[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3423-3424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING ADDITONAL TIME FOR CLEAR CREEK COUNTY, COLORADO, TO DISPOSE 
                            OF CERTAIN LANDS

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 223) to amend the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands 
Transfer Act of 1993 to provide additional time for Clear Creek County 
to dispose of certain lands transferred to the county under the Act.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 223

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 5(c)(2) of the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public 
     Lands Transfer Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-253; 108 Stat. 
     677) is amended by striking ``the date 10 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act'' and by inserting ``May 19, 
     2015''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 223, introduced by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall), amends section 5 of the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public 
Lands Transfer Act of 1993.
  The act clarified Federal land ownership questions in Clear Creek 
County, Colorado, and provided Clear Creek County time to dispose of 
transferred property. This amendment extends the time needed for Clear 
Creek County to sell certain lands that it received from the Federal 
government under the 1993 act.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 223 is a noncontroversial and bipartisan bill that 
is nearly identical to a bill that was passed by the House during the 
106th session of Congress. The only difference is that this bill would 
extend the time for the county to sell the lands in question for 1 year 
longer than the time period contained in the bill that passed the House 
last year.
  This additional 1-year time period is necessary to allow for the 
additional time that has elapsed while the Congress has had this matter 
under consideration before the bill was enacted into law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as its author, I obviously support passage of this bill. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources, and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for making it possible for the House to 
consider it today.

[[Page 3424]]

  I introduced the bill last year at the request of the commissioners 
of Clear Creek County. It was passed by the House last fall, but time 
ran out before the Senate could complete action on it prior to the end 
of the 106th Congress.
  The bill amends section 5 of the Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public 
Lands Transfer Act of 1993. The effect of the amendment would be to 
allow Clear Creek County additional time to determine the future 
disposition of some former Federal land that was transferred to the 
county under that section of the 1993 act.
  The 1993 act was originally proposed by my predecessor, Congressman 
David Skaggs. Its purpose was to clarify Federal land ownership 
questions in Clear Creek County while helping to consolidate the Bureau 
of Land Management administration in eastern Colorado, and assisting 
with protecting open space and preserving historic sites.
  As part of its plan to merge its eastern Colorado operations into one 
administrative office, the BLM has determined that it would be best to 
dispose of most of its surface lands in northeastern Colorado.
  The 1993 act helped achieve that goal by transferring some 14,000 
acres of land from the Bureau of Land Management to the U.S. Forest 
Service, to the State of Colorado, to Clear Creek County, and to the 
towns of Georgetown and Silver Plume. Of course, the BLM would have 
sold all these lands, and the local governments could have applied for 
parcels under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
  Under current law, however, BLM would have first had to have 
completed detailed boundary surveys. Since the land in question 
included many odd-shaped parcels, including some measured literally in 
inches, the BLM estimated these surveys could have taken another 15 
years to complete and could have cost as much as $18 million.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, but the estimated value of these lands was only $3 
million. Because these administrative costs were expected to be so much 
higher than the value of these lands, their disposal under existing law 
could never have been completed, and this would have been the worst of 
all outcomes. Because, after reaching the conclusion that these lands 
should be transferred, BLM would in effect stop managing them, to the 
extent that they could be managed at all.
  In short, until some means could be found to enable their transfer, 
these 14,000 acres were effectively abandoned property, potentially 
attracting all the problems that befall property left uncared for and 
ignored.
  The 1993 Act responded to that situation. Under it, about 3,500 acres 
of BLM land in Clear Creek County were transferred to the Arapaho 
National Forest. Another 3,200 acres of land were transferred to the 
State of Colorado, the county, and the towns of Georgetown and Silver 
Plume. Finally, about 7,300 acres were transferred to the county.
  The bill before us deals today only with those 7,300 acres that were 
transferred to the county. The 1993 Act provides that after it prepares 
a comprehensive land use plan, the county may resell some of the land. 
Other parcels will be transferred to local governments, including the 
county, to be retained for recreation and public purposes.
  With regard to the lands that the county has authority to sell, the 
1993 Act in effect authorizes the county to act as the BLM's sales 
agent, and it provides that the Federal Government will receive any of 
the net receipts from the sale of these lands by the county.
  Under the 1993 Act, the county has until May 19, 2004, to resolve 
questions related to rights-of-way, mining claims and trespass 
situations on the lands covered by the Act.
  While the county has completed the conveyance of some of these lands, 
there are still about 6,000 acres to dispose of, and they are working 
to complete the job. For example, the county is seeking to have some 
2,000 acres transferred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the 
management of Bighorn Sheep habitat. However, the commissioners have 
found the process is taking longer than they anticipated and that an 
extension of time would be helpful to a successful conclusion.
  The bill we are considering today responds to their request by 
providing that extension; and it set May 19, 2015, as the new deadline 
for the county to either transfer or retain these lands.
  The county commissioners have indicated to me that they are confident 
that there will be sufficient time for them to resolve the matter under 
this new piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in summary, there is no controversy associated with the 
legislation; and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 223.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. HANSEN. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________