Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. 2546.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act.
As a fourth-generation Coloradan, I know how important our public lands are to the people of my State and to millions of Americans across the West.
Wilderness areas provide us a glimpse of what our world looked like before it was taken over by man. They are some of the most pristine and majestic areas on the planet.
For many of us, the access that we have to these lands is a large part of why we are so proud to call our Western States home and why so many others come to visit us each year.
While we may be the stewards of some of these lands, our Nation's public lands belong to everyone. We, as Members of Congress, should be doing everything we can to protect them.
The bill before us today would permanently protect nearly 1.4 million acres of land across three States. It is one of the largest wilderness protection packages Congress has considered in over a decade, and it is the largest Congress has considered for Colorado in a generation.
The areas that this bill will protect include some of the most unique and irreplaceable landscapes that our Nation has to offer, from the winding canyons of Colorado to the native grasslands of California and to the mossy forests of Washington State.
The designations in this bill will do more than protect the land itself. They will help protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. They will help protect wildlife and some of our favorite, world- class recreation areas. They will provide a boost to the nearby economies and help grow our Nation's multibillion-dollar outdoor recreation industry that directly supports thousands of jobs across the U.S.
Perhaps most importantly, in preserving these lands, the bill will do what we need to do to further fulfill the House's commitment to takes steps to combat the climate crisis.
Preserving more of our public lands is one of the best short-term solutions that we, as a Nation, can take to respond to this crisis. Experts agree that we must strive to protect 30 percent of our public lands by 2030 to protect our planet.
The Protecting America's Wilderness Act combines six bills, each introduced by a different Member of Congress.
Title I of the bill consists of my legislation, the Colorado Wilderness Act, which will permanently protect more than 600,000 acres of wilderness in over 32 unique areas.
For more than 20 years now, I have been working closely with a group of citizens from my State, as well as countless local residents and community leaders, to craft and recraft the legislation we have before us today. I personally have been to most of the areas in my bill, by foot, by horse, and by raft, to experience the areas for myself. I have met with landowners and ranchers across my State to get their feedback and, when necessary, to adjust the bill to address their concerns.
It includes areas like the dramatic ridgeline vistas of Grand Hogback and the sprawling plateaus of Little Book Cliffs, areas like the stunning red cliffs of the Dolores River Canyon that we see here in this poster and the winding riverways of Browns Canyon, areas like the desert slopes of Cross Canyon and the highest peaks of the San Juan Mountains, places that have been untouched by man.
These are just some of the more than 1.3 million acres of wilderness this bill will protect. It will also add more than 1,000 river miles to the National Wild and Scenic River System and would expand or designate new recreation areas, national monuments, scenic and special management areas, restoration areas, and trails.
Mr. Chair, I can't thank my colleagues enough for the work that they have done to make this bill a reality, especially Representatives Huffman, Carbajal, Chu, Schiff, and Kilmer. I know each one of them is going to have more to say about their individual titles in this bill, but before I yield to them, I quickly want to address my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
I recognize that we have ideological differences about protecting our public lands through designations such as these, but I want to encourage them to consider the importance of protecting not only our Nation's environment but also our economy and our way of life.
Mr. Chair, I urge them to consider our tireless and ongoing efforts to ensure that this bill will not just protect public lands, but also make a real boost to our economy.
Wilderness is, at its heart, about providing our fellow Americans with truly wild places to escape. If we don't take steps right now to protect those magical places, then one day, they will no longer exist.
A famous conservationist once said: ``What a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself.''
These areas are without a doubt deserving of the highest protections we can give them and passing them on to the next generation in the same state they are in today has always been one of our top priorities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I would point out to my close friend from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) that there are no multiple use areas in the Colorado Wilderness Act. Two-thirds of the areas are already wilderness study areas and being converted, and the rest have no motorized use or mining or drilling of any kind. So the bill has no conversion of multiple use areas.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act. This legislation includes the text of my bill, H.R. 2215, the San Gabriel Mountains Foothills and Rivers Protection Act, which is the result of years of grassroots advocacy and community engagement to improve protections and access for these treasured lands.
The San Gabriel Mountains are the crown of the Los Angeles area. They provide 30 percent of our water, comprise 70 percent of Los Angeles County's open space, and are home to historic habitats of species like the California condor and Nelson's bighorn sheep.
This immense natural beauty exists right in the backyard of one of the densest urban areas in our country, offering recreational opportunities like hiking, fishing, and camping to the more than 15 million Americans who live in the urban area nearby.
That is so important because the Los Angeles region is one of the most park-poor areas in the country, which means that too many communities do not have access to outdoor recreational opportunities in their own neighborhoods.
Access to outdoor space has real, documented benefits for public health. That is why protecting these lands is so important.
In 2014, President Obama recognized the decades of grassroots support for this goal and granted my request to designate the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument. Immediately, this made available more resources to the mountains that resulted in cleaner rivers, improved facilities like picnic areas and hiking trails, and more rangers to interact with visitors. Most importantly, it brought the entire community together to develop a management plan for the San Gabriel Mountains, with over 40 members representing a variety of stakeholders, such as water agencies, local governments, and the business community.
But we are still far from done. This same level of resources and protection is needed across the San Gabriel Mountains and the communities that serve as their gateway.
The legislation before us today would build on the success of the National Monument designation by expanding the monument's boundaries to include the western Angeles National Forest, establishing new and expanded wilderness areas, and protecting more than 45 miles of waterways as Wild and Scenic Rivers.
It would also establish the critical new San Gabriel Mountains national recreation area to bolster the connection between urban and wild spaces, helping communities in the foothills and along the river corridor improve access to the mountains and offer new recreational opportunities for Angelenos.
This bill represents the work of so many, and they have come together for a plan that would complete the vision of a community seamlessly connected to the beautiful wild lands of its backyard.
Today, we have an opportunity to realize that vision, and that is why I urge support for H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), chairman of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentleman that when we did the last land package none of these bills had been brought up for a hearing by the then-majority, so the gentleman would not have been too happy to have included them in that package.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Chairman, wilderness is not owned by me, it is not owned by any Member on the other side of the aisle, and it is not owned by any Members of Congress. It is owned by the people. It is owned by the people of this country and future generations of this country. That is why we are the stewards of this wilderness.
These are Federal lands, and I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side in this debate say: Well, some county commissioner doesn't support it; some Member doesn't support it.
It doesn't matter. These Federal lands belong to the public. In fact, last October in Colorado there was a poll done of the areas that are impacted in my portion of the wilderness bill. This poll found that 71 percent of the people in the affected areas--the citizens, the people who use this land for economic development and recreation--believe that these wilderness study areas should be made permanent and that they should be made into wilderness. That is whom I believe.
I want to tell you one more story, Mr. Chairman, and that is the story about in August when I went down to Cortez, Colorado, near three of the wilderness areas in my bill. One of the county commissioners, Mr. Ertel, testified in Congress that he represents that area.
Do you know something?
In Cortez, Colorado, the city council and the mayor support the bill. At a townhall meeting I had, there were 75 people. Sixty-five of them raised their hands when I asked if they supported the bill. That is who supports this bill, that is who this is for, and that is whom we need to think about and listen to as we pass this legislation.
The areas in this bill all have strong wilderness characteristics, and we owe it to our children, to our grandchildren, and to our great- grandchildren to take bold action right now and preserve them.
I just want to take a minute and thank everybody who has been involved with this bill: obviously, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Grijalva, his staff, Chris Rackens, Brandon Bragato, Henry Wykowski, Cameron Walkup, and Lily Wang; and my staff who have worked on this bill for over 20 years now, Lisa Cohen, my Chief of Staff; Kaila Hood, Matt Allen, Tom Woodburn, and Marc Rehmann, all of whom have worked their guts out for this, as well as many other staffers past and present.
Finally, I want to thank the citizens who brought this bill to me to begin with and who continue to work their hearts out every day to preserve our wild places; in particular, John Stansfield of Wild Connections who can't be with us today, and Mark Pearson of San Juan Wilderness--who the last time I saw him, he was sitting on a cliff high up in one of my wilderness areas and is now sitting in the gallery watching us pass this historic legislation.
It truly is a labor of love, and I look forward to telling my grandchildren about this historic day.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, the amendment I offer today adds four additional unique wilderness areas to the State of Colorado, totaling more than 60,000 acres to our bill, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act.
The addition of these areas stems from extensive conversations I had with local stakeholders, Tribes, and outdoor recreation groups.
The first one is Diamond Breaks, a wilderness study area in northwest Colorado that is attached to our State's beloved Dinosaur National Monument. This area was recommended for wilderness designation by the Bureau of Land Management under George H.W. Bush. It is a favorite among the many rafters, kayakers, and canoers who visit the national monument every year, and preserving it has been a priority for many conservation groups in my State.
Protecting this land will help provide economic security for an area of the State that depends heavily on our outdoor recreation economy.
The amendment also further protects Papoose Canyon, another wilderness study area in southwest Colorado, near Cross Canyon, which is the area I mentioned that I visited last August.
Papoose Canyon has been a wilderness study area since 1980. It lies within the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument and, with an estimated 100 ancestral Puebloan sites per square mile, has significant cultural value. By officially designating this area as federally protected wilderness, we will permanently preserve this sacred land for generations to come.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment protects north and south Ponderosa Gorge, which is often referred to as the Southwest Secret of Colorado. According to the Bureau of Land Management, nearly 13,000 visitors come to this region every month during its peak season. It is a favorite among those looking to launch their nonmotorized boats on the Dolores River or backpack into the Chemehuevi Mountains. Protecting this land has also been a priority for conservationists in Colorado for decades.
While each of these areas that would be protected under this amendment is unique, they are some of the most incredible wilderness that our State has to offer. Countless Coloradans, when they found that this bill was coming forward, came and asked me to include these three unique areas in the legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from a coalition of groups--the San Juan Citizens Alliance, the Sierra Club, the Sheep Mountain Alliance, the Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, and the Western Colorado Alliance--urging me to include these areas in the bill. February 4, 2020. Hon. Diana DeGette, Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. DeGette: Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Colorado Wilderness Act, HR 2546. We appreciate your relentless leadership in pursuit of protecting Colorado's BLM wild lands.
It's worth recalling that your original proposal first introduced in 1999 encompassed 49 areas and almost 1.4 million acres, and was the result of field work completed by conservationists over the prior 20 years. The Colorado Wilderness Act has evolved over time, and most recently includes about 30 areas with a little over 600,000 acres.
There are several areas we wanted to highlight as HR 2546 moves towards consideration by the House of Representatives. One area consistently included in every version of the bill since 1999 is Snaggletooth, an area that encompasses the spectacular ponderosa gorge of the Dolores River Canyon. Snaggletooth was removed from the bill during consideration by the House Natural Resources Committee, but we believe that with some modest boundary adjustments and clarifications about nearby rights-of-way corridors that Snaggletooth can be reincorporated into the legislation. It is without doubt one of the BLM's crown jewels in Colorado.
Papoose Canyon is one of three wilderness study areas in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. It was included in the Colorado Wilderness Act through 2007, but then inexplicably omitted from subsequent bills. Papoose is adjacent to Cross Canyon, and provides added protection for some of the richest cultural resource concentrations in the Southwest. Like Cross Canyon, it is outside the McElmo Dome carbon dioxide reserves and is unlikely to provide any conflict with energy minerals. We encourage your inclusion of Papoose Canyon WSA in the Colorado Wilderness Act as the other WSAs in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument are already in the bill.
While we might hope that National Monument designation provided a level of conservation certainty, in the past few years we have observed that an Administration hostile to the Antiquities Act could well pursue actions to undermine or eliminate the National Monument status of Canyons of the Ancients. Wilderness designation is a congressional action that cannot be overturned at the whim of the executive branch and is the tried and true approach to guaranteeing the wildlands resources, wildlife habitat, and undisturbed cultural resources of Papoose Canyon will be preserved into the future.
In 2009, you deferred to an effort by BLM to undertake re- evaluation of wilderness candidate areas in northwest Colorado, including a number of areas surrounding Dinosaur National Monument that BLM had long recognized for their wilderness values, and removed those areas from the Colorado Wilderness Act. Unfortunately, once BLM's unsuccessful wilderness re-inventory concluded, these areas from northwest Colorado that had previously been included within every version of the Colorado Wilderness Act from 1999 through 2007 were not reincorporated into the legislation. We encourage you to revisit the status of these areas and consider adding them back into the Colorado Wilderness Act. These include one of the largest Wilderness Study Areas in Colorado, Diamond Breaks, which is bounded both by Dinosaur National Monument and Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge. Additional wilderness quality lands surround Dinosaur National Monument, and include the stunning Yampa River gorge through Cross Mountain, sandstone canyons across the southern approaches to the Monument, and extraordinary wildlife habitat on Cold Spring Mountain.
Diamond Breaks straddles the Colorado-Utah border. For many years, America's Red Rock Wilderness legislation has been pending that includes the Utah portion of Diamond Breaks. Most recently, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act was reintroduced with 16 cosponsors in the Senate, S. 3056, that once again includes wilderness designation for the Utah portion of Diamond Breaks. In 2017, a companion House bill was introduced, HR 2044, cosponsored by 123 members of the House and similarly included wilderness designation for Diamond Breaks in Utah. Pairing Colorado legislation that completes designation for the Colorado portion of Diamond Breaks makes obvious sense.
We are hopeful the Colorado Wilderness Act, HR 2546 will be favorably approved by the House. We look forward to working with your office and Senate colleagues to further refine the Colorado Wilderness Act and see it successfully enacted into law. Respectfully yours, Mark Pearson,
Executive Director, San Juan Citizens Alliance. Jim Alexee,
Colorado Chapter Director, Sierra Club. Lexi Tuddenham,
Executive Director, Sheep Mountain Alliance. Steve Bonowski,
Colorado-based Board member, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship. Emily Hornback,
Executive Director, Western Colorado Alliance.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, these areas have all been protected for years. Two of them have already been wilderness study areas, and as I mentioned, they are in the area of the State where there is widespread public support and where they also are great economic drivers. They are appropriately contained in this bill.
As I said, when these groups found out that this bill was moving along, they urged me to include these really important historical and recreational areas in the bill.
Mr. Chair, one last thing: I forgot to thank Steve Bonowski, who is with Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship. He has been a real partner with us throughout, making the conservative argument of why we need to protect wilderness.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I am so glad the author of this amendment has asked us to listen to the people who this affects because we have.
That is why we found out that 71 percent of the people in the affected areas, the citizens, support this legislation.
That is why when I went to Cortez, Colorado, and had a townhall and there were 75 people there, 65 of them said they were in support of the wilderness areas.
We shouldn't allow one or two local elected officials, or even Members of Congress, to have veto power over preservation of Federal lands for future generations.
If this amendment were adopted and the bill enacted, local governments would be able to indefinitely delay a Federal land designation approved by the House, the Senate, and signed into law by the President.
Wilderness designation, which is the highest level of protection that we bestow, is solely at the discretion of Congress and has been so since the original Wilderness Act. It is intended to provide permanent protection for exceptional landscapes, and it is a key tool for preserving undisturbed lands.
So what are we going to do? Are we going to be at the whim of local elections to decide who should support it? And who decides? Why do the county commissioners get veto power? What about the mayors and city councils?
While the Montezuma County commissioners may oppose the designation of the wilderness study areas, the Cortez City Council and the mayor support it.
That is why we have to hear what the people have to say. No individual elected official, from a commissioner to a Member of Congress, should have the ability to unilaterally veto these things.
All the areas included in all the titles of this bill are the result of multiyear collaborative efforts between bill sponsors and stakeholders on the ground.
We have to remember that these lands are publicly owned. They are not privately owned. They belong to every American and future generations.
Frankly, I think that, as Members of Congress, we have the responsibility to listen to our constituents and to listen to the people of the United States, and the people of the United States want to preserve the very few special remaining wild places that we have.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, this amendment, just like the prior amendment, is another attempt to cede congressional responsibility.
I can assure the gentleman that every piece of land in this bill that is designated as wilderness is, in fact, wilderness. The gentleman is right; in the statutory definition of wilderness there is no mechanized or motorized equipment. There is no mining or drilling. I will say, for firefighting, you don't just have to use shovels; you can use other things.
But, be that as it may, wilderness should be reserved for those very few special areas that are untrammeled by man, just like the Wilderness Act says.
I will also guarantee, Mr. Chair, that every acre that is designated wilderness has been gone over by the sponsors, by the citizens, by the activists, and it qualifies as wilderness.
In the Colorado Wilderness Act, two-thirds of the areas have been managed as wilderness because they are wilderness study areas, and they have been managed as wilderness for over 30 years; so these areas are wilderness.
Because what it does is it cedes Congress' powers to the executive branch. And, frankly, with this administration, that is the last thing I think we should do in deciding what wilderness is.
If this amendment were adopted and the bill was enacted, Secretary Bernhardt would be unilaterally empowered to veto designations of wilderness enacted by Congress and signed by the President.
This amendment would give unprecedented and problematic power to the Secretary to override Congress, based on no criteria, other than what they wanted to do.
Now, if my colleagues had questions about if these areas are worthy of designation, they only have to look at the bill reports, where we extensively documented the outstanding values of the public lands and rivers included in this bill.
Now, I would just challenge the gentleman to tell me which of the wilderness designations in this legislation do not meet wilderness criteria, because it is for Congress to make that decision, not the executive branch. And we need to retain our Article I power every day and in every way.
For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I do agree that wilderness is reserved for those very special few areas that are left that truly are wild.
I challenged the gentleman to tell me which area, which acre in this bill does not meet the Wilderness Act criteria, and he did not do so. And that is because every acre of wilderness that my cosponsors and I have designated meets that criteria. It has been vetted, and it is one of those very few pristine areas that we should protect.
By the way, in Colorado, even if this bill is adopted, still, only less than 10 percent of our land will be wilderness and as it should be, because wilderness should be protected as a wild area.
I will say, though, that is not what this amendment does. What this amendment does is it cedes determination of what is wilderness from the Congress, which should be determining this, to the administration, another erosion of an Article I power. That is why I oppose this amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Unlike the Panetta amendment that we just debated, the Westerman amendment contains no action or management prescription to address wildfire risk on our public lands. Instead, the amendment is another attempt by my colleagues to override Congress' constitutional responsibility to make law and, instead, give political appointees overly broad and unilateral authority to essentially veto an act of Congress.
This amendment contains the false narrative that wilderness is a ``no management'' designation and that any protective designation will inherently increase wildfire risk.
That, in fact, is not true, and it is the opposite: Wilderness areas are some of our most resilient natural landscapes.
Wilderness areas are usually far away from homes and other developed areas. They don't contain power lines or roads, which are major causes of human-caused ignitions, as we saw with the recent California fires. And if a fire does start in a wilderness area, these landscapes are best equipped to endure those periodic disturbances, which can achieve important management objectives and enhance habitat and ecosystem functions.
Mr. Chair, here we have got a photo provided to me by my colleague, Mr. Carbajal, which illustrates this point. It is the Machesna Wilderness Area that is included in this bill. If you look at the area for a moment, you can see this is not an area that is appropriate for logging, but you can also see some charred wood from a recent fire. But overall, look at how this area has regrown and the beautiful flowers that bloomed after the fire. This is what a resilient landscape looks like, and it is what we are protecting in this bill.
Furthermore, we have said this over and over and over, and I can't stress it enough, there is nothing that prevents suppression of an active wildfire in a wilderness area. And the Wilderness Act allows management activities if they are necessary to address fire, insects, and diseases, which is referenced in no uncertain terms by Mr. Panetta's amendment.
Wildfire, like climate change, is an issue that always should be on our minds and inherent in our policies, but this red herring narrative that wilderness designation inherently increases wildfire is just simply not played out.
I encourage my colleagues not to give in to these false assumptions and oppose this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate, the way it works right now with existing wilderness areas is that the region that is managing that wilderness area can decide, obviously, taking into account that it is a wilderness area.
If it is a remote area, as we just saw in this photo, where burning would benefit the ecosystem, then they are allowed to burn, as they are in other areas of Federal land; but, if the regional director in the management plan has a wilderness that is near an urban interface and it looks like homes and lives may be put at risk, they are allowed, under the Wilderness Act, to take that action.
That is what I have been trying to tell my colleagues for years now. I think that the Panetta amendment makes that clear. I think that it allows us the power that we have in designating wilderness.
Again, we shouldn't offload our power to the executive branch or any other branch of government. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, plain and simple, this amendment would remove all the potential wilderness from this bill, which totals over 130,000 acres.
My colleagues are using this amendment to claim that the wilderness areas in this bill don't meet the definition or intent of the wilderness designation.
Guess what? That is exactly why they are designated as ``potential wilderness.'' These are areas that are, for all intents and purposes, wilderness, but for a small nonconforming use. Since the quotation marks on the amendment description seem to show some lack of understanding about this designation, I would like to explain it for the Record.
A potential wilderness designation typically means that an area has wilderness characteristics, but it recognizes that there is a nonconforming use or activity that would otherwise be prohibited by a standard wilderness designation, which is exactly what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep trying to argue. They keep trying to say: ``Well, you know, you can't have motorized activities. You can't have this and that in wilderness,'' and they are right. But that is why some of these areas are potential wilderness.
Some examples of potential wilderness allowances that would be impacted by this amendment include allowing redwood forest restoration, allowing trail reconstruction using heavy equipment, and allowing the high-altitude helicopter operations in Colorado to continue in potential wilderness, because those uses are not appropriate in wilderness but these areas have strong wilderness characteristics, but for that one activity.
Potential wilderness designations simply say this: manage the area for the wilderness quality characteristics but continue to allow the specific use or activity. Then when that nonconforming use is removed, the area will then revert to wilderness because mostly that is what it is.
Potential wilderness provides exactly the type of management flexibility that my colleagues claim is needed for certain areas, but they want to strike all of these designations from the bill. Frankly, it seems a little backward to me.
For some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I know it can be hard to see these areas for anything other than their extractive potential, but I see it from the other side of the coin. These areas are strong wilderness areas; they just have a small nonconforming use that eventually will be removed, restoring these areas to wilderness. That is why these areas are called potential wilderness.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is ready. I think I have the right to close. Mr. Chair, I will reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the 131,702 acres of potential wilderness in this bill, they are in many of the sections of this legislation, and they all have strong wilderness characteristics but for one nonconforming use, which will be eventually gone, in which case it is imperative that we manage these areas as wilderness.
Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing but great affection and respect for my friend from the Third Congressional District, and I have worked with him and his predecessors as I have developed this bill over the last 20-plus years, but I respectfully have to strongly disagree with him over his proposal to remove these two areas from the legislation.
As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier in general debate, I actually went to these two areas over the August recess and I visited these areas. I invited Mr. Tipton to come, but he was unavailable. When we were in the Cross Canyon area, we rode in on horses because there are no trails. It is completely inaccessible. There we saw ancestral pueblos. We saw petroglyphs with our own eyes.
When we went to the Weber-Menefee area to the area overlooking it, we saw really clearly how this area was wild and needed protection. And, by the way, the areas with the noxious weeds were several miles away, not even close to the wilderness area.
I do understand these concerns, but I believe these two areas are a case study for who you should listen to when you decide what wilderness should be.
As I said in general debate, when Commissioner Ertel came to testify before Congress, he rightly said that I had never been to these two areas. So, last August I went there, and I toured the areas. I had a town hall meeting in Cortez, which is the town that is right in between these two areas. We had over 70 people who showed up at this town hall meeting, and I presented what the bill was. Several other people asked questions, presented opposing views.
At the end I just had a gut feeling that there was support there, so I took an impromptu survey, and I asked the people in that room, ``How many of you, knowing what you know, would support designation of Cross Canyon and Weber-Menefee as wilderness?'' Sixty-five people raised their hands. Then I asked, ``How many of you would oppose it?'' Four people raised their hands. When I asked, ``How many are neutral,'' four people raised their hands.
It seems to me we shouldn't be having local county commissioners have veto power either over the citizens in those areas or over the U.S. Congress in determining wilderness. And by the way, the local mayor of Cortez and the town council have all voted to support designation of these areas--both of which have been wilderness study areas for over 30 years--permanently.
That is why we need to keep these areas in our bill. That is why they need to be designated as wilderness because they are wild and pristine.
And that is why I humbly and respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should be assured we spent quite a little bit of money in your town.
I just want to say what the gentleman said points to exactly what I am saying. He says that the Cortez town council and mayor are not managing the county lands. Well, guess what, the county commissioners aren't managing the Federal lands. These are Federal lands. These are wilderness study areas, and they have been wilderness study areas for almost 30 years. The residents, the local residents, they are the ones that should care. They are the ones using these areas and they want them to be preserved.
Mr. Chairman, I refer again, on the Western Slope in the areas referenced in this bill, New Bridge Strategy did a poll last October of 2019, and they found that in those areas, 71 percent of Coloradans support wilderness protections for those already managed as such, like these two areas. And 63 percent supported expanding wilderness protections across the State. These are the people who matter. These are the people who care.
Also, we have a list of 80 different groups, most of them on the Western Slope, and we have a list of 179 business owners and community leaders, most of them on the Western Slope, who support this legislation. The reason is because the local governments and the county governments are benefiting from the visits that they have to these areas.
In Cortez, one of the biggest employers is Osprey. Almost everybody has an Osprey backpack or something in their home. They are selling their goods to the people who are using these areas.
That is why I oppose this amendment. That is why we need to pass this bill, and we need to protect these areas that are already wilderness study areas and have been for 30 years, for the future generations to come.
I include in the Record the list of business owners and the conservation and recreation groups, as well as the survey from New Bridge Strategy.
Conservation and Recreation Groups in Support of Title I: Colorado Wilderness Act of 2020 (DeGette--H.R. 2546) (80)
1. Access Fund
2. Aiken Audubon Society
3. American Alpine Club
4. American Hiking Society
5. American Whitewater
6. Ancient Forest Rescue
7. Animas Riverkeeper
8. Arkansas Valley Audubon Society
9. Audobon Society Denver
10. Audubon Rockies
11. Audubon Society of Greater Denver
12. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
13. Backcountry Skiers Alliance
14. Biodiversity Legal Foundation
15. Big Agnes
16. Black Canyon Audubon Society
17. Blue River Anglers
18. Boulder County Aububon Soc.
19. Center for Environmental Citizenship
20. Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition
21. Clean Water Advocacy Center
22. Colorado Mountain Club
23. Colorado Native Plant Society
24. Colorado Wild/Rocky Mountain Wild
25. Colorado Wildlife Federation
26. Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center
27. Community Alliance of the Yampa Valley
28. Conservation Alliance
29. Conservation Colorado/League of Conservation Voters
30. Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship
31. CoPIRG
32. CU Environmental Center
33. Defenders of Wildlife
34. Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
35. Endangered Species Coalition
36. Environment Colorado/Environment America
37. Friends of Browns Canyon
38. Friends of The Yampa
39. Frying Pan Anglers
40. Grand Valley Audubon Society
41. Grand Valley Citizen's Alliance
42. Great Old Broads for Wilderness
43. High Country Citizen's Alliance
44. Land & Water Fund of the Rockies
45. La Sportiva
46. Mesa County Wilderness Coalition
47. National Parks Conservation Association
48. National Wildlife Federation
49. Natural Resources Defense Council
50. Osprey
51. Outdoor Alliance
52. Outdoor Industry Association
53. Patagonia
54. Protect Our Winters
55. Quiet Use Coalition
56. Ridgway-Ouray Community Council
57. Roaring Fork Anglers
58. Roaring Fork Audubon
59. Rocky Mountain Canoe Club
60. Rocky Mountain Field Institute
61. Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative
62. San Juan Citizen's Alliance
63. San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council
64. Sopris Greens
65. Sheep Mountain Alliance
66. Sierra Club Rocky Mountain/Sierra Club
67. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project
68. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
69. Trout Unlimited
70. Uncompahgre Valley Association
71. Western Colorado Alliance for Community Action formerly Western Colorado Congress
72. Western Environmental Law Center
73. Western Resource Advocates
74. Western Slope Environmental Resource Council
75. Wild Connections
76. Wilderness Education Institute
77. Wilderness Land Trust
78. Wilderness Workshop
79. Wildlands Restoration Volunteers
80. Winter Wildlands Alliance Businesses in Support of Title I: Colorado Wilderness Act of 2020 (DeGette--H.R. 2546) (187)
1. Friends Fields Inc
2. Hart's Skating and Dancewear
3. House of Seasons
4. Mr. Mike's Repair
5. Hill's Aspen Gallery of Photography
6. Hotel Lenado
7. UTE Mountaineer
8. Bristlecone Mountain Sports
9. Taylor Creek Fly Shops
10. Ames Burgess Ranch LLC
11. Boulder Mountain Repair
12. Little Mountain
13. Montgomery Partnership Architecture
14. Mountain Sports
15. Target Earth International
16. The Cup Espresso Cafe
17. Neptune Mountaineering
18. Big City Blues
19. Loom and Weave Inc
20. Mountain Angler
21. Rasta Pasta
22. The Adventure Rafting Company
23. Great Big Color Inc
24. MasterPrint
25. The Trailhead
26. Echo Canyon River Exp. Inc.
27. Mother Nature's Health Food Store
28. Alpine Angling and Adventure Travel
29. Sopris Surfers
30. Centennial Canoe Outfitters Inc.
31. Boulder Running Company
32. Cripple Creek District Museum
33. Criterium Bicycles
34. Gordon Anderson Photography
35. Mountain Chalet
36. Pikes Peak Mountain Bike
37. The E-Quest Corporation
38. Canyon Sports LLc
39. Jake's Rio Grande Outfitting Service
40. Butte Bagels Inc
41. Bill Myers, P.C.
42. C.W. Action
43. Colorado Outdoor Recreational Adventures
44. Confluence Kayaks LLc
45. Golden West Co. LLC
46. Patagonia (Denver)
47. Arapahoe CafZ/Pub
48. Pug Ryan's (brewery)
49. Dolores River Brewery
50. A Shared Blanket
51. AAM's Mild to Wild Rafting
52. Animas Trading Co
53. Animon City Rock LLC
54. Aquarius Adventures
55. Backcountry Experience
56. Branson Reynolds Photography
57. Carver Brewing Co
58. Carver Brewing Company
59. Colorado Mtn. Expeditions
60. Concrete Ski Shop
61. Couldberries
62. Dancing Willows Herbs Inc.
63. Duranglers Inc.
64. Durango Kid
65. Durango Shirt Co.
66. Ecos Consulting
67. Flexible Flyers Rafting
68. Gardenswartz Sporting Goods
69. Gunnar Conrad Photography
70. Hummingbirds Herbals
71. Main Avenue Marketplace
72. Maria's Bookshop
73. Nature's Oasis
74. Norton Painting Inc.
75. P. River Outfitters
76. Performance Video
77. Pineneedle Mountaineering
78. POPOLI--Design for People
79. Precious Earth
80. Reruns
81. Rhea Environmental Consulting
82. Ski Barn Inc.
83. The Boarding Haus
84. The Light Store Inc
85. Urban Homestead
86. Yoga Durango
87. Mountain Misen LTD
88. In the Groove Inc.
89. The Snow Leopard
90. Rock Solid Adventures
91. DejaVu Coffeehouse
92. Hammocks in the Square
93. Hearne's Fine Goods
94. New Belgium Brewing Co.
95. Poudre River Kayaks
96. Rocky Mountain Home Collection
97. Trails End Hardscapes Inc.
98. COPY COPY
99. Pioneer Sports
100. Summit Canyon Mountaineering
101. Architecture Works
102. Mounainsmith
103. The Bent Gate Inc.
104. Timberline Llamas Inc.
105. Greeley Monument Works
106. Marbled Artworks by Marie Palowoda
107. Margies Java Joint & The Book Stop
108. Mellow Yellow
109. Paws Animal Clinic
110. All Sports Replay
111. Black Diamond Exp. & Tenderfoot Rafting
112. Mountain Mamas
113. The Book Worm
114. Cannibal Outdoors
115. Hall Realty, Mountaineer Inc.
116. Lake City Properties Inc.
117. Rosemary Knight CPA
118. The Pueblo House
119. Zen Home Construction Inc.
120. Donut Hut
121. Sisters' Espresso
122. Backcountry Escape LLC
123. Grandpa's Pawn and Gun
124. The Dickens House Bed & Breakfast
125. Red Canyon Art Co.
126. Deer Hill Expeditions
127. Blue Planet Earthscapes
128. The Cliff House @Pikes Peak
129. Black Cat Books
130. Mountain Wind and Sun
131. Natural Gems by the Corner Goldsmith
132. The Hemp Store
133. Backstreet Bagel & Deli
134. Devinny Jewelers
135. Cimarron Creek
136. Montrose Chiropractic
137. Ross Reels
138. Scott Fly Rods
139. The Soul Garden
140. Valley Books & Coffee
141. Streamside Bed & Breakfast
142. Outwest Guides
143. Reed Designs LLC
144. Vistas and Vineyards B&B
145. Earth Write
146. The John Deaux Art Gallery
147. Redstone Inn
148. Adobe Inn
149. Cimarron Books & Coffeehouse
150. CO Kids Clothing Co.
151. Ridgway Office Supply & Services
152. Firehouse Sculpture & Gallery
153. Ridgway Outdoor Experience
154. Ridgway Rentals
155. San Juan Stone Company LLC
156. Unicas Southwest
157. White House Salon
158. Willowcreek Floral
159. Light Hawk
160. Lifestream Water Systems
161. Silver Mountain Harvest LTD
162. Simpler Way Book Co.
163. Renegade LLC
164. Alpine Art & Glasswork
165. Backcountry Provisions
166. Backdoor Sports Ltd.
167. Bamboo Market
168. Epilogue Book Company
169. Little Moon Essentials
170. Mad Dog Sports
171. Mail Boxes, Etc.
172. Matt & Bryan's Outdoor Shop
173. Mountain High Technology
174. One Stop Ski Shop Ltd
175. Orange Peel Bicycle Service US
176. Spring Sips
177. Straightline Outdoor Sports
178. Use It Again Sports
179. Vino
180. Ivar Eidsmo Builder Inc.
181. Telluride Outside
182. Tomboy Soup
183. Vectra Bank Colorado
184. Arkansas Valley Adventure
185. Civilized Designs from the Wild West
186. EcoFlight
187. Lupitar Bizzare Bazaar Business Owners and Community Leaders in Support of Title I: Colorado Wilderness Act of 2020 (DeGette--H.R. 2546) (179)
1. Bill Myers
2. Carmi McLean
3. Jonathan Kahn
4. Errol Cerovski
5. Dave Richardson
6. Claudia Goodman
7. Karen Gordan
8. Dan Groenwald
9. Steve Montgomery
10. Daniel Howley
11. Nicole Holt
12. Wendy Ball
13. Gary Neptune
14. Andrea Gessner
15. Jeremy Feldman
16. Jackson Streit
17. Noble Wolf Schlicht
18. Sean McLaughlin
19. Meena Keuer
20. Michael & Star Betz
21. Travis Holton
22. Sherleen Westfield
23. Matt Sampson
24. Nancy Brown
25. Main Turner
26. Nina Thompson
27. Claire Carren
28. Vicki Stroud
29. Jamie Black
30. Frank Lilly
31. Mark Wimberly
32. Weston & Mary Mauz
33. Judy McDonald/Mary Ward
34. Joe Wright
35. Daniel Delano
36. Bob Wade
37. Susan & Don Edmonds
38. Tim Heng
39. Martha A. Burgess
40. Jeff Dysart
41. Dale Ahrens
42. Duane Daniels
43. David Jake Powell
44. Mark Youngguist
45. D. Frank
46. Alex Mickel
47. Cathy Wakeman
48. Anne Batt-Ostlund
49. Valyda May
50. Kirk Singer
51. Branson Reynolds
52. Barbara Wynne
53. Zachary Lawrence
54. Pete Turner
55. Cheryl Hobby
56. Debra Reuben
57. Tom Knopick
58. Barbara Haas
59. Kristin Kuhn
60. Chris Calwell
61. Robin Fritch & Steven Saltsman
62. Brian Hessling
63. Gunnar Conrad
64. Melanie Rose
65. Andrea Brenell
66. Peter Schertz
67. Jeff & Sherri Watson
68. Dylan Norton
69. Tom Kleema
70. Kent Ford
71. Cindy Schroeder
72. Christine Conner
73. Kim Pardini
74. Laura Fickard
75. Barry Rhea
76. Jurgen Umbhau
77. John Agnew
78. Crissy Schneider
79. Tracy Campbell
80. ``Katie Walsh
81. Michele Lawrence
82. Sherly McGourty''
83. Steve Davis
84. Andrew Smith
85. Greg Osgood
86. Marianne Tarr
87. Marcia Duncan
88. Jack & Leslie Nichols
89. Phil & Carolyn Virden
90. William & Ruthanna Hall
91. Rosemary Knight
92. Christi Hall
93. Ken Bodine
94. Douglas & Beverly Caplin
95. Pete Freer
96. David Devinny
97. Bob Burk
98. John T. Unger
99. David S. Heller
100. Junimz Britschi
101. Jim Riddell
102. Charlie Peterson
103. Gary Hubbell
104. Lorna Reed
105. Iris Meachum
106. Riadeaux
107. Deborah Strom
108. Joyce Bucknam
109. Priscilla Peters
110. Ellen Hunter
111. Gale Ingram
112. Joni McCullough
113. Albert Adams
114. Patsy Young
115. Cindy Feirn
116. Deborah Lombardo
117. Judi S.
118. Paula Brown
119. Michelle G.
120. Maryelleu & Brandon Hubley
121. John Marshall
122. Betsy Fields
123. Vickie Rosenzweig
124. David Pepin
125. Peter Van de Carr
126. Anne Halloran
127. Erica Focelle
128. Laura Lamun
129. John Seymour
130. Al Callahan
131. Matt Taff, Bryan Ayer
132. Marty Rosenzweig
133. John M Kole
134. Brock S. Webster
135. Stephanie Reineke
136. Brett Lee
137. Fred Garrison
138. Michael Kirlum & Lisa Lesyshen
139. Ivar Eidsmo
140. John Duncan
141. Jessica Newens Co.
142. Timothy J. Cannon
143. Debbie Dacton & Michael McBride
144. Maria Palowoda
145. Deanna Shepard
146. Jodie Callen
147. David Shoemaker
148. Shonda Lehtola
149. Rod Brandenburg
150. Kim Khake
151. Dick & Jan Scar
152. David Burch
153. Marjorie F. Oldfield
154. Cody Hill
155. Jan MacKell
156. Nic Ponsor
157. Gordon Anderson
158. Dan Foster
159. Howard Hallman Jr.
160. George Watson
161. Becky Elder
162. Craig A. Hartman
163. Natalie Johnson
164. Laura Bell
165. Stephen A. Smith
166. Dennis & Kathleen Claveau
167. Mike Kunkel
168. Duke Brad Ford
169. Julia Gumpter & Marty Genereux
170. Drew Shaw
171. Richard & Carol Wolfe
172. Laurie Hurd
173. Margy Dalpes
174. Karin Dukehart
175. Carol Boyd
176. Michael Cady
177. Joe Doyle
178. Kristine Dirla
179. Kristi Floyd ____ New Bridge Strategy. To: Interested Parties From: Lori Weigel & Kathryn Hahne/New Bridge Strategy Date: October 21, 2019 Re Support for Colorado Wilderness Act in Survey of Western Slope Voters
New Bridge Strategy recently completed a survey of voters throughout western Colorado--an area largely consisting of the Third Congressional District--to determine their views on a range of conservation issues, particularly increasing wilderness designations on some lands in the West. The study found strong support for the Colorado Wilderness Act to increase wilderness primarily in desert and canyon areas in their region. They also want to keep Wilderness Study Areas intact, rather than removing that designation on some public lands. This support may be grounded in the fact that voters view public lands as beneficial for the economy. They also anticipate outdoor recreation becoming increasingly important in the region. This is not surprising given that most voters in this region say that they engage in outdoor recreation activities and/or sportsmen activities.
Specifically, the survey found that . . .
More than three-in-five Western Slope voters support ``dedicating additional, existing public lands as wilderness areas here in Colorado.'' Fully 63 percent support dedicating more land as wilderness in Colorado after hearing a brief explanation of what this would entail. Respondents were told that ``Just over fifty years ago Congress passed the Wilderness Act, which protected the Maroon Bells and the San Juan Mountains here in Colorado. These areas are designated as wilderness in order to keep that land conserved in its natural state. Wilderness lands can be used for hiking, camping, livestock grazing, horseback riding, wildlife watching, hunting and fishing. However, mining, oil and gas development, logging, and the use of motorized or off-road vehicles and mountain bikes are not allowed on wilderness lands.'' Again, after hearing this neutral explanation, there is solid support of 63 percent, and fully 42 percent ``strongly'' support it. Only 35 percent register opposition to this proposal. Support for increasing the amount of wilderness in Colorado is evident throughout the entire district as well.
Support for extending wilderness protections has appeal among virtually all sub-groups, including a majority of hunters (55 percent) and anglers (62 percent), and surprisingly, off-road vehicle users (55 percent support, 43 percent oppose). More than two-thirds of every other type of outdoor recreation enthusiast expressed support, including 80 percent of mountain bikers, 75 percent of bird/wildlife watchers, and 73 percent of hikers). A majority across party lines also express support, with near universal support among Democrats (94 percent), and nearly three-in-five Republicans (59 percent) and unaffiliated voters (59 percent) registering support for additional wilderness areas in Colorado.
In addition, once voters know that ``just five percent of Colorado lands are currently dedicated as wilderness areas,'' support for dedicating additional public lands as wilderness increases to fully 69 percent.
Likewise, there is significant support for adding wilderness protections to public lands in desert and canyons regions of the state. Fully 68 percent express support for a proposal that would ``designate as wilderness lands areas that include some desert canyons and mesas, such as lands near Mesa Verde National Park, and natural areas along the Arkansas and Dolores Rivers. These amount to less than 10 percent of the public lands in southern and western Colorado.'' Two-in-five (40 percent) strongly support the proposal, while 29 percent oppose it. This proposal engenders majority support across party lines (92 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of unaffiliated voters and 54 percent of Republicans), and with virtually every sub-group examined. It has solid support throughout the district, including in Mesa County (66 percent support).
Voters in this region also reject calls to eliminate protections for Wilderness Study Areas. Western Colorado voters prefer that Congress keep existing public lands in Wilderness Study Areas, rather than removing that designation to those lands by a nearly three to one margin, as the next graph illustrates.
Majorities of all key voter sub-groups prefer that Congress keep the status quo. This includes more than three-in-five Republican and unaffiliated voters in the region (61 percent say to keep the areas as they are, while 34 percent would change their status) and virtually all Democrats (97 percent keep as is). The desire to retain Wilderness Study Areas is evident throughout the region, including in Mesa County (70 percent).
Support for these public lands proposals may be grounded in the fact that voters make a connection between their economy and the outdoors. The overwhelming majority of voters in western Colorado say they presence of public lands in Colorado helps our economy (84 percent) rather than hurts it (6 percent) or has little impact on the economy (8 percent). Majorities of every single sub-group hold the perception that public lands help the economy.
Similarly, the survey demonstrates that voters in this region view the ``outdoor economy'' as being ``very important'' to their economic future. Fully 68 percent characterize the outdoor economy which in the survey we defined as ``people who come to hunt, fish, camp, hike, see wildlife, as well as those who manufacture and sell equipment for those activities'' as being very important to ``the economic future of western Colorado.'' Another one-in-four (25 percent) say it is ``somewhat important,'' and a mere 7 percent do not see it as important. Both Democrats (76 percent) and Republicans (70 percent) view the outdoor economy as very important to the economic future of western Colorado.
The vast majority of western Coloradans engage in outdoor recreation themselves. When asked about their own ties to the outdoors, the vast majority of voters here are participating in many activities. Many identify as either a hunter (39%) or an angler (52 percent). More than nine-in-ten say that they regularly participate in some other form of outdoor recreation, with a range of activities identified:
64% Hiking or trail running, 64% Camping, 51% Bird watching and viewing wildlife, 30% Kayaking, canoeing or boating, 36% Riding an off-road vehicle or snowmobile, 36% Snow shoeing, skiing or boarding, 22% Mountain biking.
In fact, a majority say that they regularly participate in three or more of these activities (56 percent).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, there has been a lot of debate for a long time about how this bill might or might not impact military training in Colorado, and I myself have been concerned about this for some years. We have been looking at this for over 10 years, ever since we found out about the high-altitude training by the National Guard.
We have provisions in the underlying bill and, of course, we have accepted an amendment from Mr. Cunningham that would clearly say nothing in this bill will interfere with the HAATS activities. As a matter of fact, we removed several areas from the original bill that we found out had helicopter landing pads in them and we called them potential wilderness, because, frankly, I don't think that landing a helicopter in an area is an approved wilderness use, and I have said that all along.
So, therefore, we want to make sure that the National Guard can continue to do its landing in these areas as long as it deems that it is necessary to do so. We have written the underlying bill that way. Mr. Cunningham's amendment clarifies it. And, frankly, if this amendment will help to clarify the situation even more, I would be happy to go along with that because I do not intend, and I don't think any of the other bill sponsors intend, to interfere with our national defense.
People might be surprised to find out the findings of the study once it comes out, because the Pentagon often supports the protective buffer that wilderness offers for aviation training. Also, this bill is supported by a number of veterans and other military organizations.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter dated February 11, 2020, from the Vet Voice Foundation that shows support for this legislation and, in particular, support for the wilderness in this legislation. Vet Voice Foundation, February 11, 2020. Subject: Vet Voice Foundation Support for H.R. 2546-- Protecting America's Wilderness Act. Hon. Diana DeGette, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman DeGette: I am Paul Eaton, Major General (Ret.), U.S. Army, who served more than 30 years in the United States Army, including combat and post-combat assignments in Iraq, Bosnia and Somalia, and Senior Advisor for the Vet Voice Foundation (VVF). The VVF serves as a platform for veterans to influence policy outcomes and has over 500,000 members with over 34,000 living in California and Colorado. We write to express our support for H.R. 2546-- Protecting America's Wilderness Act.
Our support for H.R. 2546 is based on our intent to protect our public lands. Those who serve our country fought to preserve American freedoms and lifestyles. Almost nothing better encapsulates these ideals than the wild spaces and ecologically rich lands that have changed little since our country's founding, thanks to the laws that protect them.
Through our work, we know veterans return from war and turn to the outdoors to find relief from the trauma and stresses of war and reintegration. For many veterans who've returned from locations marked by desperation and violent conflict, nature and wildlife can be a critical source of strength and healing. The Protecting America's Wilderness Act would ensure veterans and future generations have access to the great outdoors.
We also recognize that the Protecting America's Wilderness Act would provide permanent protections for landscapes in Colorado, California, and Washington by designating over 1.3 million acres of federal land as new, expanded or potential wilderness and safeguarding more than 1,200 miles of river as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System. These bills are the product of years of input by a wide variety of stakeholders and will boost local economies, recreation opportunities, and protect wildlife and their habitats.
In order to protect and defend our public lands, we strongly support H.R. 2546--Protecting America's Wilderness Act.
Thank you for your continued support of our public lands and consideration of Vet Voice Foundation's views. If we can be of assistance on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Paul Eaton, Major General (Ret.), U.S. Army, Senior Advisor, Vet Voice Foundation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I urge support for Mr. Tipton's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Schrier) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, 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. 2546) to designate certain lands in the State of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source