[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 29, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1706-H1709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RELATING TO ``GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA: MOTOR VEHICLES''
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'', and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 60
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the National Park Service
of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'' (90 Fed. Reg.
2621), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
[[Page H1707]]
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 60.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 60, led by Representative
Maloy. This is an important effort that will overturn an onerous and
unnecessary regulation designed to restrict off-highway vehicle access
and recreational use of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
House Republicans are committed to pursuing a comprehensive approach
to restoring multiple use and public access to our Federal lands, one
that favors commonsense land management and prioritizes community buy-
in over preservationist policies that are cooked up here in Washington,
D.C.
As chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, I have often said
that some of our most meaningful work increasing access to our public
lands will maybe never be a headline on FOX News or CNN, but it will
make the front page of your local paper.
Established by Congress in 1972 to enhance public recreation, the
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is a premier tourist destination
that offers world-class water-based, backcountry, and off-highway
recreation opportunities. Off-highway vehicle recreation predates the
recreation area's establishment and has allowed visitors for
generations to explore some of the most remote and beautiful stretches
of this remarkable landscape.
Consistent with this history, the National Park Service issued a rule
in 2021 that expanded the permissible uses of off-road vehicles
throughout Glen Canyon, but groups quickly sued, leading the Biden
administration to enter into a hasty and secretive settlement against
the wishes of local communities.
Under that agreement, the Park Service issued a revised rule in the
waning days of the Biden administration that restricts motorized uses
in Glen Canyon, overturning decades of precedent and severely
restricting public access and recreation opportunities.
Under this new rule, dozens of miles of popular trails and shorelines
are closed off to highway vehicles in what the State of Utah called de
facto wilderness management. Even small road closures can have profound
consequences for public access.
For example, the National Park Service effectively cut off access to
the adjacent 1.45 million-acre Henry Mountains travel management area
by closing just one-half mile of road in the new rule.
Some of the most popular trails in this area, including the Flint
Trail and Poison Springs Loop that are pictured behind me, were also
shut down under this rule. What is especially nonsensical about this is
that these trails aren't even maintained by the National Park Service.
The local county maintains them.
These restrictions are unnecessary and, frankly, lack common sense.
Many of these routes are restricted to off-highway vehicles and remain
open to conventional vehicles. This creates public safety concerns by
incentivizing the use of vehicles that are not meant to handle rough
terrain and rugged trails.
Restricting off-highway vehicles also disproportionately affects
disabled individuals, who often rely on ATVs or side-by-sides to gain
access to remote areas of our public lands. The State of Utah compared
the decision to limit off-highway vehicles while still allowing for
conventional vehicles as akin to designating parts of Lake Powell
exclusively for yachts while restricting more accessible fishing boats
and kayaks to less desirable sections of the lake.
In totality, this rule ensures that only the most able-bodied and
wealthy will be able to have access to areas of Glen Canyon that used
to be open and accessible to everyone. Utah boasts $9.5 billion of
outdoor recreation economy driven largely by motorized recreation. By
shutting down some of the State's most popular motorized recreation
trails, the National Park Service is shutting down a main engine of
economic growth in some of the poorest, most rural counties.
Earlier this year, Congress passed the first-ever bipartisan,
comprehensive recreation package aimed at growing, not restricting, our
Nation's $1.1 trillion outdoor recreation economy. The EXPLORE Act
passed unanimously in both the House and Senate, a rare feat that
demonstrates the overwhelming support for opening more of our public
lands to outdoor recreation, not locking up our lands and throwing away
the key.
In keeping with that, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on this important joint resolution, which will restore off-highway
vehicle access to treasured public lands. I again thank Congresswoman
Maloy for her excellent work and leadership on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution would nullify a National Park Service
rule that manages motor vehicle use within the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area. It is a commonsense rule that this resolution targets,
and it outlines where cars and off-road vehicles are allowed to travel
within the boundaries of the national recreation area. It shouldn't be
controversial. It shouldn't be political.
The Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is a very popular
destination. It offers ample opportunities for backcountry exploration
across 1.25 million acres of public land. To put that in perspective,
this area is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island.
Now, the National Park Service is tasked with managing park units in
a manner that balances public access and enjoyment while ensuring
responsible stewardship of the natural environment. That is their job.
Achieving that balance can be a tall order under the best of
circumstances. It has become even more difficult as the Trump
administration works to dismantle the National Park Service. More than
12.5 percent of the entire workforce has left the agency since Donald
Trump took office. It has only been a little more than 100 days, and we
are already down 2,000 rangers and park employees.
House Republicans have stood by and watched, and now they are
proposing a resolution that undermines national park management even
further. As a reminder, this resolution would repeal a rule that
manages all motorized vehicle access within Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, a unit of the Park Service that is home to very
fragile ecosystems like the Orange Cliffs adjacent to Canyonlands
National Park and countless cultural and archeological resources.
Initial planning started way back in 2007 and was not finalized until
the first Trump administration published an overly permissive record of
decision in 2018. A court determined that the 2018 version of the rule
did not do enough to consider the environmental consequences of
allowing off-road vehicles on certain roads, so the Park Service went
back to work and they published a new rule that achieved a better
balance.
The updated rule, which is being targeted today, balances visitor use
and access with the long-term stewardship and management of park
resources.
Despite some of the rhetoric that we may hear from the other side of
the aisle, the Park Service did not shut off access to off-road
vehicles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rule allows off-
road vehicles on 388 miles of road within the park, only closing access
to approximately 6 percent of the existing roadways to protect
sensitive resources.
Even those roads are still open to cars, jeeps, and other street-
legal vehicles. They are just closed to vehicles that have the ability
to travel off-road and cause severe damage in proposed wilderness and
other sensitive landscapes.
That is 94 percent of the roads in this Park Service unit open to
motor vehicles, including off-road vehicles, and
[[Page H1708]]
then just 6 percent where only street-legal vehicles are allowed. That
is a very reasonable tradeoff that protects the park for future
generations.
It is also worth noting that Congress has never used the
Congressional Review Act in the way it is being used right now to
repeal a Park Service decision of this nature. This is meddling and
micromanaging at its worst, and it could have some unintended
consequences as we will discuss in the course of this debate.
When Congress uses the CRA to repeal a rule, then the agency is
prohibited by law from issuing a substantially similar rule on the same
topic. The decision to repeal this rule could lead to some unintended
consequences that would backfire on the very off-road vehicle community
that my friends across the aisle are saying that they are trying to
protect.
Park managers would be unable to change or alter access even if a
proliferation of off-road vehicle use is damaging park resources. That
is the downside from the environmental perspective, but even worse,
from the perspective of these off-road vehicles, it could mean an end
to all off-roading in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
Mr. Speaker, Park Service has to have a rule in place if they want to
authorize any access. That is what this rule does. If Congress repeals
it and the CRA says no replacement rule can be issued, that is how it
works. It is like Cortez when he got to Mexico, he burned the boats so
nobody would go back. That is how the CRA works.
You burn the bridge; you can't go back on that particular subject
area. A court in the future may well decide that the absence of a rule
means no off-roading. Period.
It is the kind of uncertainty that would be discussed and fleshed out
if you took the time to have a hearing and have a little bit of
deliberation instead of jamming a CRA like this, a blunt instrument,
right on the House floor.
If the intent is truly about preserving access, there are better ways
to do it. There are certainly much better ways for Congress to uplift
and support our national parks; for example, standing up to Donald
Trump and Elon Musk's gutting of the National Park Service.
I wish we spent more time talking about that rather than a very
reckless use of the Congressional Review Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the idea that passing this
Congressional Review Act would restrict all off-road vehicle access is
just not right. That is not going to happen. There was a rule in place
before the Biden administration put the new rule in place. We vetted
this with the Congressional Research Service. We would simply go back
to the rule that was in place that was working fine before the Biden
administration came in and put this onerous rule in place.
Also, the argument has been made that only 24 out of 388 miles have
been restricted to off-road vehicle use, but as we all know, roads are
networks. For instance, there is a half-mile section in this ruling
under the Biden administration that blocks off access to over a million
acres. You block off a half-mile of road, and you restrict the use to a
million acres. I don't think that is what most people would call public
access or would agree that it is the way that we should be managing our
Federal lands, especially in an area that when it was established, part
of its goal was to be able to provide off-road vehicles a place to
recreate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms.
Maloy), the lead sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. MALOY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, H.J.
Res. 60, which provides congressional disapproval under the
Congressional Review Act of the rules submitted by the National Park
Service on the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area pertaining to motor
vehicles.
The National Park Service finalized a rule that restricts off-road
vehicles and all-terrain vehicles, ORVs and ATVs, to access certain
areas within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in my district.
This would prohibit access to approximately 24 miles of road as the
chairman said, including popular trails near the Orange Cliffs and
segments of the Poison Springs Loop. I have spent a lot of time on the
ground in these areas with local elected officials who, for years, have
tried to generate a better experience for visitors to the Orange
Cliffs, and this goes in the wrong direction.
Wayne and Garfield Counties are counties that struggle in a State
that otherwise thrives. Utah has a really strong economy, but these
rural counties have really weak economies. The reason the rural
counties struggle is because almost all of the land in their counties
is managed by the Federal Government. The Federal Government can make
rules that restrict access to parts of their county over their
objections.
{time} 1630
These roads we are talking about are important to those residing in
Wayne and Garfield Counties and the tourists who come here from all
over the world. They have used these paths to get to places that are
part of their history and part of their recreation for generations.
These road restrictions reflect a pattern of access loss that
characterizes the problems with having a distant Federal Government
make local rules.
People from across the world come to experience the unique
opportunities these trails offer. The rule threatens to sever these
connections, leaving communities to bear the brunt of its consequences.
This is in a beautiful part of a gorgeous State, but it is not easy to
get to. Keep in mind, this is a recreation area, not a preservation
area.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Utah deserve better. They deserve a
government that listens, that respects their traditions, and
understands the importance of balancing conservation with access.
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is very popular, as my colleague
across the aisle pointed out. The Orange Cliffs area is not well
traveled. Much like the rural counties are struggling in a State that
is thriving, the Orange Cliffs area is tough to get to in a national
recreation area where everybody goes to the lake.
It doesn't make sense to close roads and concentrate all those
visitors in those small areas. These nonsensical rules that make
bureaucrats feel better don't help Utahans and are a symptom of the
problem of having a distant and disinterested landlord with an agenda.
That is why I introduced H.J. Res. 60, a resolution that leverages
the Congressional Review Act to overturn this misguided rule. The
resolution is not just about restoring access to trails. It is about
standing up for the rights of my constituents, protecting local
economies, and preserving freedoms that define our Nation.
Let us be clear: Conservation and access are not mutually exclusive.
We can protect our natural heritage while ensuring that Americans can
go see it and enjoy it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution. We should send a message that we stand with the people of
Wayne and Garfield Counties, the people of Utah, and the people who
like to recreate on our public lands.
We value their voices, and we won't allow bureaucratic overreach to
dictate our way of life. Together, we can ensure that Glen Canyon
remains a place of freedom, adventure, and opportunity for generations
to come and isn't a hindrance to the local economies.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the gentlewoman for her efforts on this legislation and
for being a voice for her constituents. She talked about the county
governments there that didn't have a voice when this rule was made.
This is hurting their economy. It doesn't make sense, and it is kind of
a bad example of having that distant landlord with an alternative
agenda that lives many miles away managing the land where you live. I
thank her for her efforts on behalf of her constituents and on all
Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H1709]]
I stand by what I said a few minutes ago. Without the rule in place
or a replacement rule, off-roading could very well be illegal in all of
Glen Canyon.
I did expect that my colleagues across the aisle would state that
they assume the Park Service would simply revert back to a previous
rule. Now, I don't know for sure because Republicans didn't hold a
hearing on the legislation to bring in a witness from the Park Service
to answer any questions, but there are two problems with this
assumption they seem to be proceeding under.
One, the current rule was issued under a settlement agreement to
enforce compliance with environmental protection laws. Repealing that
rule doesn't repeal those legal obligations, so whatever outdated rule
the administration might try to revive will still have to comply with
those laws, and a court is going to strike it down when it doesn't.
Two, as we keep having to remind our colleagues, using the CRA to
repeal a rule doesn't just remove that rule, it also prohibits the
agency from ever issuing a substantially similar rule on this same
topic. That means any rule regarding off-road access in this park unit.
This repeal is practically inviting a court to strike down whatever
fallback rule the administration tries reverting to, and when that
litigation ensues and they comb through the Congressional Record to
divine the intent of Congress, they will see pretty plainly that I
warned you folks that that was the case right here on the record.
Now, since this information seems new to some of my colleagues, they
may be thinking: Wait, that can't be right. Wouldn't this sort of thing
have happened before?
The answer is no, because Congress has never used the CRA to
micromanage a park or a park-access rule this narrow in the way that is
being proposed with this resolution. The entire scheme is untested,
reckless, and ill-advised.
If my colleagues accidentally ban off-roading in Glen Canyon, I hope
they are ready to explain that to their constituents, assuming they
ever hold townhall meetings again.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
legislation. Last week was National Park Week, an annual tradition
meant to honor our deep connection to national parks. President Trump
carried on the tradition by issuing a proclamation to officially
designate the week--this is one of the few noncontroversial actions in
the first 100 days of this administration--because all Americans love
and value and support national parks.
Unfortunately, the proclamation also highlighted how the
administration is trying to use national parks to tell a myopic and
narrow view of our history. This revisionist turn is exemplified by
President Trump's decision to rename Mount Denali in Alaska despite
overwhelming criticism and concern from Alaska Native leaders and other
voices in the State. It is clear the President is more interested in
branding and flashy stunts than actually supporting our national parks
and public lands.
House Republicans have stood by and watched as all of this happened.
They did nothing as President Trump and Elon Musk decimated the land
management workforce, shuttered critical buildings, and froze funding
for critical grant programs designed to safeguard and restore our parks
and our public lands.
Just since January, the Park Service has lost 1,700 rangers and Park
Service staff, leaving parks understaffed and resources vulnerable just
before the busiest time of the year. There have to be better ways to
celebrate and cherish our national parks than to dismantle them.
We could be doing something to restore all the jobs that have been
cut by this administration. We could debate proposals to create new
parks or expand existing ones to honor our shared history and protect
our most cherished landscapes. We could advance comprehensive and
thoughtful appropriations bills that invest in the future of our parks
and our public lands.
Instead of doing any of these productive and responsible actions,
House Republicans decided to use some more precious floor time to
overturn a narrow and specific rule at the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area. That is a disappointment, another missed opportunity,
and a testament to the priorities of this Republican majority. Mr.
Speaker, I again urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I just want to say that it is unfortunate that we are having to use a
Congressional Review Act, but it is unfortunate that a former
administration tried to legislate from the administrative branch.
That is the purpose of the Congressional Review Act. When bureaucrats
overstep their bounds, we have this tool to rein them back in. It would
not allow them to make this rule again. A clear reading of the
Congressional Review Act, it is easy to see that the rule would go back
to the rule that was in place before the Biden administration put the
rule in place that we are doing the Congressional Review Act on. It is
also common sense that that would happen, and it is clearly the intent
of Congress, should this get signed into law, that it would go back to
the original rule.
I again applaud Representative Maloy for her exceptional leadership
in this effort and for looking out for her constituents. This is a
necessary resolution that will allow for more recreation opportunities,
greater public access, and growth within Utah's outdoor recreation
economy. Whether it is hunting, fishing, hiking, or recreating on off-
highway vehicles, our public lands were meant to be enjoyed by all
Americans, and this CRA allows just that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the joint resolution, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________