Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. 823.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I would first like to thank Chairman Grijalva and Chairwoman Haaland for their support and advocacy of this bill.
I stand today in support of my bill, H.R. 823, the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act, or the CORE Act.
As Representatives for the people, as legislators here in the Halls of Congress, our job is to fight for commonsense solutions that come directly from our communities.
When our constituents raise their voices on issues that impact them, and when we are able to respond with legislation that benefits our districts and our State, that is when our work is most effective.
I am proud that the CORE Act was crafted by Coloradans over the last decade. It is a product of collaboration, careful consultation, and negotiation.
Local elected officials, community members, businesses, outdoor recreation and conservation groups, ranchers, sportsmen, they have all contributed their input and their passion for the outdoor areas that they love.
Each title in this bill has been carefully vetted by a thoughtful group of local elected leaders and community members, and each title is well deserving of consideration on the House floor today.
I will just give a brief overview of the bill.
The CORE Act would conserve over 400,000 acres of public land, and it consists of four titles that Coloradans have been asking Congress to pass, as I said, for well over a decade.
Title 1 is the Continental Divide Recreation, Wilderness and Camp Hale Legacy Act. It establishes permanent protections for nearly 100,000 acres of wilderness, recreation, and conservation areas in the White River National Forest along Colorado's Continental Divide.
The title creates two new wildlife conservation areas, totaling approximately 12,000 acres. The Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area would protect Colorado's only migration corridor over Interstate 70 for elk, bear, mule, deer, and other wildlife. The Williams Fork Wildlife Conservation Area would also enhance wildlife habitat for the greater sage grouse and other species.
Title 1 also designates the first-ever national historic landscape at Camp Hale. This unprecedented designation speaks to the storied legacy of the Army's 10th Mountain Division in Colorado and around the world. As my colleagues may know, the soldiers that trained at Camp Hale led our Nation to victory in World War II and then went on to create the outdoor recreation industry as we know it today.
The second title is the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act. This title, which has previously received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, provides permanent protections for nearly 61,000 acres of land located in the heart of the San Juan Mountains in southwest Colorado. It designates some of the State's most iconic peaks as wilderness, including two fourteeners, Mount Sneffels and Wilson Peak.
The third title is the Thompson Divide Withdrawal and Protection Act, which prevents new oil and gas development in one of Colorado's most treasured landscapes while also protecting private property rights. The Thompson Divide, through ranching and outdoor recreation, contributes $30 million a year to the statewide economy. It is an area that is simply too valuable to drill for oil and gas.
This title also includes a pilot program to allow the capture of fugitive methane from both active and inactive coal mines in portions of Pitkin, Delta, Gunnison, and Garfield Counties.
Madam Chair, this is a point that is worth underscoring. This provision that I mentioned was developed at the request of local elected leaders. Ultimately, I am thankful for their thoughtful input to improve the bill.
The fourth and final title formally establishes the boundary for the Curecanti National Recreation Area, currently one of only a handful of National Park Service units without a formal designation by an act of Congress. This special place consists of three reservoirs that are a designation for boating, fishing, hiking, and camping. It is a long- overdue formal designation that will allow the National Park Service to more effectively manage the area, and it also will help ensure that the Federal Government lives up to a longstanding commitment it made to the State of Colorado to provide new fishing access for sportsmen in the Gunnison River basin.
Finally, I would like to call out an important addition to this bill that was included in the manager's amendment to honor the life of an outstanding individual who was truly loved by his family and friends, and he served as a pillar of his community. Sanford Morris Treat, Jr., who went by the name ``Sandy,'' was a World War II veteran who served in the 10th Mountain Division and trained at Camp Hale.
I had the honor of meeting Sandy before his passing earlier this year, and it is due to his and his fellow veterans' unwavering advocacy that Camp Hale would be forever maintained as a National Historic Landscape under the CORE Act. Therefore, the manager's amendment includes language to designate the Sandy Treat Overlook as an interpretive site overlooking Camp Hale.
It is my hope that those who visit it will be reminded of his service to our country, his zest for life, and his passion for protecting the legacy of Camp Hale.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues, respectfully, to support the CORE Act, not only to honor those who came before us, but also to protect our treasured places for generations to come.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, with great respect for my colleague from Colorado Springs, whom I certainly enjoy serving with, I would just say that local community support is so critical on public lands bills of this nature. That is why I am so proud that this bill has overwhelming support from the local communities that are impacted by it.
One thing, I suspect, that you will not hear from my distinguished colleagues on this side of the aisle is a reference to any counties, cities, or towns directly impacted by this bill that ultimately don't support it.
Just to give you a sense of some of those communities, the town of Crested Butte, the town of Carbondale, the city of Glenwood Springs, the town of Telluride, the town of Basalt, the town of Breckenridge, the town of Ophir, the town of Ridgway, the town of Mountain Village, the town of Snowmass Village, the town of Frisco, and the town of Dillon, they have all supported this bill.
Garfield County supports a provision of the bill which impacts its county. San Miguel County does the same. Gunnison County, Eagle County, San Juan County, Summit County, Ouray County, and Pitkin County--I am, in some respects, left at a loss of words in terms of trying to understand what local community support my distinguished colleague is referencing in terms of it being lacking.
And, of course, it makes perfect sense that these communities would so overwhelmingly support this bill because they have been engaged in important stakeholder input on this bill for 10 years, long before I came to Congress.
This bill has been the product of a very robust community-driven stakeholder process, which is why it has overwhelming support of not just the local communities that are impacted by it, but, ultimately, by the people shown by just a recent empirical study that over 70 percent of the people on the western side of Colorado and writ at large in the State support the provisions of the CORE Act. That is why it has also earned the support of my distinguished colleague from Colorado, the dean of our delegation.
Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a few points before I yield some time to my distinguished colleague from the Sixth Congressional District.
I would first say, this reference to wilderness study areas and the notion that because, as my distinguished colleague from Colorado Springs mentioned, there are some wilderness study areas in certain areas, that, therefore, no further protections are needed, of course, as the gentleman from the Third Congressional District just mentioned, in his effort to eliminate some of those wilderness study areas, the case in point that permanent protections are, in fact, needed. There is a reason why we pursue these permanent protections, and that is, ultimately, to ensure that the lands are protected for future generations, like my daughter, so that she can enjoy the same treasured public lands that I have had access to.
I would also say, with respect to my colleague from the Third Congressional District, what I failed to hear during his remarks or, for that matter, the gentleman from Colorado Springs' remarks is, again, any reference to a single county that is directly impacted by this bill that opposes this bill.
I understand the gentleman referenced Montezuma County, and I found the letter from Montezuma County a bit perplexing given that none of the CORE Act designations are in their county or even bordering their county.
As I mentioned earlier, the San Miguel Board of County Commissioners, which is in the Third Congressional District, supports this bill. The Gunnison Board of County Commissioners, the Eagle Board of County Commissioners, the San Juan Board of County Commissioners, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners, the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners, and a variety of other counties have expressed support for the provisions of the bill that impact their particular county, including the Garfield Board of County Commissioners, which is in the Third Congressional District.
So, make no mistake, I respect philosophical disagreements that may exist about the need to protect public lands, and there may be--in fact, there clearly is a disagreement there, and we are going to land on different sides of that debate.
But facts matter. And, ultimately, the local communities across the State that are impacted by this bill directly have made clear that they support the CORE Act. As I said, it is no surprise that they do because they have been engaged in the debate around the CORE Act for a decade.
I have each title of the CORE Act that has been introduced since 2011 by Mr. Udall when he served in this Chamber, by Mr. Salazar, and, of course, by Senator Bennet in the upper Chamber. This bill is the product of a decade of collaboration.
Ultimately, what I have heard from these county commissioners and so many others is that they are tired of waiting, Madam Chair.
I recognize that I am new to Washington, but ultimately, I think our job here is to deliver results for the people who elect us to serve.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who has served in our armed services so bravely, to discuss the HAATS issue, in particular. Then, I am happy to yield to Mr. Tipton so that we can engage in a colloquy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) to give him a moment to respond. It seemed like he had something to say.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I appreciate Representative Tipton, my distinguished colleague, for mentioning that. I would say a few things.
First, of the nine counties that are impacted, as I mentioned, eight of them have expressed support for the provisions of the bill that impact them.
While I don't have the letter from Montrose County that apparently came in today--and I am happy to visit with the gentleman further about that letter--my understanding is that they expressed support still for the Curecanti title of the bill in their district.
I also would just say this: If the gentleman is willing to make a commitment that he will vote for this bill if the Montrose Board of County Commissioners supports the bill--is that the gentleman's intent?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have an opportunity to talk. I would just say this: We had this similar debate in the Rules Committee on Monday. Again, I am new to Washington, so perhaps this is just the way the process works, but this notion that amendments are offered and then a representation is made by the gentleman that even if every amendment passed, they would not support the bill, fundamentally, for me, this process is about good faith, negotiation, and discussion to get to a consensus.
I believe there are a number of amendments that the Representative, along with several others that have been proposed, that we are going to debate tonight. Some of those may, in fact, be amendments that we can agree to. But I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would approach the discussion on those amendments with that same good faith, with understanding that they would hope to get to yes, because a similar discussion happened earlier this year with respect to the Garfield Board of County Commissioners.
Their nonsupport of the bill was justified and rationalized as a reason to oppose it. Of course, eventually, by working with those county commissioners, Senator Bennet's office and myself were able to negotiate a compromise so that they could be in a position to support the title of the bill that impacts that county, so that we could protect the treasured public lands in the Thompson Divide.
Again, I believe it is important to underscore that point, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, again, I think it is important to underscore the facts. While I appreciate the gentleman from California making his case, his characterization of local support or lack thereof on this bill is simply not consistent with the facts, because, again, I have yet to hear of a single community that is directly impacted by the CORE Act that opposes the title of the CORE Act that impacts that community--not one, Madam Chair. I have been waiting. Coloradans are waiting.
Again, it is completely permissible to have a philosophical debate about whether or not to protect public lands. I happen to believe that these incredibly iconic places across our State ought to be protected. They ought to be preserved. My colleagues may disagree. That is their right. But it is important to stress the facts.
To that point, the last point I will make, and just yet another area that apparently needs to be clarified, is around motorized recreation. Any characterization that the CORE Act mandates widespread closures of trails or roads is false. This bill does not close any existing roads, jeep trails, off-highway vehicle trails, motorcycle trails, or groomed snowmobile trails, not one.
Facts matter, Madam Chair.
I would ask the Chair how much time do I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague from Arkansas. I know he has a deep experience in his field, I appreciate him on the Natural Resources Committee, and I enjoy serving with him on that committee.
I would ask my distinguished colleague whether he would support the bill if we were to, say, amend the bill to give the Secretary unilateral power to do what the Secretary determines to be necessary for the control of fire and insects.
Would the gentleman be amenable to that?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arkansas; and I will tell the gentleman that we don't need to amend the bill because that language is in the bill, repeatedly in the bill because I share your concerns regarding wildfire, as do my distinguished colleagues from Colorado.
So we put great care to put into the bill language that reiterates ``the Secretary may carry out any activity that the Secretary determines to be necessary for the control of fire, insects, and diseases.''
So since we have that provision in the bill, I am hoping that the gentleman will join the bill, and I certainly hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do the same, because I think this bill strikes the right balance in terms of protecting these incredible public lands and doing so in a way that ensures that we are not at risk of a wildfire and mitigating as best as we can.
I would also tell the gentleman, of the 400,000 acres in the bill-- and I look forward to bringing my colleague from Arkansas to Colorado to see these public lands--only 73,000 of them would be designated as wilderness in this bill, and many of those acres are actually above the tree line or otherwise unforested.
So, I think the language of the bill addresses the gentleman's concerns, and I appreciate his raising them. I also very much appreciate his quoting a personal hero of mine, and I suspect a hero of many of the Members in this Chamber, and that is Teddy Roosevelt, who, of course, was an esteemed conservationist in his time.
I will share a quote that I have found to be very compelling: ``Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children.
``Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.
Madam Chair, it is important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that this bill is protecting iconic places like the Thompson Divide in Colorado from oil and gas development.
The ranchers, the citizens of that community, they have been waiting an awfully long time for the protections in this bill, which is why I am so proud to be able to carry the baton for them in the CORE Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I am ready to close as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, it is important that we not divorce ourselves from the fate of this legislation. Whether it will become law or not is dependent on each and every one of us and where we stand on the bill.
While I have great respect for my colleague from Colorado Springs, I think it is fitting that the closing that he offered cited President Trump and his threatened veto letter.
For me, and for the people I represent, for the citizens of my State, this bill is not about the President. It is not about any of us in this Chamber. It is about them and the public lands that they are so blessed to have in their respective communities.
I said this earlier--I will say it again--as a freshman lawmaker, I understand that I have not been in Congress long, but these pieces of legislation have been.
Public lands are at the heart of who we are as Coloradans. You heard the dean of our delegation talk about our recent poll where 73 percent of Coloradans consider themselves outdoor recreation enthusiasts. Whether they live in Gunnison, Glenwood Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins, Eagle County, Summit County, and everywhere in between, 73 percent say the ability to live near, recreate on, and enjoy public lands, like national forests, parks, and trails, is a significant reason why they live in the West.
Ninety percent believe that the outdoor recreation economy is important to the future of Colorado. It is why so many have labored on various components of this bill for so long--my predecessor, then- Congressman, now-Governor Jared Polis; former Senator Mark Udall; former Congressman John Salazar; and, of course, Senator Bennet today leading this companion legislation in the Senate; and the countless county commissioners, mayors, city councilors, town trustees, conservationists, and ranchers who have worked to build consensus on this bill, literally for a decade.
Many of them traveled here just a few months ago when we had a robust debate in the Committee on Natural Resources, and we were able to mark up this bill and send it here to the floor. They deserve to have their voices heard.
My colleagues can say as often as they would like that there are local voices missing or ignored, but that does not make it true. We know that the communities impacted by this bill support it. That is a fact. There can be no dispute about that.
We know that strong policy requires compromise, years of input, and, yes, vigorous debate. I am happy to participate in that debate, but the people of Colorado have made their voices clear on protecting these public lands.
I mentioned the stakeholder process that we have been engaged in, that the communities have been engaged in, that this State has been engaged in for a decade, regardless of what party was in power or what election year. It was local communities and stakeholders coming to the table to craft the designations that you see on the map to protect these wonderful iconic places that you see to my right. They have been advocating for far too long not to see action from their elected officials.
Madam Chair, it is time that Congress listen to the people of Colorado and vote to protect the places that my home State hold so dear. It is time to hold ourselves accountable. It is time we pass the CORE Act.
Madam Chair, I urge swift adoption of H.R. 823, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have great respect for my colleague from the State of Utah. I enjoy working with him on the Committee on Natural Resources and have enjoyed being able to partner with him on a number of efforts surrounding regenerative agriculture and many other subjects.
I would say that I oppose this amendment. The distinguished gentleman, I believe, mentioned--I hope I am quoting him right--that when his bill passed the Chamber, and I believe the bill earlier this year that passed our committee, that I was proud to vote for, he had the support of conservationists in his State, county commissioners, local elected officials, the Governor, and his congressional delegation.
I would tell the distinguished gentleman that he may not be aware that, in our case, we have the support of conservationists, county commissioners, local elected officials, and our Governor.
The gentleman is correct that the only support that seems to be missing is from Republican colleagues in the State's delegation, and that is a shame. I would hope that a bill that has this volume of support from local communities, as has been well established during the course of this very vigorous and robust debate, would earn the support of my friends on the other side of the aisle who also have the great privilege of representing the State that we love so much.
With respect to the more esoteric point on legislating in areas that an individual may not specifically represent, my understanding--again, I have been in Congress here for only 10 months. But my sense of it thus far is that we take votes literally every day on bills that impact our respective districts and, of course, areas far outside of our districts.
During the 114th Congress, just by way of example--I was not here. I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle who are gathered here today were. They voted to pass H.R. 8, which was the North American Energy Security Infrastructure Act of 2015, out of the House.
This was a bill widely opposed by many Democrats who were concerned that the bill would lead to increased opportunities for constructing natural gas pipelines across Federal lands in their home districts. That, of course, did not stop my colleagues from voting for that bill. They searched their conscience. They made the conclusion that they reached. And that is their right.
I would only say that it is the right of every Member on this particular bill to, again, search their conscience as to whether or not they believe areas like the Thompson Divide ought to be protected.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, we will continue to do that important work, and I appreciate the gentleman's statement in that regard. And I concur with it.
It is worth mentioning--I don't know that it has been mentioned yet during this debate: We have worked very hard. I have a stack of emails. This is literally 35, 40 pages of emails, exchanges between my staff who work on public lands with the Representative from the Third Congressional District over the last 8 months, working, trying to get that consensus.
I will certainly pledge to the gentleman that we are going to keep doing it.
Mr. Chair, with that, I am ready to close as well, but I will reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, the section of the bill that the Representative referenced, in my reading of the bill and in my understanding of the bill, already includes some language that is nearly identical regarding Federal water rights.
But, that being said, I made a pledge to the distinguished gentleman from Utah just a few moments ago in the debate that we would continue working to try to get to consensus. So I will support this amendment, and I will encourage my colleagues on this side of the aisle in good faith to support this amendment as well, and I hope the sponsor of this amendment would take that good faith and recognize the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I would like to claim time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would add language regarding existing grazing to a public land withdrawal that protects a sensitive landscape and its ranchers from mining.
As a reminder, the CORE Act is supported by many ranchers who have been involved with the Thompson Divide Coalition over the years and by the North Thompson and Coal Basin Cattlemen's Association because the bill would protect their ranching heritage on these lands for future generations.
So, ultimately, I don't think that this amendment is necessary, and I do worry about the potential for unintended consequences. For example, I hope that adding it does not somehow imply that the many withdrawals that Congress routinely enacts without such language would somehow restrict grazing; although, I know that that is not my colleague's intent.
Mr. Chair, I would ask the gentleman--I mean, if the gentleman is willing to support the underlying bill if his amendment is adopted, then I would be happy to support it.
Mr. Chair, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, while I appreciate my colleague's statement-- and I don't know that I heard a particular answer to the fundamental question as to whether or not he would be supportive of this bill were his amendment to pass--again, I think we are trying to approach this in a good faith way. We want to find consensus.
So, if the Representative from the Third Congressional District believes that this amendment is necessary to protect the ranching heritage on these lands for future generations, which is obviously a goal that he and I both share, I will support the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I am no longer in opposition and will encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It does not reflect agency recommendations or on-the-ground support of title IV of this bill. Veiled behind the claim of compliance with existing management, this amendment is contrary to a longstanding agreement to transfer 2,560 acres of Forest Service land to the National Park Service, which is reflected in the CORE Act as written.
Both agencies have agreed that the transfer would benefit both the national recreation area and the national forest, and the proposal has long enjoyed broad public support. This amendment is an attempt to both reduce the acreage included in the national recreation area and to prevent the most effective management of these lands.
And I think it is important, Mr. Chair, because we have talked a lot about stakeholder involvement, community-driven processes, and we have yet to receive any letter opposing a provision of the bill impacting a county in which that county ultimately has acreage involved; any letter of opposition. The only letter, in fact, that we have received of communication is from Gunnison County. Gunnison County strongly opposes this amendment. They were never consulted by the sponsor on this amendment, despite the area in question being in their county.
So ultimately, I would oppose this amendment, and I would encourage all members, respectfully, to vote against it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, with much respect to my colleague from the Third Congressional District, I have been to Montrose many times. It is a beautiful part of our State and there are wonderful people who call that community home. What I would say, again, I find it a bit ironic, with all of the discussion around local support and whether or not local communities support provisions of the bill or do not, on the one hand, we don't have a single communication that I am aware of from a county that is impacted by a provision of this bill opposing the title that impacts that county. We do not have one.
The only letter of opposition, or the only communication that we have from a county opposing any of the matters that we are discussing today happens to be a communication from a county that opposes the amendment offered by the gentleman. And so, again, I struggle to understand the consistency there, but nonetheless, contextually I just want to make sure we fully explain the rationale behind the 2017 interagency agreement that my distinguished friend mentioned, because ironically enough, the agreement that the sponsor mentioned that ultimately the amendment is grounded in for the purposes of, ``managing recreational facilities while congressional action is expected to legislatively establish the Curecanti National Recreation Area.''
So in 2008 and 2009 these agencies all agreed that the transfer of the full acreage, 2,560 acres, that that was something they supported, and they were hoping that Congress would do something about it. Ten years later, it is 2019, and we have done nothing. Ultimately, the agencies came together on an interagency agreement in 2017 to at least do something in the interim with the hopes that Congress would step up and fill the void and codify those protections, which is precisely the opportunity that we have now before us. That is why I oppose this amendment and would encourage others to do the same.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would say, with respect to the technicalities in terms of active forest management and the interagency agreement, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. And I appreciate the gentleman's point and, ultimately, we have clearly landed on different sides of that issue.
But, again, and I hate to belabor the point, it is important for those, you know, who may be watching these proceedings thousands of miles away back home in our home State for them to just appreciate the facts.
So we are clear, there are nine counties directly impacted by this legislation. There is one county, in my understanding, that my friend from the Third Congressional District is citing when he mentions potential opposition to the bill. But what he is not clarifying, or rather what has not been clarified, is there is no county of those nine that oppose the provision of the bill that impacts their community; not one. We have been here for an hour, and I have yet to hear of a single county, or a town, or a city council for that matter.
Facts matter. This bill has local support, and that local support extends to this title of the bill. The Gunnison County commissioners and the community in Gunnison have made that clear, which is why I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I want to say a deep note of gratitude to my distinguished colleague and my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who served our country so bravely and so honorably. We are all deeply grateful for his service in the Armed Forces and, of course, his service today in this Chamber.
I don't know that I could say it any better than he did. I believe that this amendment reaffirms the support that we have for HAATS across our Colorado delegation and for the reasons he already so eloquently stated.
I think, ultimately, any further codification, as my colleague from the Third Congressional District had referenced, would be a solution in search of a problem.
Mr. Chair, I encourage every Member of this Chamber to support Mr. Crow's important amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Crow) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pappas, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 823) to provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source