[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 211 (Monday, December 15, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H5873-H5875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH PARK ACT

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2876) to confirm the use of certain non-Federal land in Salt 
Lake City, Utah, for public purposes, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2876

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``University of Utah Research 
     Park Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONFIRMATION OF USE OF CERTAIN NON-FEDERAL LAND IN 
                   SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FOR VALID PUBLIC 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) Confirmation of Uses.--
       (1) In general.--The use by the University of Utah of the 
     land described in subsection (b) as a University research 
     park, as approved by the letter from the Secretary of the 
     Interior to the University of Utah dated December 10, 1970, 
     and any modifications of the approved plan of development and 
     management approved by the Department of the Interior prior 
     to the date of enactment of this Act, is confirmed as a valid 
     public purpose consistent with the requirements of the

[[Page H5874]]

     Act of June 14, 1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation and 
     Public Purposes Act'') (44 Stat. 741, chapter 578; 43 U.S.C. 
     869 et seq.), subject to the terms and conditions included in 
     the letter and approvals.
       (2) Other uses.--Any other uses of the land described in 
     subsection (b) by the University of Utah that are consistent 
     with use as a University research park and related university 
     purposes (including development of student housing and a 
     transit hub) are confirmed as valid public purposes 
     consistent with the requirements of the Act of June 14, 1926 
     (commonly known as the ``Recreation and Public Purposes 
     Act'') (44 Stat. 741, chapter 578; 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.).
       (b) Description of Non-Federal Land.--The land referred to 
     in subsection (a) is the approximately 593.54 acres of land 
     conveyed to the University of Utah under the Act of June 14, 
     1926 (commonly known as the ``Recreation and Public Purposes 
     Act'') (44 Stat. 741, chapter 578; 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), by 
     patent numbered 43-99-0012 and dated October 18, 1968, and 
     more particularly described as tracts D (excluding parcels 
     numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), G, and J, T. 1 S., R. 1 E., Salt 
     Lake Meridian.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. 
Hernandez) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2876, the bill now under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2876, the 
University of Utah Research Park Act, led by Representative Blake Moore 
of Utah.
  H.R. 2876 resolves legal uncertainty surrounding the University of 
Utah's ownership of 593 acres of land in the heart of Salt Lake City. 
This uncertainty comprises the university's flagship research park, a 
key educational and economic development center.
  Since its conveyance under the Research and Public Purposes Act in 
1968, this parcel has grown into a nationally recognized hub for 
innovation, home to 81 university departments and more than 50 
pharmaceutical, medical research, and biotechnology companies. Today, 
Research Park employs over 14,000 Utahns and provides invaluable 
educational opportunities for students preparing to lead in the fields 
of science and medicine.
  Despite this long record of success, a recent BLM review raised 
questions about whether the park's use of the land aligns with the 
terms of the original patent.
  H.R. 2876 clears up this ambiguity by affirming the park's current 
use is valid and consistent with the public purpose envisioned at the 
time of the conveyance.
  This is a simple, bipartisan bill that cuts red tape and ensures the 
University of Utah can continue building on nearly six decades of 
scientific discovery, economic growth, and global impact. I commend 
Representative Moore for leading this effort in the House and the 
chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator 
Lee, for championing this bill in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2876, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the University of 
Utah's Research Park Act.
  The University of Utah's Research Park is comprised of 593 acres that 
were originally issued as a land patent in 1968 through the Bureau of 
Land Management. The area was later conveyed under the Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act for academic expansion of the university. Today, 
Research Park supports a multitude of uses, including technology, 
education, and medical facilities.
  Although the parcel was conveyed to the university, a reversionary 
clause remains in place to ensure continued public use. While 
reversionary clauses are standard practice, in this case it has created 
challenges for the university in pursuing new opportunities that fall 
outside the traditional sense of public purposes under the Recreation 
and Public Purposes Act, even though the site was previously approved 
for university expansion.
  H.R. 2876 would clarify and affirm that Research Park is consistent 
with the original application, so that the university can continue to 
grow Research Park.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Moore), who is the lead sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague and friend from 
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), it is worth actually noting that the area 
focus of this bill, the location, is a stone's throw from the very 
cauldron that the Miracle on Ice team lit during the 2002 Winter 
Olympics. I congratulate the gentleman for getting that bill signed 
into law, the Congressional Gold Medal Act for those amazing patriots.
  I actually watched that movie with my kids over the weekend and saw 
the patriotism start to brew, really an amazing feat. I thank my friend 
for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the University of 
Utah Research Park Act, which passed unanimously out of the Natural 
Resources Committee in September.
  This legislation addresses legal uncertainties surrounding the 
University of Utah's use of land initially conveyed to the school by 
the Bureau of Land Management back in 1968. At that time, the 
university requested land on the Fort Douglas Military Reservation for 
academic and research use, a request approved and granted by the BLM. 
Since then, the university has built a nationally recognized research 
park housing over 50 companies and employing nearly 14,000 Utahns.
  Research Park has been instrumental in establishing Utah as a leader 
in innovation. Last year, I was proud to welcome my colleagues to the 
Ways and Means Committee to Research Park for a field hearing to show 
them first-hand how Utah continues to lead the way in biotech 
innovation.

                              {time}  1600

  Unfortunately, after decades of cooperative engagement between the 
University of Utah and the Federal Government, there have been 
questions as to whether the longstanding activities at Research Park 
are consistent with the original land patent under the Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act. The University of Utah Research Park Act addresses 
these concerns and makes it clear that the school is operating within 
the parameters of the law.
  With the assurance that the university can continue to operate the 
park, they will have increased ability to invest institutional 
resources and improve the park without the worry of additional red tape 
and regulatory restrictions or, worse, the area reverting back to 
Federal control.
  My bill will provide the university with needed stability and confirm 
the original intent and approval of the land transfer, allowing the 
university to plan strategically to meet the needs of its students, the 
community, and industry.
  I thank Chairman Westerman and my colleagues of the Utah House and 
Senate delegation for joining me in this effort to ensure that the 
University of Utah's Research Park can continue to serve as a premier 
research incubator.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2876. Go Utes.
  Mr. HERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2876 resolves an unnecessary cloud over this 
property by confirming the valid use of the University of Utah's prized 
Research Park, which has served the public for decades.
  This commonsense bill will allow the park to keep driving innovation, 
supporting thousands of good jobs, and giving students hands-on 
opportunities to learn and grow.
  I thank once again Representative Moore, Senator Lee, and the entire 
Utah congressional delegation for their work on this important effort. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5875]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2876.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________