Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)

[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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the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;

(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.

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.).

[[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,

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.

____________________