with 
     the consent of the owner of the land; and
       (B) subject to the additional criteria set forth in the 
     stewardship plan.
       (3) No condemnation.--No land or interest in land within 
     the watersheds of the York River, Maine segments may be 
     acquired by condemnation.
       (e) Relation to the National Park System.--Notwithstanding 
     section 10(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1281(c)), the York River, Maine segments shall not--

[[Page H743]]

       (1) be administered as a unit of the National Park System; 
     or
       (2) be subject to regulations that govern the National Park 
     System.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Stewardship committee.--The term ``Stewardship 
     Committee'' means the York River Stewardship Committee.
       (3) Stewardship plan.--The term ``stewardship plan'' means 
     the York River Watershed Stewardship Plan, dated August 2018, 
     developed pursuant to the study described in section 5(b)(21) 
     of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)(21)).
       (4) York river, maine segments.--The term ``York River, 
     Maine segments'' means the river segments described by the 
     amendment made by section 902.


       Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Plaskett of Virgin Islands

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

               TITLE IX--ST. CROIX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``St. Croix National 
     Heritage Area Act''.

     SEC. 902. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) National heritage area.--The term ``National Heritage 
     Area'' means the St. Croix National Heritage Area established 
     by section 903(a).
       (2) Local coordinating entity.--The term ``local 
     coordinating entity'' means the local coordinating entity for 
     the National Heritage Area designated by section 903(d).
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the National Heritage Area required 
     under section 905.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) St. croix.--The term ``St. Croix'' means St. Croix, 
     Virgin Islands of the United States.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the Virgin Islands of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 903. ST. CROIX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the State the 
     St. Croix National Heritage Area.
       (b) Conceptual Boundaries.--The National Heritage Area 
     shall consist of the entire island of St. Croix.
       (c) Map.--A map of the National Heritage Area shall be--
       (1) included in the management plan; and
       (2) on file and available for public inspection in the 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
       (d) Local Coordinating Entity.--
       (1) In general.--The local coordinating entity for the 
     National Heritage Area shall be the Virgin Islands State 
     Historic Preservation Office.
       (2) Consultation requirement.--The Virgin Islands State 
     Historic Preservation Office shall consult with a broad cross 
     section of businesses, individuals, agencies, and 
     organizations within the conceptual boundaries of the 
     National Heritage Area described in subsection (b) that were 
     involved in the planning and development of the National 
     Heritage Area before the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 904. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Authorities.--For purposes of carrying out the 
     management plan, the Secretary, acting through the local 
     coordinating entity, may use amounts made available under 
     this section to--
       (1) make grants to the State or a political subdivision of 
     the State, Indian Tribes, nonprofit organizations, and other 
     persons;
       (2) enter into cooperative agreements with, or provide 
     technical assistance to, the State or a political subdivision 
     of the State, Indian Tribes, nonprofit organizations, and 
     other interested parties;
       (3) hire and compensate staff, which shall include 
     individuals with expertise in natural, cultural, and 
     historical resources protection, and heritage programming;
       (4) obtain money or services from any source including any 
     money or services that are provided under any other Federal 
     law or program;
       (5) contract for goods or services; and
       (6) undertake to be a catalyst for any other activity that 
     furthers the National Heritage Area and is consistent with 
     the approved management plan.
       (b) Duties.--The local coordinating entity shall--
       (1) in accordance with section 905, prepare and submit a 
     management plan for the National Heritage Area to the 
     Secretary;
       (2) assist Federal agencies, the State or a political 
     subdivision of the State, Indian Tribes, regional planning 
     organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other interested 
     parties in carrying out the approved management plan by--
       (A) carrying out programs and projects that recognize, 
     protect, and enhance important resource values in the 
     National Heritage Area;
       (B) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and 
     programs in the National Heritage Area;
       (C) developing recreational and educational opportunities 
     in the National Heritage Area;
       (D) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for, 
     natural, historical, scenic, and cultural resources of the 
     National Heritage Area;
       (E) protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings 
     in the National Heritage Area that are consistent with 
     National Heritage Area themes;
       (F) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs 
     identifying points of public access, and sites of interest 
     are posted throughout the National Heritage Area; and
       (G) promoting a wide range of partnerships among 
     governments, organizations, and individuals to further the 
     National Heritage Area;
       (3) consider the interests of diverse units of government, 
     businesses, organizations, and individuals in the National 
     Heritage Area in the preparation and implementation of the 
     management plan;
       (4) conduct meetings open to the public at least 
     semiannually regarding the development and implementation of 
     the management plan;
       (5) for any year that Federal funds have been received 
     under this title--
       (A) submit an annual report to the Secretary that describes 
     the activities, expenses, and income of the local 
     coordinating entity (including grants to any other entities 
     during the year that the report is made);
       (B) make available to the Secretary for audit all records 
     relating to the expenditure of the funds and any matching 
     funds; and
       (C) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     organizations receiving the funds make available to the 
     Secretary for audit all records concerning the expenditure of 
     the funds; and
       (6) encourage by appropriate means economic viability that 
     is consistent with the National Heritage Area.
       (c) Prohibition on the Acquisition of Real Property.--The 
     local coordinating entity shall not use Federal funds made 
     available under this title to acquire real property or any 
     interest in real property.

     SEC. 905. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the local coordinating entity shall 
     submit to the Secretary for approval a proposed management 
     plan for the National Heritage Area.
       (b) Requirements.--The management plan shall--
       (1) incorporate an integrated and cooperative approach for 
     the protection, enhancement, and interpretation of the 
     natural, cultural, historic, scenic, and recreational 
     resources of the National Heritage Area;
       (2) take into consideration Federal, State, and Tribal 
     plans and treaty rights;
       (3) include--
       (A) an inventory of--
       (i) the resources located in the National Heritage Area; 
     and
       (ii) any other property in the National Heritage Area 
     that--

       (I) is related to the themes of the National Heritage Area; 
     and
       (II) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained 
     because of the significance of the property;

       (B) comprehensive policies, strategies and recommendations 
     for conservation, funding, management, and development of the 
     National Heritage Area;
       (C) a description of actions that governments, private 
     organizations, and individuals have agreed to take to protect 
     the natural, historical, cultural, scenic, and recreational 
     resources of the National Heritage Area;
       (D) a program of implementation for the management plan by 
     the local coordinating entity that includes a description 
     of--
       (i) actions to facilitate ongoing collaboration among 
     partners to promote plans for resource protection, 
     restoration, and construction; and
       (ii) specific commitments for implementation that have been 
     made by the local coordinating entity or any government, 
     organization, or individual for the first 5 years of 
     operation;
       (E) the identification of sources of funding for carrying 
     out the management plan;
       (F) analysis and recommendations for means by which 
     Federal, State, and Tribal programs, including the role of 
     the National Park Service in the National Heritage Area, may 
     best be coordinated to carry out this title; and
       (G) an interpretive plan for the National Heritage Area; 
     and
       (4) recommend policies and strategies for resource 
     management that consider and detail the application of 
     appropriate land and water management techniques, including 
     the development of intergovernmental and interagency 
     cooperative agreements to protect the natural, historical, 
     cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the National Heritage Area.
       (c) Deadline.--If a proposed management plan is not 
     submitted to the Secretary by the date that is 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the local coordinating 
     entity shall be ineligible to receive additional funding 
     under this title until the date that the Secretary receives 
     and approves the management plan.
       (d) Approval or Disapproval of Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     receipt of the management plan under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall approve or 
     disapprove the management plan.
       (2) Criteria for approval.--In determining whether to 
     approve the management plan, the Secretary shall consider 
     whether--
       (A) the local coordinating entity is representative of the 
     diverse interests of the National Heritage Area;

[[Page H744]]

       (B) the local coordinating entity has afforded adequate 
     opportunity, including public hearings, for public and 
     governmental involvement in the preparation of the management 
     plan; and
       (C) the resource protection and interpretation strategies 
     contained in the management plan, if implemented, would 
     adequately protect the natural, historical, and cultural 
     resources of the National Heritage Area.
       (3) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves the management plan under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) advise the local coordinating entity in writing of the 
     reasons for the disapproval;
       (B) make recommendations for revisions to the management 
     plan; and
       (C) not later than 180 days after the receipt of any 
     proposed revision of the management plan from the local 
     coordinating entity, approve or disapprove the proposed 
     revision.
       (4) Amendments.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove 
     each amendment to the management plan that the Secretary 
     determines make a substantial change to the management plan.
       (B) Use of funds.--The local coordinating entity shall not 
     use Federal funds authorized by this title to carry out any 
     amendments to the management plan until the Secretary has 
     approved the amendments.

     SEC. 906. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this title affects the 
     authority of a Federal agency to provide technical or 
     financial assistance under any other law.
       (b) Consultation and Coordination.--The head of any Federal 
     agency planning to conduct activities that may have an impact 
     on the National Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and 
     coordinate the activities with the Secretary and the local 
     coordinating entity to the maximum extent practicable.
       (c) Other Federal Agencies.--Nothing in this title--
       (1) modifies, alters, or amends any law or regulation 
     authorizing a Federal agency to manage Federal land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal agency;
       (2) limits the discretion of a Federal land manager to 
     implement an approved land use plan within the boundaries of 
     the National Heritage Area; or
       (3) modifies, alters, or amends any authorized use of 
     Federal land under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency.

     SEC. 907. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS.

       Nothing in this title--
       (1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether 
     public or private), including the right to refrain from 
     participating in any plan, project, program, or activity 
     conducted within the National Heritage Area;
       (2) requires any property owner--
       (A) to permit public access (including access by Federal or 
     State agencies) to the property of the property owner; or
       (B) to modify public access or use of property of the 
     property owner under any other Federal or State law;
       (3) alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved 
     land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any Federal 
     or State agency;
       (4) conveys any land use or other regulatory authority to 
     the local coordinating entity;
       (5) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation 
     of water or water rights;
       (6) enlarges or diminishes the treaty rights of any Indian 
     Tribe within the National Heritage Area;
       (7) diminishes--
       (A) the authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, 
     including the regulation of fishing and hunting within the 
     National Heritage Area; or
       (B) the authority of Indian Tribes to regulate members of 
     Indian Tribes with respect to fishing, hunting, and gathering 
     in the exercise of treaty rights; or
       (8) creates any liability, or affects any liability under 
     any other law, of any private property owner with respect to 
     any person injured on the private property.

     SEC. 908. EVALUATION AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years before the date on 
     which authority for Federal funding terminates for the 
     National Heritage Area, the Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct an evaluation of the accomplishments of the 
     National Heritage Area; and
       (2) prepare a report in accordance with subsection (c).
       (b) Evaluation.--An evaluation conducted under subsection 
     (a)(1) shall--
       (1) assess the progress of the local coordinating entity 
     with respect to--
       (A) accomplishing the purposes of the authorizing 
     legislation for the National Heritage Area; and
       (B) achieving the goals and objectives of the approved 
     management plan for the National Heritage Area;
       (2) analyze the Federal, State, and private investments in 
     the National Heritage Area to determine the impact of the 
     investments; and
       (3) review the management structure, partnership 
     relationships, and funding of the National Heritage Area for 
     purposes of identifying the critical components for 
     sustainability of the National Heritage Area.
       (c) Report.--Based on the evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report that includes recommendations for 
     the future role of the National Park Service, if any, with 
     respect to the National Heritage Area.

     SEC. 909. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this title $10,000,000, of which not more than 
     $1,000,000 may be made available for any fiscal year.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts made available under subsection 
     (a) shall remain available until expended.
       (c) Cost-sharing Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the total cost of any 
     activity under this title shall be not more than 50 percent.
       (2) Form.--The non-Federal contribution of the total cost 
     of any activity under this title may be in the form of in-
     kind contributions of goods or services fairly valued.

     SEC. 910. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority of the Secretary to provide assistance under 
     this title terminates on the date that is 15 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.


           Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Pocan of Wisconsin

       After section 227, insert the following:

     SEC. 228. ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.

       Section 5(a)(10) of the National Trails System Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1244(a)(10)) is amended by striking the third and 
     fourth sentences and inserting ``The trail shall be 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior as a unit of 
     the National Park System.''.


         Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Spanberger of Virginia

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

    TITLE IX--ADDITIONS TO ROUGH MOUNTAIN AND RICH HOLE WILDERNESSES

     SEC. 901. ADDITIONS TO ROUGH MOUNTAIN AND RICH HOLE 
                   WILDERNESSES.

       (a) Rough Mountain Addition.--Section 1 of Public Law 100-
     326 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 102 Stat. 584; 114 Stat. 2057; 123 
     Stat. 1002) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Rough mountain addition.--Certain land in the George 
     Washington National Forest comprising approximately 1,000 
     acres, as generally depicted as the `Rough Mountain Addition' 
     on the map entitled `GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST - 
     South half - Alternative I - Selected Alternative Management 
     Prescriptions - Land and Resources Management Plan Final 
     Environmental Impact Statement' and dated March 4, 2014, 
     which is incorporated in the Rough Mountain Wilderness Area 
     designated by paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Rich Hole Addition.--
       (1) Potential wilderness designation.--In furtherance of 
     the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 
     certain land in the George Washington National Forest 
     comprising approximately 4,600 acres, as generally depicted 
     as the ``Rich Hole Addition'' on the map entitled ``GEORGE 
     WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST - South half - Alternative I - 
     Selected Alternative Management Prescriptions - Land and 
     Resources Management Plan Final Environmental Impact 
     Statement'' and dated March 4, 2014, is designated as a 
     potential wilderness area for incorporation in the Rich Hole 
     Wilderness Area designated by section 1(2) of Public Law 100-
     326 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 102 Stat. 584; 114 Stat. 2057; 123 
     Stat. 1002).
       (2) Wilderness designation.--The potential wilderness area 
     designated by paragraph (1) shall be designated as wilderness 
     and incorporated in the Rich Hole Wilderness Area designated 
     by section 1(2) of Public Law 100-326 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 
     102 Stat. 584; 114 Stat. 2057; 123 Stat. 1002) on the earlier 
     of--
       (A) the date on which the Secretary publishes in the 
     Federal Register notice that the activities permitted under 
     paragraph (4) have been completed; or
       (B) the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) Management.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the 
     Secretary shall manage the potential wilderness area 
     designated by paragraph (1) in accordance with the Wilderness 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
       (4) Water quality improvement activities.--
       (A) In general.--To enhance natural ecosystems within the 
     potential wilderness area designated by paragraph (1) by 
     implementing certain activities to improve water quality and 
     aquatic passage, as set forth in the Forest Service document 
     entitled ``Decision Notice for the Lower Cowpasture 
     Restoration and Management Project'' and dated December 2015, 
     the Secretary may use motorized equipment and mechanized 
     transport in the potential wilderness area until the date on 
     which the potential wilderness area is incorporated into the 
     Rich Hole Wilderness Area under paragraph (2).
       (B) Requirement.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall use the 
     minimum tool or administrative practice necessary to carry 
     out that subparagraph with the least amount of adverse impact 
     on wilderness character and resources.


           Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. Tlaib of Michigan

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:


[[Page H745]]


  


     TITLE IX--AGENCY REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SPECIAL 
    RECREATION PERMITS BENEFITS TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

     SEC. 901. AGENCY REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SPECIAL 
                   RECREATION PERMITS BENEFITS TO ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   JUSTICE COMMUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years following the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate on the following:
       (1) Estimated use of Department of the Interior special 
     recreation permits by recreation service providers serving 
     environmental justice communities.
       (2) Any national, regional, State, local, or site-specific 
     policies that facilitate public lands access for recreational 
     service providers serving environmental justice communities.
       (3) Any case studies that may provide illustrative examples 
     of how Department of the Interior special recreation permits, 
     partnerships, or cooperative agreements are being effectively 
     used by land managers for the purposes of providing public 
     lands access to recreation service providers serving 
     environmental justice communities.
       (4) Identification of any barriers to public lands access 
     for recreation service providers serving environmental 
     justice communities.
       (5) Any recommendations for agency policy, or if necessary, 
     action by Congress to encourage and simplify public lands 
     access for recreational service providers serving 
     environmental justice communities.
       (b) Voluntary Participation by Special Recreation 
     Providers.--The Secretary--
       (1) shall contact all current or prospective special 
     recreation providers to request a voluntary estimation of how 
     many user days are used by individuals from environmental 
     justice communities;
       (2) shall request from recreational service providers and 
     interested members of the public any other information that 
     supports the reporting requirements in subsection (a); and
       (3) shall not use participation or information provided as 
     a condition in approving or rejecting a Department of the 
     Interior special recreation permit.
       (c) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) The term ``environmental justice community'' means a 
     community with significant representation of communities of 
     color, low-income communities, or Tribal and indigenous 
     communities, that experiences, or is at risk of experiencing, 
     higher or more adverse human health or environmental effects 
     than other communities.
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Westerman) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of en bloc No. 1. These 18 amendments 
demonstrate the strong and bipartisan support for protecting our 
wilderness and our public lands.
  The amendments in this package include bipartisan legislation from 
Representatives McKinley and Tonko to unify the way National Heritage 
Areas are established and managed around the country.
  Other amendments would seek to improve the diversity and 
representation on our public lands, including the Great Dismal Swamp 
NHA, by Representative McEachin; ensuring all Americans have access to 
healthy outdoor recreation, especially in urban and low-income cities, 
such as the Outdoors for All Act by Representative Barragan; and 
promote outdoor recreation and wellness among servicemembers and 
veterans, which is pursued by the Brown amendment.
  We clarify also our intention regarding wilderness and wildfire with 
the inclusion of the Panetta amendment, and we even add some small 
number of wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and mineral withdrawals 
with the inclusion of amendments from Representatives Spanberger, 
Pingree, and DeFazio, respectively.
  The inclusion of these amendments would not only improve the bill but 
improve protections for our public lands and environmental justice 
communities far beyond the places already covered in Colorado, 
California, Washington, and Arizona.
  Simply put, this amendment reinforces that our public lands are for 
the benefit and enjoyment of all Americans. I urge support for this en 
bloc No. 1, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in opposition to this package of en bloc amendments, 
which is bad for our environment, kills jobs, locks up more lands, and 
does nothing to reduce our dependence on hostile foreign nations for 
critical minerals.
  One of the amendments in this package is a feasibility study for the 
Great Dismal Swamp National Heritage Area. Now, the Great Dismal Swamp 
may technically be located on the Virginia-North Carolina border, but 
House Democrats attempting to ram through dozens of amendments 
completely unrelated to the underlying bill, without going through 
regular order, sure makes it seem like the Great Dismal Swamp is 
actually located right here in Washington, D.C.
  Much like the underlying bill, many of these amendments have not gone 
through regular order, are not supported by local stakeholders, and do 
not have the support of the Members whose districts are directly 
impacted.
  One such amendment creates the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a 
unit of the National Park Service in Wisconsin. This amendment was 
offered without the consultation of my colleague on the Natural 
Resources Committee, Representative Tiffany, and does not have his 
support. Unlike other trail designation bills that have passed the 
House by voice vote in previous Congresses, this amendment lacks basic 
protections to ensure these trails do not have unintended consequences 
for neighboring communities.
  Similarly, the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Expansion 
Act ignores the will and voices of local stakeholders. The Arizona 
State Land Department expressed concerns to the committee regarding the 
cooperative agreement language of this amendment and shared that they 
have encountered numerous problems with these types of agreements in 
the past. These are exactly the types of concerns that should be vetted 
through the committee process with testimony from local stakeholders 
and the affected agencies.
  I would like to briefly discuss one amendment offered by my friend 
and colleague, Representative Panetta from California, that would 
simply reinforce the status quo policy of forest management in 
wilderness areas.
  I have worked with Representative Panetta on forest management 
policies in the past, particularly on the wildland-urban interface. I 
know his heart. I know he has the right intent and wants to do the 
right thing. But I also know that he is greatly restricted by his own 
conference on forestry management issues.
  While I appreciate his intent, over the past 10 years, we have had 
nearly seven million acres of wilderness and wilderness study areas 
burn up in catastrophic wildfires. Land managers and wilderness areas 
must rely on century-old techniques, like handsaws and shovels when 
millions of acres of forest are in desperate need of treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, 1910 called and it wants its forest management policy 
back.
  Clearly, the status quo isn't working and unfortunately, his 
amendment won't actually allow for proper forest management and won't 
stop this bill from hurting our environment.
  Michael Jordan once wisely advised: ``If you do the work you get 
rewarded. There are no shortcuts in life.''
  House Democrats are looking to take the shortcut with this amendment 
package and the underlying bill. Unfortunately, our economy and 
environment will have to bear the consequences of these misguided 
policy decisions.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from the State of Colorado (Mr. Crow).
  Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Protecting 
America's Wilderness Act.
  I would first like to thank my friends and colleagues in the Colorado 
delegation, Congressman   Joe Neguse, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, and 
Senator Michael Bennet for their leadership on this package.

  Colorado's identity is closely tied to nature. Colorado is home to 
four national parks, 42 State parks, and a wide variety of outdoor 
activities ranging from hiking, to camping, and skiing. Our public 
lands are central to the Colorado way of life, and I want to ensure

[[Page H746]]

that future generations can enjoy these treasures just as my children 
do now.
  The conservation package we are considering today will grow the 
outdoor recreation economy, help create jobs, and protect hundreds of 
thousands of acres of Colorado land for future generations.
  The Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act will establish the 
first-ever national historic landscape at Camp Hale. Now, Camp Hale was 
the training ground of the storied 10th Mountain Division, an elite 
unit trained in mountain climbing and skiing. They fought valiantly in 
World War II, and many of them later returned to Colorado, where they 
helped establish the U.S. ski industry.
  This is particularly important to my family as my wife's grandfather 
served in the initial 10th Mountain during World War II and was 
actually wounded in fighting in Italy. As a veteran, and a Coloradan, I 
believe it is important to honor their service and their legacy, and to 
preserve this historic landscape so that we can tell the story to 
future generations.
  I commend my Colorado colleagues for their work on this effort and 
their commitment to our public lands, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment, specifically, a 
provision in here taking a trail in Wisconsin and turning it into 
National Park Service unit status.
  This proposal before us has not been introduced as a standalone bill 
this Congress and has not been heard by the Natural Resources 
Committee. We have not discussed the impacts of elevating this trail to 
National Park Service unit status, and there have been no hearings to 
afford local officials or adjacent landowners the opportunity to 
express their views.
  Too often in this body, we see Members who represent urban 
constituencies rushing to expand Federal control over rural communities 
far from their own homes. And too often, these decisions marginalize 
the voices of people in the affected communities who must live with the 
consequences: Federal land management agencies in Washington, D.C., 
imposing new limitations on access, use, and impacts to private 
property owners.
  Mr. Speaker, we have also spent much time in this body discussing the 
Park Service maintenance backlog, which is significant. We should be 
mindful of that backlog and the fact that land managers lack sufficient 
resources to care for the units already under their supervision.
  I am also concerned that the passage of measures like this one will 
further fuel the Federal Government's insatiable appetite to annex yet 
more private property. And more Federal land ownership means further 
erosion of the property tax base, higher local property tax burdens, 
and strained local budgets.
  Let me give you this analogy. A homeowner, their roof is falling in. 
The lot next to them comes up for sale and they say, gosh, I have got 
to buy that lot, and they don't take care of their own home. That is, 
in effect, what we are doing with our national parks here in the United 
States of America.
  To be clear, I believe that Wisconsin is home to some of this 
country's most special places, including this scenic and picturesque 
trail. On this fact, my Wisconsin colleagues and I agree.
  But I believe this amendment is the wrong approach, Mr. Speaker, and 
I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment and the bill.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
803, Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, which will 
reauthorize the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission until 
the year 2028.
  The park that would eventually become the Cape Cod National Seashore 
was first conceived as a way to protect one of the last truly unspoiled 
barrier beaches in New England. From Chatham in the south to 
Provincetown in the north, the seashore resides within the six towns 
that form the outer Cape Cod area.
  And since the creation of the seashore, the fate of that outer cape 
community has been uniquely intertwined with the success of the 
national seashore.

                              {time}  0930

  Today, more than 4 million visitors from around the world come every 
year to experience the natural beauty and recreational opportunities 
that the seashore provides. In this way, the seashore is a crucial, 
pivotal point to local businesses that depend on the cape's tourism 
industry for their own livelihoods and those that reside there.
  Last year, the Great American Outdoors Act was signed into law. Our 
landmark conservation legislation will bring millions of dollars to 
rebuild and protect the national seashore in the coming years.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Last year, the Great American Outdoors Act was signed into law. Our 
landmark legislation will bring millions of dollars that will be used 
to rebuild and protect the national seashore in the coming years. The 
advisory commission's role is greater than ever.
  The Cape Cod National Seashore, the vision of then-Senator John F. 
Kennedy, continues to be a success. Working together, making sure that 
this model of cooperation between the Federal Government and local 
governments in this time of necessary cooperation with governmental 
interaction, is more important than ever as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
including this in our bill.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to focus on wilderness 
areas. I know it sounds great to have a wilderness area. I have enjoyed 
spending time myself in wilderness areas, and forestry and wilderness 
areas are very important to me. Mr. Speaker, I have a degree in 
forestry, and I have actually been licensed to practice forestry, taken 
exams to do that. I can tell you, Republicans, Democrats, and 
independents alike, we all, I think, can appreciate a healthy forest 
because we know that it provides clean air, it provides clean water, it 
provides wildlife habitat, and it also provides great places for us to 
do recreation.
  There are certain places where we need wilderness areas, but there 
are certain places where we do not need wilderness areas. Seven million 
acres of wilderness area went up in wildfire in the last 10 years. I 
would love to be able to take my colleagues out to the forest. They say 
a picture is worth a thousand words, but I can promise you, actually 
being in the forest tells a much bigger picture, a much better story.
  I would love to go to an area that has been properly managed and then 
go to a wilderness area that hasn't been managed and be able to make 
the case that although we can pass these bills and create wilderness 
areas right now that aren't going to affect us, because it takes a long 
time for a forest to grow and it takes a long time for a forest to 
degrade, but our children and our grandchildren are going to suffer the 
consequences of us locking these lands up and making them subject to 
catastrophic wildfire in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the sentimental value, the emotional value, 
in wanting to make more wilderness areas. But I wish we would have a 
long-term look and think about the impact that this is going to have on 
the future. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to say that I have great respect 
for my colleague, the ranking member, and I know that he is well 
intentioned with respect to addressing wildfire issues. I would note, 
for my colleague, that we just recently created a Bipartisan Wildfire 
Caucus with Representative Curtis to address some of the issues that he 
describes.
  But, look, with respect to the bill that is before the House today, 
there is

[[Page H747]]

simply no question. This bill does not create any further risks from 
wildfire, far from it. As I said yesterday, the law as it stands today, 
section 4(d) provides for the flexibility, ultimately, for measures to 
be taken as may be necessary for the control of insects, disease, and 
fire, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may 
deem desirable.
  So, there is flexibility within existing law to address any potential 
issues that might arise. For that reason, I would hope that my 
colleague's concerns would be alleviated and that he would support this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 803, the 
Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.
  This bill incorporates two important pieces of legislation that will 
preserve the natural beauty of public lands and improve access to 
recreational opportunities in my congressional district in Ventura 
County and California.
  The first is the Central Coast Heritage Protection Act, which I 
joined Congressman Salud Carbajal in introducing. The Central Coast 
Heritage Protection Act will protect more than 25,000 acres in the Los 
Padres National Forest and the Carrizo Plain National Monument by 
designating these lands as wilderness.
  It also designates the Condor Trail within Los Padres as a National 
Recreational Trail. This is a beautiful trail that is 400 miles long. 
You can hike from Ventura County to Santa Barbara County surrounded by 
great and unique beauty.
  The second piece of legislation is the Rim of the Valley Corridor 
Preservation Act, which would add more than 191,000 acres to the Santa 
Monica Mountains National Recreational Area. If you ever want to hike 
to a beautiful 180-degree view of the Pacific Ocean, this is your 
place. Much of the land is in Ventura County, and I am grateful for 
Congressman Adam Schiff's efforts to advance this bill through the 
years.
  Overall, H.R. 803 is an important downpayment on a commitment that 
many of us made to help conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands by 2030.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from California 
has expired.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Speaker, in Ventura County, my constituents and I 
are so fortunate to be surrounded by beautiful public spaces. The 
public lands provisions in this bill will strengthen our region's 
commitment to sound environmental stewardship and preserve an important 
part of our natural heritage for future generations to enjoy.
  I know we all agree on the importance of being good stewards of our 
country's natural lands. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 803.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 803.
  During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen the renewed importance of 
having safe and accessible public lands for our families and 
communities. As a proud Virginian, I know that Virginia's public lands 
not only provide opportunities for recreation and reflection but they 
are key to our tourism industry and our overall economy.
  My amendment would strengthen protections for two beautiful areas of 
the George Washington National Forest, the Rough Mountain and Rich Hole 
wilderness areas, following recommendations from the U.S. Forest 
Service in 2014. These areas offer outstanding scenic views, rare and 
endangered plants, age-old hardwood forests, and a dense population of 
black bears.
  This legislation, the Virginia Wilderness Additions Act, would allow 
these irreplaceable areas to remain open to recreation while also 
protecting their wildlife, natural resources, and trails for 
generations to come.
  I would like to thank Senators Kaine and Warner for their leadership 
on this issue in the Senate, as well as Representatives Luria and 
McEachin for working with me on this important amendment.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), the newest member of our Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman 
Grijalva, Congresswoman DeGette, and the committee staff for working 
with me on this amendment and for the continued leadership on this 
bill.
  The amendment incorporates environmental justice communities like 
mine into this space. It would require a report on permits by providers 
serving environmental justice communities.
  This measure, first introduced last Congress by the soon-to-be first 
Native American Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior, 
Congresswoman Haaland, is an important step in identifying and removing 
barriers to access our public lands. Communities of color, low-income 
communities, indigenous communities, and those most impacted by 
pollution and climate change often have the least access to our 
national parks and Federal lands.
  My 13th District Strong is an environmental justice community, an 
area that the State calls the epicenter of the asthma burden due to 
corporate polluters. Folks in my district deserve the same opportunity 
to enjoy clean air and public lands as anyone else so they don't grow 
up like me, thinking that sulfur dioxide and rotten eggs was just how 
the air smelled.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please support this amendment.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining, if I 
might inquire?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I will just simply say that these amendments 
are common sense. They have been vetted by the various stakeholders and 
constituents in the communities that support the respective amendments 
that have been proposed as part of this package, and my hope is that my 
colleagues could support them. Several of them are bipartisan, as we 
have mentioned, and they go to the heart of this bill, which is 
ultimately protecting the most scenic places in our country.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Colorado's love for the 
outdoors. I appreciate his passion to do what is right.
  He mentioned the provisions in the Wilderness Act to address insects, 
disease, and wildfire. Mr. Speaker, that is a Band-Aid. That is what 
you do after the fact.
  What we are proposing is proactive forest management so that you 
don't have the insects, the disease, and the wildfires. An ounce of 
prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure.
  I would challenge my colleagues to enjoy those scenes and those 
vistas. I encourage them to take pictures so they can show their 
children and grandchildren what they looked like before they locked 
them away in a wilderness area.
  Mr. Speaker, this random assortment of amendments does nothing but 
make a bad bill three times worse. The only difference is that instead 
of having a package of eight bills that haven't been through regular 
order that will harm our environment and that will kill jobs in rural 
communities, we now have a package of 23 bills that haven't been 
through regular order, will harm the environment, and will kill jobs in 
rural communities.
  No amendment in this package reduces our dependence on hostile 
foreign nations or critical minerals, improves our supply chains, or 
bolsters American energy security. No amendment in this package changes 
how we currently treat forest and wilderness areas with century-old 
technology like handsaws and shovels. No amendment in this

[[Page H748]]

package creates new jobs or bolsters our economic growth.
  What does this package do? It just adds more wilderness, more wild 
and scenic river designations, and more provisions that haven't gone 
through regular order and do not have the support of Members of 
Congress directly impacted by those amendments.
  Needless to say, this isn't how we should be managing our resources, 
and it isn't how we should be legislating in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this package of 
en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment from 
Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley to reauthorize and standardize the 
management of the National Heritage Areas, and salute them for their 
commitment across multiple sessions of Congress to institute critical, 
lasting protections for our nation's National Heritage Areas.
  This amendment would address the haphazard and confusing patchwork of 
authorizations for National Heritage Areas across the country, with two 
right here in my neck of the woods, by instituting a universal timeline 
to ensure these natural treasures are not subject to arbitrary lapses 
in authorization. These heritage areas create jobs, establish 
destinations that people want to visit and vacation to, and are a smart 
investment in both the economy and the natural environment.
  Support from the federal government is what provides these areas with 
the foundation needed to preserve and protect these natural spaces, but 
the work just starts there--from that federal support, these National 
Heritage Areas leverage countless dollars and volunteer hours to 
promote the environment and identity of their surrounding regions.
  Two of those treasures are especially close to my heart and would be 
reauthorized for 15 years under this amendment--the Last Green Valley 
National Heritage Corridor and the Upper Housatonic Valley National 
Heritage Area. Both areas are incredible assets to eastern Connecticut 
and the Northeast with the Last Green Valley encompassing 35 towns 
stretching from eastern Connecticut to Massachusetts. First designated 
as a National Heritage Corridor by Congress in 1994, the area spans 
1,100 miles in Connecticut alone, remains 77 percent forest and farm, 
and is the last stretch of dark night sky in the sprawl between Boston 
and Washington, D.C.
  My colleagues from Connecticut and Massachusetts know that 
investments in our open spaces provide an enormous value for taxpayers, 
and I salute our neighbor and friend for his amendment which would 
ensure that these wonders are protected for future generations to 
enjoy.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment (Garamendi No. 6) to the 
``Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act'' (H.R. 803) 
would adjust the Congressionally designated boundary of the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area to include approximately 62 
acres of adjacent publicly owned land in unincorporated Solano County.
  I thank Rules Chairman McGovern (D-MA) for making my noncontroversial 
amendment in order and Natural Resources Chairman Grijalva (D-AZ) for 
including it in the en bloc #1 amendments today, offered by Congressman 
Neguse (D-CO).
  My amendment is identical to H.R. 1230, which I introduced on 
February 23, 2021, at the request of the City of Rio Vista. It would 
include the decommissioned United States Army Reserve Center (Rio 
Vista), U.S. Coast Guard Station Rio Vista, Beach Drive Wastewater 
Treatment Plant (City of Rio Vista), and Sandy Beach County Park 
(Solano County) in the National Heritage Area.
  Two of these parcels--the decommissioned United States Army Reserve 
Center and Beach Drive Wastewater Treatment Plant--are owned by the 
City of Rio Vista but technically outside the city limits. As such, it 
appears these parcels were omitted inadvertently when the National Park 
Service prepared the legislative map for the then-proposed Delta 
National Heritage Area in 2010. Including these parcels within the 
National Heritage Area's boundary supports the City of Rio Vista's 
proposed redevelopment of the decommissioned United States Army Reserve 
Center, now owned by the City.
  In March 2019, Congress enacted into law (Public Law 116-9) my 
legislation with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) designating the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as California's first national heritage 
area. The Delta is a crown jewel of our state and an iconic working 
landscape, which my family has been fortunate to call home for over 40 
years. It is the most productive watershed in the western United States 
and among the most ecologically important in the Western Hemisphere.
  Together, we must safeguard the Delta and the historic communities 
that make it such a special place, including Rio Vista. Expanding the 
Delta National Heritage Area will ensure that the proposed 
redevelopment of the decommissioned Rio Vista Army base and similar 
projects on the adjacent publicly owned land are eligible to apply for 
the $10 million in federal grant funding available until 2034.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment and the underlying bill, 
which I will work to enact into law before California's Delta 
Protection Commission completes the management plan for the National 
Heritage Area.

                              {time}  0945

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Curtis

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
3 printed in part B of House Report 117-6.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

             TITLE IX--RENEWABLE ENERGY INPUTS ACCESS STUDY

     SEC. 901. STUDY.

       The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Commerce, shall conduct 
     a study to determine whether the acreage to be withdrawn 
     under this Act contains geothermal resources, or minerals 
     needed for battery storage, renewable energy technology, and 
     electric vehicles.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to require a 
study of any land impacted by the legislation to determine if these 
areas contain geothermal resources or minerals needed for battery 
storage, renewable energy technology, or electric vehicles.
  We agree that we want to reduce human emissions that are polluting 
our ecosystem. Renewable energy will play a role long into the future, 
and we must ensure we have the resources needed to make solar panels, 
wind turbines, and batteries here in America.
  President Biden agrees. Just yesterday he issued an executive order 
to ensure the United States has access to domestic critical minerals. 
President Biden's fact sheet on the executive order says: ``While the 
U.S. is a net exporter of electric vehicles, we are not a leader in the 
supply chain associated with electric battery production. The U.S. 
could better leverage our sizable lithium reserves and manufacturing 
know-how to expand domestic battery production.''
  To state the obvious, if we are accidentally locking up lithium with 
this bill while President Biden says we should do the opposite, this is 
something Congress should know. This amendment does not prevent any 
part of the lands package from being implemented, as currently drafted.
  I am a strong supporter of the local-driven public lands legislation, 
which is why I ensured my amendment would not impact any of the bills 
on the ground level. There is parts of this package I actually support. 
Mr. Huffman's bill included in the public lands bill was supported by 
me last year.
  This amendment is not a criticism of this lands package. It is about 
listening to science and combating climate change. More information is 
always better, more science is better. That is all this amendment does, 
give us more science-backed information as Congress faces the issues of 
producing renewable energy in the future.

[[Page H749]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, I appreciate the gentleman's 
remarks on this amendment. My friend from Utah, I know from our work 
together last Congress and this Congress and from our bipartisan work 
on the Congressional Wildfire Caucus that the gentleman is sincere in 
his intent that he, too, wants to help address the climate crisis and 
the threat that it poses to our communities, and I thank him for that.
  However, to that end, I would encourage the gentleman and his 
colleagues to continue to work with us across the aisle on 
opportunities to create clean, green, well-paying jobs for all 
Americans. Ultimately, I will be opposing the gentleman's amendment 
because I don't believe it is in the best interest of this particular 
legislation.
  As we have heard over the course of the debate this morning and 
yesterday, of course, on the bill, the various areas that are protected 
in this bill were included at the request of local communities who want 
to see these lands protected for future generations.
  One example, perhaps the most salient in my view, is the Thompson 
Divide region in my bill, the CORE Act, which has faced years of 
pressure to develop certain mineral interests that local stakeholders, 
including the ranching community, oppose.
  The largest individual withdrawal area in this bill actually 
surrounds the Grand Canyon, a region with few identified critical 
mineral resources, but one that I believe we can all agree is of 
enormous importance to the American public. That importance, that value 
of the Grand Canyon, as well as every area included in this bill, is 
ultimately why we are here today.
  It is why my colleagues have gone through years of painstaking work 
developing a consensus with those local communities to identify those 
lands of such exceptional value that they believe and the communities 
believe should be protected for future generations.
  The bottom line is this: We believe that some places should be set 
aside permanently from extraction because some landscapes, like the 
Grand Canyon, are simply too special to be mined, drilled, or 
excavated.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Colorado, I welcome his 
invitation to work together on many of these issues. I point out that 
we are simply asking for a study so that we know what is there. We are 
not stopping anything. We are simply asking for a study.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for his 
tireless work on doing what is right for the environment. I use that 
word ``environment,'' and not the word ``climate,'' because I want 
people to understand that those two things are different.
  Climate is very narrowly focused. Climate is an issue that has made 
carbon, a necessary element, arch enemy number one. Republicans are 
about a cleaner, safer, and healthier environment. We are concerned not 
just about carbon in the atmosphere, but we are concerned about forest 
health, about air quality, about water quality, about wildlife habitat, 
about having great places for recreation.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to mine inside the Grand Canyon. Nobody is 
mining inside the Grand Canyon. Nobody ever will mine inside the Grand 
Canyon. We have already got the Grand Canyon National Park that 
establishes those boundaries, and these mineral withdrawals are far 
outside of the actual Grand Canyon.

  Mr. Speaker, we want a clean environment. We want a healthy 
environment. We are all for cleaner technology, but that cleaner 
technology takes certain things. It takes minerals and elements. It 
takes research and development. It takes using all of the energy 
sources that we have.
  Why can't we talk about creating more next-generation nuclear power?
  It has zero carbon. If your concern is about climate, your concern is 
about carbon. And nuclear energy doesn't emit carbon.
  Why not put hydroelectric plants on existing dams?
  We don't have to build new dams. We can add 12,000 megawatts of 
clean, carbon-free hydropower on existing dams. We can use the natural 
resources that we have and develop cleaner ways to use them.
  As we develop more electrical components and devices that, again, run 
on carbon-free energy, unless that energy is produced from carbon 
sources, but we have to have a stable and reliable supply of energy, 
and we can't have that without developing these resources.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concern about not locking up these 
resources and doing a study to make sure that when we lock them up, we 
are not locking away our future, we are not taking away the ability for 
this country to produce our own energy supply, that we are not further 
relying on a foreign supply chain that is controlled by Communist 
parties.
  Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with a resource-rich country, but we are 
right now at the mercy of foreign suppliers, especially China, to meet 
our mineral needs. Resources like lithium, cobalt, gallium, and dozens 
more will be needed in the billions of pounds to meet the projected 
growth in electric vehicles and other renewable technologies. Even 
commodities like copper, which have historically been produced in 
surplus, are now falling short of demand.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage supporting the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague might engage in 
just a brief colloquy so I understand the scope of the amendment. What 
is the most common way to assess geothermal or other mineral resources? 
I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I suspect you have an 
answer ready to tell me, and I would love to hear that.
  Mr. NEGUSE. The gentleman is correct, I do have an answer. The most 
common way is to drill. That is the most common way to assess 
geothermal and mineral resources.
  With much respect to the gentleman, because, again, I know his intent 
is sincere, but this amendment is not simply a study amendment. This 
study amendment, ultimately, if it were to succeed, would have the 
Interior Department drilling countless wells throughout these 
wilderness areas to ultimately ascertain the information that the 
distinguished gentleman seeks, and I just don't think that is a prudent 
way forward.
  I would say to the distinguished ranking member, with respect to the 
areas around the Grand Canyon, that the southwest United States, as I 
know some of my colleagues are certainly familiar, is littered with 
remnants of abandoned uranium mines and mill sites that poison the 
water and the air to this day, and those mines have hit Tribal nations 
the hardest.
  So you can understand why the distinguished chairman of our 
committee, Chairman Grijalva, would feel so compelled by local 
communities in the State that he represents to move forward with the 
Grand Canyon protections that are a part of this important wilderness 
package.
  Mr. Speaker, while I very much respect my colleague and look forward 
to working with him on future proposals, we respectfully oppose this 
amendment and would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Curtis).
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appear to have it.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The

[[Page H750]]

SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, 
the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.


             Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Neguse

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 147, I rise to 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en 
bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 2, consisting of amendment Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 
15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, and 29, printed in part B of House Report 117-
6, offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado:


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 803. EXEMPTION.

       The withdrawal under section 802 shall not apply to any 
     Federal land depicted on the Map as ``Federal Mineral Estate 
     to be Withdrawn'' located in the 4th Congressional District 
     of Arizona, as configured on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gosar of Arizona

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 803. SUPPORTING SCIENCE-BASED LAND MANAGEMENT.

       The withdrawal under section 802 shall not go into effect 
     until the Secretary of the Interior completes a mineral 
     survey of the area proposed for withdrawal, including 
     uranium, rare earth elements, geothermal and oil and gas 
     resources, and determines that there are no mineral 
     resources, geothermal resources, or critical minerals present 
     other than uranium.


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Herrell of New Mexico

       Strike subsection (i) of section 103.
       Strike section 233.
       Strike subsection (c) of section 302.
       Strike section 404.
       Strike section 407.
       Strike section 713.


          Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado

       Page 330, after line 6, insert the following:

                        TITLE IX--SAVINGS CLAUSE

     SEC. 901. UTILITY FACILITIES AND RIGHTS OF WAY.

        Nothing in this Act shall--
       (1) affect the use, operation, maintenance, repair, 
     construction, destruction, reconfiguration, expansion, 
     inspection, renewal, reconstruction, alteration, addition, 
     relocation, improvement, removal, or replacement of a utility 
     facility or appurtenant right of-way within or adjacent to 
     any wilderness areas or potential wilderness areas designated 
     in this Act;
       (2) affect access to a utility facility or right-of way 
     within or adjacent to a wilderness area or potential 
     wilderness area designated in this Act; or
       (3) preclude the establishment of a new utility facility or 
     right-of-way (including instream sites, routes, and areas) 
     within a wilderness area or potential wilderness area 
     designated in this Act if such a facility or right-of-way is 
     necessary for public health and safety, electricity supply, 
     or other utility services.


             Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Moore of Utah

       Page 330, after line 6, add the following:

          TITLE IX--RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL INPUT

     SEC. 901. COUNTY APPROVAL.

       No wilderness or potential wilderness designation under 
     this Act shall be effective in any county where the county 
     has not formally approved such designation.


         Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Newhouse of Washington

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                         TITLE IX--PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 901. RENEWABLE ENERGY JOBS.

       This Act shall not take effect until the Secretary of the 
     Interior certifies that no renewable energy jobs have been 
     lost as a result of this Act.


         Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Newhouse of Washington

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                         TITLE IX--PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 901. RENEWABLE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT.

       Nothing in this Act shall prohibit development of new 
     renewable hydroelectric energy and associated transmission 
     lines and rights-of-way in the wild and scenic designations, 
     wilderness designations, or wilderness study area 
     designations under this Act.


          Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Stauber of Minnesota

       Page 330, after line 6, add the following:

          TITLE IX--RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL INPUT

     SEC. 901. COUNTY APPROVAL.

       No mineral withdrawal under this Act shall be effective in 
     any county where the county has not formally approved such 
     withdrawal.


          Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Stauber of Minnesota

       Page 30, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 107. APPLICATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     shall not apply to any lands or waters in the Third or Fifth 
     Congressional Districts of Colorado as in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       Page 329, after line 4, insert the following:

                        Subtitle E--Local Input

     SEC. 761. APPLICATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     shall not apply to any lands or waters in the Third or Fifth 
     Congressional Districts of Colorado as in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       Page 330, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC. 803. APPLICATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     shall not apply to any lands, waters, or minerals in the 
     Fourth Congressional Districts of Arizona as in existence on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.


          Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Stauber of Minnesota

       Page 30, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 107. 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.
       Page 329, after line 4, insert the following:

                        Subtitle E--Local Input

     SEC. 761. 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.


         Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Westerman of Arkansas

       Page 330, after line 6, add the following:

  TITLE IX--PRESERVING WILDERNESS CHARACTER AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 
                               CHARACTER

     SEC. 901. PRESERVING WILDERNESS AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 
                   CHARACTER.

       (a) Wilderness.--The Secretary of Agriculture or the 
     Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, may exempt from 
     any wilderness or potential wilderness designated under this 
     Act any area determined by that Secretary not to meet the 
     definition of wilderness under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1131 et seq.).
       (b) Wild and Scenic Rivers.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, may exempt 
     from any wild and scenic river designated under this Act any 
     area determined by that Secretary not to meet the 
     qualifications for a wild, scenic or recreational river under 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) and the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Westerman) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendments that 
would offer important improvements to the underlying bill.
  Unfortunately, this en bloc is only a fraction of the amendments 
Republicans would have offered if Democrats had held a markup on the 
bill in the Natural Resources Committee.
  It is egregious that House Democrats rejected every single Republican 
recreation and wildfire amendment offered at the Rules Committee. House 
Democrats also denied Representative Boebert of Colorado the chance to 
offer a single amendment to this legislation, despite the fact that 
one-third of all wilderness designations contained in the entire bill 
are in her district, and she has never had the chance to even debate 
it, as a new Member of Congress.
  One amendment that I offered is included in this package, and it 
would rectify the fact that Democrats have arbitrarily included tens of 
thousands of acres of wilderness designations that have not been 
recommended for wilderness or do not meet the basic definition of 
wilderness in the Wilderness Act.
  If my Democratic colleagues feel so confident that every single acre 
in this bill is actually worthy of a wilderness designation, they 
should have no problem supporting my simple amendment to reaffirm 
proper wilderness characteristics.
  Also included in these amendments is a proposal from one of our 
freshmen members of the Natural Resources Committee, Representative 
Moore from Utah. It will protect the rights of counties to have a say 
in local land use by requiring county approval of wilderness 
designations.

[[Page H751]]

  Representative Stauber also offered a version of this amendment for 
mineral withdrawals and several amendments that would exclude 
congressional districts represented by Members of Congress who were not 
consulted on this legislation and strongly oppose it.
  This should not be a difficult hurdle to overcome. In fact, it should 
be a desirable outcome for the sponsor of these bills. Forcing land 
management decisions upon local communities without their support is a 
bad idea.

                              {time}  1000

  Another one of our freshman committee members, Representative Herrell 
of New Mexico, offered an amendment to remove all potential wilderness 
designations in the bill. This bill designates an amount of area 
equivalent to the size of President Biden's home State of Delaware, and 
it includes only one wilderness study area release. We shouldn't be 
adding potential wilderness to this bill without releasing an 
equivalent amount of wilderness study area first.
  Finally, this package of amendments would improve our American energy 
security by ensuring continued development of critical energy 
infrastructure, promoting the responsible utilization of domestic 
critical minerals, facilitating rights-of-way for utilities, and 
protecting jobs in the energy sector. In contrast, the underlying bill 
is just an extension of the Biden ban and will hurt rural jobs and our 
national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish that Democrats afforded us more than 10 minutes 
to consider these amendments that would actually improve our 
environment and economy through conservation and multiple use.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to strongly support 
this en bloc of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to en bloc No. 
2.
  The amendments in this bloc run the gauntlet of ideological 
opposition to wilderness, public lands protections, and our efforts 
that respond to the climate crisis. The amendments are not a good-faith 
effort to attempt to improve the bill or work with the Democratic 
sponsors of the committee. They simply seek to outright reverse or 
fundamentally weaken the various designations proposed in this bill.
  In many cases, if these amendments were adopted and signed into law, 
the result would leave these areas with fewer protections than they 
currently have under the status quo.
  Now, I heard a lot of wide-ranging arguments against this bill from 
the distinguished ranking member, but let me just begin by responding 
to two points specifically:
  First, with respect to this notion of having local community support, 
I would simply say--and I welcome my colleague to come visit my 
district in the State of Colorado. I represent a district that is the 
size of New Jersey--far bigger than Delaware--10 counties, stretches 
all the way to the Wyoming border, Grand County, half of Eagle County, 
Summit County. I look forward to taking the ranking member to my 
district in Colorado and showing him these incredible places that we 
seek to protect, because I believe if he has a chance to visit them, I 
may be able to convince him of the same.
  I also just say, secondly, with respect to the process complaints, as 
I said yesterday, every title of this bill was heard, was marked up, 
passed out of committee, and passed this Chamber, on this floor in the 
116th Congress--not once, twice.
  So I understand the gentleman's desire to have more amendments. I 
think it is a bit odd to be arguing that he is unable to amend the bill 
when he is literally debating the amendments that he is offering as 
they exist today, that we are proceeding to debate in this fashion.
  In any event, I will simply say that these amendments, as I said 
earlier, are not a good-faith attempt to improve this bill, and for 
that reason we would oppose them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would love to visit the gentleman's 
district, take some photos so that we could show future generations 
what it looked like before it was locked away in wilderness, and maybe 
be able to talk about some of those forest management activities and 
how it could help improve the area.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Stauber).
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendments 
contained in this en bloc package, which includes three of my own and 
two I offer on behalf of my good friend and colleague, Mr. Gosar.
  The amendments I offer restore control to locals who not only 
recreate in the areas impacted by the underlying bill, but live and 
earn their livelihoods there, too. This is about northern Arizona and 
western Colorado. This is about uranium formations in Representative 
Gosar's district, and oil and gas in Representatives Lamborn's and 
Boebert's districts. This is about local governance and listening to 
those who live and work in the area, not just those who make it a short 
weekend retreat.
  The amendments I offer today move control of land back to those who 
govern best. These amendments exempt the bill from taking effect in 
Arizona's Fourth, Colorado's Third, and Colorado's Fifth Congressional 
Districts, and require county input. Those who represent these 
districts were not meaningfully consulted on these bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Mohave County 
Board of Supervisors in support of Representative Gosar's amendment No. 
7. These are the folks who know best for their families, their 
neighbors, and their land.

                                               Mohave County Board


                                               of Supervisors,

                                   Kingman, AZ, February 24, 2021.
     Hon. Paul Gosar,
     Washington, DC.
       Congressman Gosar: The Mohave County Board of Supervisors 
     is writing to offer our support for your amendment to H.R. 
     803--Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021. As you know, the 
     passage of this legislation will have a grave effect on 
     Mohave County, Arizona, and our neighboring counties in Utah. 
     Uranium mining in the past has been the forefront of our 
     economic growth in Mohave County and if allowed to continue 
     will bring in nearly $29 billion to our local economy over a 
     42 year period. The passage of H.R. 803 would make permanent 
     a 2012 moratorium on uranium mining in our area. The language 
     of your amendment would help alleviate the permanent economic 
     loss we would sustain under the passage of H.R. 803. We 
     strongly support the passing of this amendment as presented 
     in the Rules Committee and the House of Representatives. 
     Without this amendment, the financial stability of our 
     economy in Mohave County would drastically suffer.
       In 2012, the Secretary of the Interior imposed a 20 year 
     ban on over 1 million acres of land in the Arizona Strip Area 
     for the purpose of Uranium mining. This ban included both 
     public lands and National Forest System lands. This ban took 
     away much needed growth and jobs from our area. Secretary 
     Salazar at the time issued this withdrawal without complying 
     with the law requiring coordination with local governments. 
     The Federal Land Policy Management Act, 43 USC Section 1711 
     requires that the Secretary and his designees ``coordinate'' 
     with local government as to development and implementation of 
     any plan or management action. Coordination is defined in the 
     Act as requiring prior notice of proposed plans and actions 
     to the local government officials (``prior'' meaning prior to 
     public announcements, and early enough to provide 
     ``meaningful'' participation by the local officials in the 
     ``development'' of the plan or action.). The congressional 
     mandate or coordination also requires the Secretary to use 
     all practicable means to reach consistency between the 
     federal plan/management action and local policy, plan or law. 
     All of which Secretary Salazar did not do.
       Making this ban permanent based on misinformation will have 
     lasting effects on Mohave County. We respect and take a 
     responsibility for protecting the Grand Canyon, but saying 
     that the Grand Canyon will suffer because of mining is 
     inaccurate. Secretary Salazar's reasoning behind the 
     withdrawal was out of concern that it could damage the 
     region's drinking water and the park's water quality. Bureau 
     of Land Management officials contradicted those claims by 
     explaining that their Arizona Strip field office had no 
     evidence of contamination of water, and had no evidence of 
     problems with the safe operation of the uranium mines in 
     operation on the lands.
       Uranium mining is important and useful for many reasons. 
     The lands in the ``Strip'' contain the nation's high grade 
     uranium deposits and enough uranium to provide power 
     generation for the state of California for over 20 years. 
     Uranium is useful in many ways. It is used by our military 
     for national security and defense. Uranium metal is very 
     dense and heavy. When it is depleted (DU), uranium is used by 
     the military as shielding to protect Army tanks, and also in 
     parts of

[[Page H752]]

     bullets and missiles. The military also uses enriched uranium 
     to power nuclear propelled Navy ships and submarines, and in 
     nuclear weapons. A permanent withdrawal of uranium mining 
     from the ``Strip'' harms the American people by removing 
     between 326-375 million lbs (the equivalent electricity 
     generating capacity for the entire state of California's 40 
     million people for 22.4 years) of uranium.
       From a national security standpoint, domestic utilities now 
     import 90% of the uranium used to operate America's 104 
     nuclear reactors. Thirty years ago, these reactors used U.S. 
     mined uranium for 100% of electricity production. The nation 
     cannot be pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear fuel. In sum, these 
     deposits represent the last available use of our public lands 
     for economic growth in our region.
       The opponents of uranium mining have chosen to ignore the 
     fact that mining with environmentally sound reclamation was 
     conducted from the early 1980s until the price of uranium 
     collapsed in 1993. No mining at all occurred from 1993 until 
     2010, and the Denison mine which is now operating, is 
     following and often exceeding all environmental and safety 
     laws.
       Arizona needs to go back to the roots that led to Arizona 
     being developed, and that is mining. The strict federal and 
     state environmental laws already on the books will protect 
     the public from environmental damage to the Grand Canyon 
     watershed. The mining of uranium however does not affect 
     ground water nor destroy the natural resources of the land. 
     It does not require open pit mining. Upon completion of 
     mining one Breccia Pipe (4 years) the land is placed back 
     into its native state.
       We want to thank you for putting forward this amendment. 
     Nuclear energy can be the future of clean energy. We have the 
     resources in this Country to ensure that happens and we have 
     the technology and means to ensure mining that energy is both 
     environmentally safe and protects our natural resources. We 
     stand in support of the amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                               Buster Johnson,

                                                         Chairman,
                               Mohave County Board of Supervisors.

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this en bloc, and 
a ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
  Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I also thank the 
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and my fellow Arizonan, 
dean of our delegation, Congressman Raul Grijalva, for their 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, when people think of Arizona, they think of our Grand 
Canyon--perfectly chiseled over millions of years by the Colorado 
River. Its beauty and scale are humbling. But to us, it represents so 
much more than a natural wonder.
  The Grand Canyon National Park welcomes 6 million visitors a year. It 
is the cornerstone of our State's tourism industry, directly supporting 
almost 10,000 jobs. Though it is special to all, it is sacred to the 
indigenous communities who call it home and who know better than anyone 
how critical it is to protect.
  It is simple: This is no place for uranium mining. We can't risk the 
health of the communities that rely on this land and water or the 
delicate ecosystems it contains. We cannot improve upon this wonder, 
and we should not play a part in its destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, I support protecting the Grand Canyon, and I am proud of 
the vote we will take later today to safeguard it for future 
generations.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).
  Ms. HERRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendments that 
would strike all potential wilderness designations from this bill. A 
wilderness designation is one of the most restrictive designations that 
the Federal Government can put on a piece of land. They put limits on 
forest management activities, access for emergency and military 
personnel, and limit access for the general public.
  As we have seen across the West, areas designated as potential 
wilderness or wilderness study areas sit in limbo for decades. Criteria 
for what constitutes a wilderness area is very clear and 
straightforward. Keeping lands under potential wilderness or wilderness 
study area designations for extended periods of time is unnecessary and 
greatly handicaps rural communities in the West.
  Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize: Many of the counties affected by these 
potential wilderness designations are already living in lands with over 
80 percent publicly managed lands. Many of my Eastern colleagues may 
not appreciate what that means for local governments in the affected 
counties when I say a county is over 80 percent public land. Public 
lands are not taxable, meaning that the local tax base for counties 
that have high amounts of Federal lands is extremely small, therefore, 
their multiple use on these lands prevented by this legislation is 
crucial for economic success.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record with 
reference to ``Eastern colleagues,'' I represent the State of Colorado, 
my colleague, Representative DeGette, represents the State of Colorado, 
the vast majority of the sponsors of this bill represents Western 
States. My district is not all that far from the gentlewoman's district 
in New Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the dean of our delegation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I just couldn't let this go. Insinuating 
that the sponsors of this legislation, on all the titles of this 
legislation have not been to these areas and that these designations do 
not have local support is simply untrue.
  Two-thirds of the individuals in the affected areas in title 1 of my 
part of the bill, which have been mostly managed as wilderness study 
areas for 40 years, support wilderness. Scores of local public 
officials, scores of local mayors, city councils, and, yes, county 
commissioners have supported this over the years.
  I personally have been to almost every area in the legislation. I 
have met with scores of businesses, local elected officials, and 
citizens, and I challenge anybody to go look at these very special 
areas and tell me that they should not be preserved for future 
generations.
  The same goes for every single title of this legislation. It has been 
vetted, it has been revetted, and it has been revetted again, and it 
has strong reasons for designation as public lands, and it has strong 
local support.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of these amendments. Utah 
ranks second in the country for percentage of land owned by the Federal 
Government, so we understand the challenges and opportunities that come 
with land designations.
  Mr. Speaker, with Utah's interests in mind, I introduced a 
commonsense amendment that would require local land officials to 
approve wilderness designations, empowering the local communities to 
work with the Federal Government on major land decisions, and the 
previous comments actually emphasize the importance of that. And I 
appreciate that, and I respect that, the local input that the 
gentlewoman was mentioning.
  Our system works best when there is close collaboration between all 
levels in government. Our State and local governments see firsthand 
obstacles to successfully managing their resources, and they are 
experts in their communities' unique needs and concerns. As 
policymakers, we have a responsibility to bring local officials to the 
table so that we can make the most informed land decisions possible.
  Wilderness areas can be beautiful, but these designations bring many 
challenges. Our Federal lands will be best managed when we include our 
constituents' perspectives. Unfortunately, this process has denied my 
Republican colleagues and me the ability to do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for these very sensible and 
reasonable amendments.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague: One, I 
want to welcome him to the United States Congress, and I thank him for 
his thoughtful recitation with respect to the amendment he offered.
  But I just want to assure him, for example, with respect to the CORE 
Act, my provision of this bill, it has the support of every county in 
which a part of the bill is designated. That is to say, in the areas 
where there are protections being made in the bill, the counties in 
those areas support this bill. And that is why this bill has attracted 
such bipartisan support back home in

[[Page H753]]

Colorado and why it has passed the House twice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time both sides 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who, again, represents one-third of the area 
proposed in this wilderness area, to tell the House about how the 
people there really feel.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
yielding. I thank Mr. Stauber for working with me on several amendments 
that protect Colorado's Third Congressional District. All 11 of my 
amendments to give voice to the people in my district were denied.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill targets my district and would lock up more 
than 550,000 acres of it with new wilderness designations. The Mesa 
County Commissioners, Montezuma County Commissioners, Dolores County 
Commissioners, the Archuleta County Commissioners, White River and 
Douglas Creek Conservation Districts, the Colorado Farm Bureau, and 
numerous other constituencies in Colorado strongly oppose this bill 
because of the damage they know that it will cause and activities it 
will prevent.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record several of those letters of 
opposition.

                                  Colorado Snowmobile Association,


                         COHVCO, Trails Preservation Alliance,

                                                February 23, 2021.
     Re 2021 Omnibus Wilderness & Amendments.

     Congresswoman Lauren Boebert,
     Att: Jeff Smalls & Ashley Higgins,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Jeff and Ashley: Please accept this correspondence as 
     the comments of the above referenced Organizations vigorously 
     opposing the CORE Wilderness Proposal (HR 803) and the 
     Colorado Wilderness Act (HR577) hereinafter referred to as 
     ``the Proposal''. After a detailed review of the Proposal, 
     the Organizations have concluded that every area expanded or 
     created in the Proposal would result in significant lost 
     recreational opportunities for the overwhelming portion of 
     visitors to the Proposal area, both currently and in the 
     future. While there are significant lost opportunities, there 
     is also no additional protections for multiple use routes 
     that might remain outside the Wilderness areas and no new 
     areas are designated or released for multiple use 
     recreational opportunities.
       The Organizations have spent many years trying to hammer 
     out something that works for everyone around these proposals, 
     and have simply been stonewalled at every turn by the 
     sponsors of this legislation in both Houses of Congress. This 
     is despite the fact our groups were thanked by outgoing 
     Senator Mark Udall for our collaboration and efforts around 
     the development of the Hermosa Creek Watershed Management 
     legislation signed into law on December 19, 2014 as Section 
     3062 in the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (PL 113-291). 
     This legislation released a WSA and specifically protected 
     motorized usage in the area moving forward, designated a 
     large special management area where multiple uses were 
     protected and designated Wilderness in areas where that 
     management was appropriate. We had hoped this collaboration 
     was a roadmap for resolving many of the ongoing challenges we 
     encounter around Wilderness designation and releases. 
     Unfortunately, we were incorrect as exemplified by the 
     efforts around HR 577 and HR 803 as phone calls are not 
     returned, meetings are continued and ideological trench 
     warfare has returned around these Proposals.
       It is worth noting, the Colorado Wilderness Act would 
     heavily impact many recently developed trail networks that 
     have enjoyed strong bi-partisan and community support or 
     historical trail networks that serve a wide range of 
     interests. Examples of these types of losses would include:
       1. Bangs Canyon area, which developed an extensive multiple 
     use trail network after a complete NEPA review and analysis 
     and almost a million dollars in direct funding from users for 
     the project. The Bangs Canyon SMA area is now to be 
     designated as Wilderness.
       2. Delores Canyon--this area has a large network of trails 
     serving a wide range of interests that has existed for an 
     extended period of time without controversy.
       While the list above is far from exhaustive, these are 
     examples of impacts we are seeing all too frequently.


                 a. Our position on Specific Amendments

       Please note that while we do not specifically address every 
     Amendment, several of these are unrelated to recreational 
     usages and outside our expertise to discuss in a meaningful 
     manner. While we are not opposed to any of the Amendments on 
     the list, we are not taking a position.
       1. Rep. Boebert 30x30 Program Nullification Amendment #18:
       Vigorously support. This Executive Order is a direct 
     conflict with multiple mandates that have managed public 
     lands successfully for decades. Not only does this EO 
     conflict with these mandates, the application of these 
     concepts to private property rights and interests is even 
     more troubling.
       2. Rep. Boebert--BLM headquarters--Amendment #16:
       Vigorously support. Moving BLM national headquarters closer 
     to lands owned and managed by BLM has greatly increased the 
     responsiveness of the BLM to a wide range of issues. This 
     amendment has garnered strong bipartisan support.
       3. Rep. Boebert Native Americans, Other Minorities and 
     Women Jobs Protection Act-- Amendment #60:
       No position.
       4. Rep. Boebert CO, AZ, CA, WA Wilderness Study Act 
     Amendment #56:
       Vigorously support. The lingering designations around the 
     Wilderness process create significant management challenges 
     moving forward in areas that have never been suitable for 
     designation as Wilderness. The loss of historical 
     recreational opportunities due to the lingering designation 
     of the West Needles WSA was a major issue driving the Hermosa 
     Creek legislation.
                                  ____

                                    Board of County Commissioners,


                                   Archuleta County, Colorado,

                            Pagosa Springs, CO, February 24, 2021.
       To Whom It May Concern: The Archuleta County Board of 
     County Commissioners is opposed to H.R. 803, the ``Protecting 
     America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act''. This bill would 
     lock-up nearly 1.5 million acres with new wilderness 
     designations. We agree with Congressman Doug Lamborn's 
     statements that the American people deserve to access our 
     nation's public lands--not to be locked out of them and that 
     a wilderness designation does not guarantee the protection of 
     these lands.
       We support Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's amendments to the 
     bill and ask that the House allow local governments to make 
     the right decisions for their communities, especially when it 
     comes to managing our beautiful outdoors.
       Please feel free to contact us if you want to discuss this 
     matter further. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                     Alvin Schaaf,
     Chairman, Board of County Commissioners.
                                  ____

                                               Grand Junction Area


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                                February 24, 2021.
     Congresswoman Lauren Boebert,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Boebert: On behalf of the 900 small 
     businesses employing 37,000 people that the Grand Junction 
     Area Chamber of Commerce represents, I am writing to 
     encourage you to oppose H.R. 803, a bill that would lock up 
     public lands in Mesa County and negatively impact our local 
     economy. Our community's economy is still reliant in part on 
     the business activity generated by our legacy industries of 
     agriculture and energy. This bill if passed will negatively 
     impact our already fragile economy and jeopardize our 
     economic recovery.
       These are lands that are literally in our backyard in Mesa 
     County yet Congresswoman DeGette continues to ignore us, does 
     not meet with us, and does not even consider the consequences 
     of her bill on the hardworking families of our areas.
       In addition to opposing H.R. 803 our organization supports 
     the various amendments you are proposing be added to the bill 
     that include keeping the BLM Headquarters in Grand Junction, 
     Colorado, requiring that affected counties must approve the 
     Wilderness Designation and protects grazing and water rights.
       We appreciate your efforts to help retain jobs and the 
     diversity of our local economy by opposing H.R. 803 and 
     offering amendments to help preserve the livelihood of our 
     families and our way of life.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Diane Schwenke,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____



                                        San Juan Trail Riders,

                                                      Durango, CO,
     Congresswoman Lauren Boebert,
     Attn: Jeff Smalls & Ashley Higgins,
     Washington, DC.
     Re 2021 Omnibus Wilderness & Amendments.

       Dear Jeff and Ashley: Please accept this correspondence as 
     support of comments submitted by Trails Preservation Alliance 
     (``TPA''), Colorado Off Highway Vehicle Coalition 
     (``COHVCO''), and Colorado Snowmobile Association (``CSA'') 
     in their vigorously opposing the CORE Wilderness Proposal 
     (H.R. 803) and the Colorado Wilderness Act (H.R. 577).
       San Juan Trail Riders (``SJTR'') is a single-track 
     motorized trail user group that has a membership of nearly 
     400 members within the Four Corners Area, California and 
     Texas. These members provide significant positive economic 
     impacts to a broad range of businesses and communities in 
     cities and towns throughout the region. The organization has 
     for over 30 years provided significant support to agencies 
     like the BLM and USFS for recreational single-track motorized 
     trail construction, maintenance and repair. Additionally, 
     this agency is responsible for helping to

[[Page H754]]

     establish special grant applications from existing state OHV 
     Funds. SJTR has headquarters in Durango, CO.
           Submitted by,
                                                       Deric Hook,
     Board Member, San Juan Trail Riders.
                                  ____

                                                      Mesa County,


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                            Grand Junction, CO, February 25, 2021.
     Re Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021, H.R. 803.

     Hon. Diana DeGette,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeGette: As the Board of County 
     Commissioners (``Board'') for Mesa County, Colorado, we are 
     again writing in strong opposition to the Colorado Wilderness 
     Act of 2021, H.R. 803 (``the Act''). Mesa County's opposition 
     to additional Wilderness designation within Mesa County is 
     clearly documented in ``A Resolution of the Board Of County 
     Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado Opposing the Colorado 
     Wilderness Act of 2015 (H.R. 3336) and Calling on Congress to 
     Release All Wilderness Study Areas in Colorado'' (attached) 
     passed and adopted on September 21, 2015, and the letter of 
     opposition to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019, dated June 
     24, 2019 (attached).
       Wilderness designations are the most restrictive land 
     management tool available and are in direct conflict with the 
     multiple use mandate of our federally managed lands. As 
     federally managed lands, these areas are subject to 
     customized protections through various designations 
     identified in area resource management plans, including 
     prohibition of grazing, seasonal travel limitations and 
     closures, and oil and gas lease stipulations.
       Mesa County supports less restrictive federal designations 
     that involve appropriate, special management protections 
     determined through responsible land use planning that allow 
     stakeholders to work together to identify and address issues 
     with local solutions for each unique area, rather than a 
     broad-brush approach that ends multiple use of these lands in 
     perpetuity.
       The Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021 egregiously fails to 
     take into account several important considerations concerning 
     necessary access, such as:
       1. Three of the five proposed Wilderness areas in Mesa 
     County have experienced wildfires over the past two decades. 
     Lack of access for wildfire mitigation, proper 
     extinguishment, and post-fire restoration increases the 
     probability and severity of devastating wildfires. Lack of 
     access also compounds the potential for life-safety 
     emergencies as responding personnel will be obstructed when 
     answering time-sensitive calls.
       2. Based on the mapping provided by the Colorado Oil and 
     Gas Commission, the proposed Little Book Cliffs Wilderness 
     polygon includes the Laramie Energy, LLC Winter Flats well 
     and the Maralex Resources, Inc. USA-610S98W well. These wells 
     will need ongoing maintenance and monitoring. Should access 
     be denied for these wells and the leases within the proposed 
     Wilderness areas, the lessee should be fairly compensated.
       3. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as the agency 
     responsible for the health and well being of the wild horses 
     of the Little Book Cliffs Wild Horse Area and their habitat, 
     must access to this area to ``sustain a healthy viable wild 
     horse population while maintaining a thriving natural 
     ecological balance of resources and uses.'' The BLM utilizes 
     vehicles, and at times helicopters, for set-up and take down 
     of traps and transportation of gathered horses, and to 
     perform fertility control measures. Loss of access for these 
     events could lead to serious consequences for the wild 
     horses, area habitat, and surrounding property owners.
       4. More than 850 acres of Gunnison Sage-Grouse Habitat are 
     included in the proposed South Bangs Canyon Proposed 
     Wilderness area and The Palisade Proposed Wilderness area 
     which could limit management activities, lek counting, and 
     habitat restoration activities by the US Fish and Wildlife 
     Service.
       5. Non-motorized trail based recreation is critical for our 
     region's quality of life and economy. The potential for 
     exclusion of mechanized travel, e.g. bicycles, from thousands 
     of acres of public lands in western Colorado is not supported 
     by the Board. Of particular concern is the North and South 
     Bangs Canyon Proposed Wilderness areas. Given the proximity 
     to and importance of the Tabeguache Trail, the region is of 
     interest to local trail groups for future trail based 
     recreation growth.
       6. The Act eliminates ``development for any new irrigation 
     and pumping facility, reservoir, water conservation work, 
     aqueduct, canal, ditch, pipeline, well, hydropower project, 
     transmission, other ancillary facility or other water, 
     diversion, storage, or carriage structure'' in the Wilderness 
     designation. As Colorado's water resources require more 
     astute management, eliminating the option to create and 
     expand necessary water storage and delivery systems and the 
     ability to improve critical drainages and watersheds 
     indefinitely is imprudent.
       In addition to ending critical access and multiple use of 
     public lands, the Board believes Wilderness designations 
     also:
       1. unfairly discriminates against those that are unable to 
     walk or ride horseback, including those with disabilities and 
     the elderly;
       2. creates additional hardships on adjacent property 
     owners, lessees, and other nonrecreation users who face 
     restricted travel; and,
       3. abolishes future productive uses of all resources within 
     the designated area, including those that enrich residents 
     and visitors' lives, in perpetuity.
       Mesa County is comprised of more than 72% public lands. Our 
     economy and way of life are deeply reliant on these lands, 
     and ensuring the proper management of them is of the highest 
     concern for all who live here. To suggest that anyone in Mesa 
     County would wish these lands destroyed is false and 
     offensive. However, with more than 100,000 acres of 
     designated Wilderness and more than 80,000 acres held in 
     perpetual Wilderness Study Area limbo, residents of Mesa 
     County do not want to see more of their public lands made 
     inaccessible. Further, with the possible passage of the 
     Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act (``CORE Act''), 
     Colorado will see varying levels of conservation in counties 
     that desire such protections.
       We invite you to visit Mesa County and speak with those 
     directly affected by the proposed legislation. Our door is 
     always open, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss 
     further this critical matter that can drastically change our 
     residents' lives.
           Sincerely,
     Janet Rowland,
       Chair, Board of County Commissioners.
     Cody Davis,
       Commissioner.
     Scott McInnis,
       Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                                February 25, 2021.
     The Honorable,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the nearly six million 
     Farm Bureau member families across the United States, we 
     write in strong opposition to H.R. 803, the Protecting 
     America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. Collectively this 
     package of bills impacts lands in California, Colorado, 
     Arizona and Washington by creating nearly 1.5 million acres 
     of new wilderness, the most restrictive federal land use 
     classification. Additionally, it would designate 1,200 miles 
     of wild and scenic rivers and create 110,000 acres of 
     National Monument expansion. Further, many of the wilderness 
     and wild and scenic river designations contained in this bill 
     are not suitable for these restrictive designations. To 
     declare areas that do not possess these characteristics 
     undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild 
     and Scenic Rivers Act as well as the lands that possess those 
     features.
       Farmers and ranchers rely on federal forests and rangelands 
     for economic and recreational opportunities. Livestock 
     grazing on federal lands forms an integral part of ranching 
     operations across the United States, especially in the West. 
     But farmers also use national forests and rangelands 
     throughout the United States in a variety of other ways. 
     Federal lands throughout the country are important components 
     of our nation's watersheds that provide water to a large 
     number of Americans. Active land management practices such as 
     timber production and livestock grazing are critical to 
     protect against wildland fires which devastate range 
     resources, damage watersheds, threaten wildlife and put rural 
     communities at great risk.
       American farmers and ranchers have a genuine interest in 
     healthy and productive federal forest and rangelands. At the 
     same time, we have a genuine interest in seeing lands managed 
     in an environmentally sound manner. Farmers and ranchers 
     understand and appreciate that active management of our 
     federal lands is critical to the long-term viability of the 
     ecosystem, the resource, and the communities they support. 
     Designations included in H.R. 803 threaten multiple use areas 
     by prohibiting the employment of motorized tools and 
     mechanized vehicles in watershed management, trail 
     maintenance, soil treatment, noxious weed control, waste 
     management and fire protection.
       Our nation's federal forests are facing serious threats 
     from fires, insects and disease due to a lack of active 
     forest management. The poor health of our federal forests 
     also threatens wildlife populations and neighboring non-
     federal lands, as well as the vitality of rural, forested 
     communities across the country. A vibrant livestock and 
     forest products industry helps diversify rural economies in 
     ways that compliment ranching and agricultural operations. 
     Wilderness and National Monument designations eliminate 
     federal land management agencies ability to effectively 
     protect against the threat of catastrophic wildland fire.
       Farmers, landowners, and grazing permitees should be fully 
     involved as affected partners in any process to execute 
     federal land use designations which restrict public use and 
     access. Federal land use designations that lack local 
     stakeholder input from agricultural and resource management 
     professionals often generates significant controversy and 
     economic hardship at the local level. The detrimental effects 
     of a federal land use designation frequently causes 
     residents, elected state and county officials, and local 
     stakeholders significant reductions in economic activity and 
     the loss of jobs in rural communities. Past designations have 
     also affected water rights, public lands grazing and access 
     to State and private lands.
       Farm Bureau supports the multiple-use concept of federal 
     lands, recognizing that definable land areas have dominant-
     use capability, which should be recognized with the

[[Page H755]]

     concept of multiple uses without the total exclusion of other 
     uses. The Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands 
     Act stands in clear violation of AFBF policy. Additionally, 
     the California, Colorado, Arizona and Washington Farm 
     Bureau's oppose passage of this legislation.
       Farm Bureau urges you to oppose passage of H.R. 803, the 
     Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.
           Sincerely,
       American Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Farm Bureau, 
     California Farm Bureau, Colorado Farm Bureau, Washington Farm 
     Bureau.

  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have ignored our local 
communities and their needs with this land grab.
  In their letter of opposition, Mesa County points out three of the 
five wilderness areas in Mesa County in this bill that have had large 
fires in recent years, and that wilderness designations harm active 
management and wildfire activities.
  I hope that when Members visit my district on horseback, they are 
telling people that this land will soon burn, because if we do not 
actively manage our forest, Mother Nature will continue to manage it 
for us.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendments that are offered today would protect 
energy production, local grazing rights, water rights, access to our 
public lands, and allow wildfire mitigation. Perhaps, and most 
importantly, these amendments give the people of my district a voice, 
ensuring local officials have a seat at the table when land use is 
changed in their respective counties.

                              {time}  1015

  The victory in my election showed the will of the people in 
Colorado's Third District. They want to keep their land open for public 
use.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his thoughtful amendments, and I 
strongly encourage support on these amendments today.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I want to note one thing for the record because there is a 
reference from my colleague to amendments that she proceeded to make on 
this bill.
  There has been a lot of talk about local control and the support of 
communities back home. We received communications from various town 
commissioners regarding the amendments that my colleague proposed, and 
I will just give you a couple of examples of their responses.

       To simply classify this as a land grab is deeply 
     disrespectful to those who have worked long and hard to 
     gather the facts, negotiate, and compromise. The issues are 
     too important to let parties divide us.

  That was a county commissioner from San Miguel.
  A commissioner from Routt County:

       The amendments were issued in a way that ignores our system 
     of local control. They reject the liberty and freedom of 
     local jurisdictions to express what is right and just within 
     those jurisdictions.

  The communities impacted by the provisions in this bill support the 
protections that we are seeking to enact into law. That is why we are 
here. So with respect, I would again say we oppose the amendments that 
have been submitted in en bloc No. 2.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the first en bloc amendment, which stipulates that nothing in this act 
shall limit the ability of the Secretary of the Interior or the 
Secretary of Agriculture to manage forest fires, insects, and diseases 
in designated wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act.
  Land conservation is an investment in our future, but it is equally 
important that we continue to manage our wilderness areas responsibly. 
Over the past several years, my district and others across our great 
country have been hit hard by historically damaging wildfires.
  To protect countless communities, the Federal Government must ensure 
wilderness areas are adequately managed to minimize the impacts of 
wildfires.
  I want to thank Chairman Grijalva and Representatives Panetta and 
Lofgren for being champions of public lands and responsible land 
management.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join them on this amendment, and I 
strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on the first en bloc amendment.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from 
the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce. It says that this bill, if 
passed, will negatively impact our already fragile economy and 
jeopardize our economic recovery.

                                              Grand Junction Area,


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                                February 24, 2021.
     Congresswoman Lauren Boebert,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Boebert: On behalf of the 900 small 
     businesses employing 37,000 people that the Grand Junction 
     Area Chamber of Commerce represents, I am writing to 
     encourage you to oppose H.R. 803, a bill that would lock up 
     public lands in Mesa County and negatively impact our local 
     economy. Our community's economy is still reliant in part on 
     the business activity generated by our legacy industries of 
     agriculture and energy. This bill if passed will negatively 
     impact our already fragile economy and jeopardize our 
     economic recovery.
       These are lands that are literally in our backyard in Mesa 
     County yet Congresswoman DeGette continues to ignore us, does 
     not meet with us, and does not even consider the consequences 
     of her bill on the hardworking families of our areas.
       In addition to opposing H.R. 803 our organization supports 
     the various amendments you are proposing be added to the bill 
     that include keeping the BLM Headquarters in Grand Junction 
     Colorado, requiring that affected counties must approve the 
     Wilderness Designation and protects grazing and water rights.
       We appreciate your efforts to help retain jobs and the 
     diversity of our local economy by opposing H.R. 803 and 
     offering amendments to help preserve the livelihood of our 
     families and our water life.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Diane Schwenke,
                                                    President/CEO.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues that if you want to improve 
our environment, if you are worried about job losses in your district, 
if you think we should secure our supply chains and improve American 
energy independence, if you think our forests need to be properly 
managed to avoid catastrophic wildfires, and if you enjoy recreating in 
our public lands, you should vote for this amendment package.
  The underlying bill is a feel-good bill that hurts our economy and 
environment. We won't have to suffer the consequences of that. It will 
be our children and our grandchildren who have to live with the fact 
that we don't have forests because we burned them all down and we don't 
have jobs because we outsourced our domestic mining industry to Russia 
and China.
  It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the Democrats didn't want 
to put a package this disastrous for our economy and environment 
through regular order. They may be able to limit our ability to debate 
this package, but there is no hiding the truth: This legislation is a 
land grab that devastates the very communities and lands it claims to 
support and protect.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendments 
and oppose the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I have great respect for my colleague, the 
ranking member, but what he purports this bill will do is just simply 
not the case. I would think that trying to prevent uranium mining in 
the Grand Canyon would not be controversial. I would hope that my 
colleagues could come to a consensus on that.
  As lawmakers, we all know that strong policy requires compromise. It 
requires years of input and vigorous debate. I am happy to participate 
in this debate, and I appreciate the gentleman's participation.
  When we think of some of the most iconic, protected places in the 
United States--Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon--it is difficult 
to imagine a time when they were not protected, but even those most 
treasured places in America underwent criticism from Members of 
Congress. The arguments, actually, that we heard today are nearly 
identical to those that we were hearing on the floor 100 years ago.
  In 1882, Benjamin Harrison, who was then a Senator from Indiana, 
introduced a bill to designate land lying on the Colorado River in the 
territory of Arizona as a public park. The bill was forwarded to 
Interior Secretary Henry Teller, who was a Coloradan, and he opposed 
conservation of the site. He told

[[Page H756]]

the Senate that the bill was unnecessary and that the area ``does not 
require the creation of a public park to preserve it.''
  Congress was unwilling to proceed in the face of opposition from the 
executive branch due to the interests of mining, westward territorial 
mining, and land use. Harrison pushed on. He reintroduced the bill in 
1883, again in 1886.
  And in 1903, the great conservationist Teddy Roosevelt visited the 
area he had advocated to protect. He declared that it is ``beyond 
comparison, beyond description,'' and ``unparalleled.'' ``Let this 
great wonder of nature remain as it is now. Do nothing to mar its 
grandeur. . . . You cannot improve upon it. But what you can do is keep 
it for your children, your children's children, and all who come after 
you.''
  On February 26--on this very day--in 1919, President Wilson signed 
into law the Grand Canyon National Park Act, 101 years ago today.
  Mr. Speaker, let's make that choice again. We passed this bill with 
bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to do it again, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, my amendment would require us to know what we 
are doing before we take the overwhelming radical step of withdrawing 
more than a million acres of federal lands from mineral development.
  It may come as a shock but even today we know little about the 
geologic mineral makeup of our lands. Minerals that were very important 
in the past like gold and silver are not always the key to our future 
technologies.
  Today, we are finding a whole new suite of minerals that are 
critically important to our future, while rare earths and lithium are 
the stars, important minerals like cobalt, manganese and copper are 
quickly becoming equally both important and challenging to find and 
produce.
  However, this bill in front of us has no recognition of the 
importance of the breadth of minerals that may be included in the areas 
covered by this legislation. Which is why my amendment is so important 
today.
  This amendment will require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a full mineral resource survey of the withdrawal areas prior to 
enacting this withdrawal. This is important because of the national 
security impacts of this proposed withdrawal that seeks to permanently 
ban oil, natural gas, geothermal, uranium and other critical minerals 
and rare earths on over a million acres of land in Arizona,
  I will continue to make the case that the importance of the uranium 
alone is key for keeping these lands open, however I believe that 
without this amendment this bill will have a negative impact on our 
national security as it aims to permanently prohibit mining of rare 
earths and critical minerals on a massive, massive swath of land.
  Earlier I mentioned the importance of lithium and there is no 
question that lithium is critically important to our technology and 
energy future. However, we don't often know where all the lithium 
resources are in the United States. For example, in September of last 
year, the USGS funded an earth MRI program in Arizona to study the 
lithium resources of the Big Sandy Valley in Arizona. I include in the 
Record the press release from USGS.
  This study will help us to define and understand the lithium 
resources in this region. Yet it is important for us to reflect on the 
fact that we didn't know about these resources until recently, had we 
closed off this area, like this bill proposes to do to more than one 
million acres of Arizona, we may have never known. Yet because we have 
the ability to examine this area, which is not subject to a withdrawal, 
we are going to study and hopefully find rich resources we can produce 
to secure our nation's future.
  Before I close Mr. Speaker, let me stress, the underlying bill 
represents one of the largest legislative land grabs ever considered by 
Congress. This effort to permanently lock away the highest grade and 
largest deposit of uranium in the country will further increase our 
reliance on foreign adversaries like Russia, China, Kazakhstan and 
Uzbekistan.
  Instead of rushing headlong into the endeavor of permanently making 
this million acre area off limits, we should know what the true impacts 
of this legislation will be on the long-term national security of our 
country.
  This amendment would not kill this legislation, instead it would 
ensure that the proposed withdrawal can only go ahead once we clearly 
access the region, clearly understand the picture of what we are 
withdrawing and what other resources may be impacted by this action.
  I say to my colleagues, lets slow down this process so we know what 
we are doing, what we are impacting and the real impacts of making such 
a large and bountiful parcel of land off limits could have on our 
mineral security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

         Earth MRI Funds Critical Minerals Projects in Arizona

                            [Sept. 28, 2020]


A total of $133,016 will fund new research and preserve important data 
                     across the Grand Canyon State

       Flagstaff, Ariz.--The U.S. Geological Survey and the 
     Association of American State Geologists are pleased to 
     announce $133,016 in funding for critical minerals projects 
     in Arizona. These funds are for the fiscal year 2020 under 
     the USGS Mineral Resources Program's Earth Mapping Resources 
     Initiative, or Earth MRI.
       The funds include grants to the Arizona Geological Survey 
     for geologic mapping and geochemical analyses for an area of 
     the Big Sandy Valley with a focus on lithium and to preserve 
     and publicly available information on critical mineral 
     resources.
       ``These new projects in Arizona represent the next step in 
     our ambitious effort to improve our knowledge of the geologic 
     framework in the United States and to identify areas that may 
     have the potential to contain undiscovered critical mineral 
     resources,'' said Jim Reilly, director of the USGS. ``The 
     identification and prioritization of prospective areas were 
     done through our strong partnership with the state geological 
     surveys in a series of workshops in Fall 2019.''
       ``This program will revitalize and update the science and 
     geologic research and data compilation that is needed in many 
     states for the United States to identify new geologic 
     associations,'' said John Yellich, director of the Michigan 
     Geological Survey and president of AASG.
       ``The Earth MRI effort is an outgrowth of the strong 
     partnership between the AASG members and the USGS,'' said 
     Warren Day, Earth MRI lead scientist for the USGS. ``The USGS 
     is grateful for the scientific input and support from the 
     state geological surveys, resulting in a robust body of 
     information useful for many applications beyond mineral 
     resources.''
       The geologic mapping efforts, which are managed through the 
     National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, will refine 
     our scientific understanding of the geologic framework of 
     areas of interest. In addition to helping identify mineral 
     potential, these maps also support decisions about use of 
     land, water, energy and minerals and help to mitigate the 
     impact of geologic hazards on communities.
       In 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13817, a 
     Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of 
     Critical Minerals. This executive order called on agencies 
     across the federal government to develop a strategy to reduce 
     the nation's susceptibility to critical mineral supply 
     disruptions.
       In May of 2018, DOI released a list of 35 minerals deemed 
     critical to the U.S. economy and security, based on a 
     methodology by the USGS. This list forms the foundation of 
     the full federal strategy.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple, it only asks 
Congress to do one thing, respect the will of the local people in the 
management of our lands.
  This amendment would remove from the bill the lands included in my 
Congressional district from the massive mineral withdrawal included in 
the bill. My local constituents and counties support this amendment and 
I encourage my colleagues to respect our wishes. Under general leave, I 
include in the Record a letter from Mohave County opposing this 
legislation.
  Mohave County Arizona, which is the primary area which this amendment 
would help protect, is currently facing nearly 10 percent unemployment 
and has a per capita income of less than thirty-five thousand dollars a 
year. These economic conditions should be proof enough that we need to 
be promoting economic development in these regions, not simply closing 
off an important path to economic security for the people of Mohave 
County.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that these 
lands belong to all the American people, which is true, but we must 
respect the local concerns.
  When I highlight that offshore oil drilling in California would 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, stop us from subsidizing Russia 
and Saudi Arabia, my colleagues from California scream out ``respect 
our wishes, we don't want drilling''.
  So I call on them here today, join me in supporting my constituents 
who are crying out for the chance, just the chance to keep the 
potential of high paying jobs open and support this amendment.
  It may come as a shock but even today we know little about the 
geologic mineral makeup of our lands. Minerals that were very important 
in the past like gold and silver are not always the key to our future 
technologies.
  Today, we are finding a whole new suite of minerals that are 
critically important to our future, while rare earths and lithium are 
the stars, important minerals like cobalt, manganese and copper are 
quickly becoming equally both important and challenging to find and 
produce.
  This area in Mohave County has tremendous potential and keeping that 
potential open and available to the people of the county is critical to 
ensuring a rich economic future.

[[Page H757]]

  This amendment only removes the area within my district, it will 
allow other members to do with their regions as they will.
  This amendment would not kill this legislation, instead it would 
ensure that the people I represent in Arizona have their wishes 
respected and the land managed in a manner consistent with the will of 
the local communities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
                                                     Mohave County


                                         Board of Supervisors,

                                                February 24, 2021.
     Hon. Paul Gosar,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Congressman Gosar: The Mohave County Board of Supervisors 
     is writing to offer our support for your amendment to H.R. 
     803--Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021. As you know, the 
     passage of this legislation will have a grave effect on 
     Mohave County, Arizona, and our neighboring counties in Utah. 
     Uranium mining in the past has been the forefront of our 
     economic growth in Mohave County and if allowed to continue 
     will bring in nearly $29 billion to our local economy over a 
     42 year period. The passage of H.R. 803 would make permanent 
     a July 2012 moratorium on uranium mining in our area. The 
     language of your amendment would help alleviate the permanent 
     economic loss we would sustain under the passage of H.R. 803. 
     We strongly support the passing of this amendment as 
     presented in the Rules Committee and the House or 
     Representatives. Without this amendment, the financial 
     stability of our economy in Mohave County would drastically 
     suffer.
       In 2012, the Secretary of the Interior imposed a 20 year 
     ban on over 1 million acres of land in the Arizona Strip Area 
     for the purpose of Uranium mining. This ban included both 
     public lands and National Forest System lands. This ban took 
     away much needed growth and jobs from our area. Secretary 
     Salazar at the time issued this withdrawal without complying 
     with the law requiring coordination with local governments. 
     The Federal Land Policy Management Act, USC Section 171 
     requires that the Secretary and his designees ``coordinate'' 
     with local government as to development and implementation of 
     any plan or management action. Coordination is defined in the 
     Act as requiring prior notice of proposed plans and actions 
     to the local government officials (``prior'' meaning prior to 
     public announcements, and early enough to provide 
     ``meaningful'' participation by the local officials in the 
     ``development'' of the plan or action.). The congressional 
     mandate of coordination also requires the Secretary to use 
     all practicable means to reach consistency between the 
     federal plan/management action and local policy, plan or law. 
     All of which Secretary Salazar did not do.
       Making this ban permanent based on misinformation will have 
     lasting effects on Mohave County. We respect and take a 
     responsibility for protecting the Grand Canyon, but saying 
     that the Grand Canyon will suffer because of mining is 
     inaccurate. Secretary Salazar's reasoning behind the 
     withdrawal was out of concern that it could damage the 
     region's drinking water and the park's water quality. Bureau 
     of Land Management officials contradicted those claims by 
     explaining that their Arizona Strip field office had no 
     evidence of contamination of water, and had no evidence of 
     problems with the safe operation of the uranium mines in 
     operation on the lands.
       Uranium mining is important and useful for many reasons. 
     The lands in the ``Strip'' contain the nation's high grade 
     uranium deposits and enough uranium to provide power 
     generation for the state of California for over 20 years. 
     Uranium is useful in many ways. It is used by our military 
     for national security and defense. Uranium metal is very 
     dense and heavy. When it is depleted (DU), uranium is used by 
     the military as shielding to protect Army tanks, and also in 
     parts of bullets and missiles. The military also uses 
     enriched uranium to power nuclear propelled Navy ships and 
     submarines, and in nuclear weapons. A permanent withdrawal of 
     uranium mining from the ``Strip'' harms the American people 
     by removing between 326-375 million lbs (the equivalent 
     electricity generating capacity for the entire state of 
     California's 40 million people for 22.4 years) of uranium.
       From a national security standpoint, domestic utilities now 
     import 90 percent of the uranium used to operate America's 
     104 nuclear reactors. Thirty years ago, these reactors used 
     U.S. mined uranium for 100 percent of electricity production, 
     The nation cannot be pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear fuel. In 
     sum, these deposits represent the last available use of our 
     public lands for economic growth in our region.
       The opponents of uranium mining have chosen to ignore the 
     fact that mining with environmentally sound reclamation was 
     conducted from the early 1980s until the price of uranium 
     collapsed in 1993. No mining at all occurred from 1993 until 
     2010, and the Denison mine which is now operating, is 
     following and often exceeding all environmental and safety 
     laws.
       Arizona needs to go back to the roots that led to Arizona 
     being developed, and that is mining. The strict federal and 
     state environmental laws already on the books will protect 
     the public from environmental damage to the Grand Canyon 
     watershed. The mining of uranium however does not affect 
     ground water nor destroy the natural resources of the land. 
     It does not require open pit mining. Upon completion of 
     mining one Breccia Pipe (4 years) the land is placed back 
     into its native state.
       We want to thank you for putting forward this amendment. 
     Nuclear energy can be the future of clean energy. We have the 
     resources in this Country to ensure that happens and we have 
     the technology and means to ensure mining that energy is both 
     environmentally safe and protects our natural resources. We 
     stand in support of the amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                               Buster Johnson,

                                           Chairman, Mohave County
                                             Board of Supervisors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 147, the 
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  The question is on the amendments en bloc.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 
803 is postponed.

                          ____________________