Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2546. Regardless of what the House does, this bill is not going to be signed into law, and I find it only fair to explain why.

This package of bills is based on an ideological thought process that has always failed and is going to continue to fail. It will fail because this will add collectively about 1.5 million new wilderness acres. Yes, that is 1.5 million. Although we already have about 111 million, this is going to add another 1.5 million.

This bill will fail because the sponsors think they are protecting this land. In truth, the opposite is true. This bill will fail because unmanaged land equals fuel load. Fuel load equals wildfire.

Mr. Chairman, according to the Insurance Information Institute, over the last 5 years, an average of 7.86 million acres per year has burned in the United States. According to the Congressional Research Service, about 78 percent of that is on public land.

The wilderness designation is the most vulnerable public land there is. More wilderness equals more fire. More fire equals more carbon, somewhere in the region of about 40 tons per acre when a wildfire burns.

And it gets worse. If a forest burns, that is God's best tool for absorbing greenhouse gases, and that is destroyed. That is like taking out your lungs.

Mr. Chairman, I can't count the number of times that I have heard the term ``climate change'' since I have taken office. The same people sponsoring these bills, the climate change fighters, are fighting to increase one of the most major causes of just that.

So, yes, this bill will get stalled. It may pass the House, but it will fail. And all this land happens to be in the west, Colorado, Washington, California. It is easy if you are from Connecticut or New York or some other eastern State to vote for a 1.5-million-acre wilderness designation somewhere in the western U.S. and then not have to explain to constituents the real impact. You can go home and say I expanded wilderness, saved all this land.

Well, guess what, it does impact your constituents and here is why:

Creation of wilderness, scenic rivers, and monuments is a creation of another Federal dependent. Disease and fire are inevitable on these lands. Those of us who live in those States or surrounding States, we are trying to govern in those States, and under these designations, you just can't touch it until there is a fire, and then you have to fight it. Those States that are helping make this decision, your constituents are subsidizing us.

Now, the Senate and the President know that this is not right. The Senate and the President know that having 47 States in this case decide what happens in three is not right, so they will stall this bill. I am simply hoping to raise the truth in this situation in a way that will at least make people think. I am not naive about what is going to happen with this bill.

This package designates about 100,000 acres of national monument expansion, so I will use the same argument there. Ditto. It also has 843 miles of wild scenic rivers. Just to drive home a point, please know this, sometimes our fish need some human help, and this designation will prevent that. Sometimes our fires create devastating silt flow into our waterways, and that would need some human help, but we won't be able to do it under these circumstances.

Massive new management burdens on a Federal Government already $2.3 trillion in debt. Mr. Chairman, our Federal Government is in over its head already. We can't afford to manage what we have already got, so we don't.

This is the wrong bill for the West. It is the wrong bill for Idaho.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it was alluded to once, but I want to underscore that passage of this would add massive new burdens on Federal agencies. We need to be using those resources to better manage what we have already got as public land and public resources.

As a reminder, we are $2.3 billion in debt. What that means is the Federal Government is way over its head. We can't afford to manage land, and we can't afford to take care of it.

So guess what?

It doesn't do it. Then we all pay, typically, when things go on fire.

Mr. Chairman, in my State of Idaho, because of all that massive amount of Federal land, we are really more like tenants than we are landlords. But to make an analogy, our landlord can't afford to fix a broken roof. That is what we have got with responsibility on these government agencies unable to take care of these resources.

Mr. Chairman, you have heard testimony from my colleagues that many of the local communities impacted have raised significant concerns ranging from loss of access, recreation, elimination of constructive and wise management, and threats to rural economies. In addition to the concerns and opposition raised by local stakeholders and counties, some of the provisions in the package are opposed by the actual Members who represent the areas affected. It is troubling.

This effort is also funded in part by some special interest groups, and they sometimes will call themselves environmentalists. To those people, I just want to communicate: I live in this area. All too often you don't. We are the real environmentalists because we take care of a fabulous resource.

Public lands decisions should be made with local collaboration and input. This set of bills does not do it. They have real consequences on real people. Sound, proven, and scientific management are critical.

Mr. Chairman, God gave us a fabulous resource here, but he also gave us a brain. We need to use our brain.

Now, I am not naive. I know my colleagues across the aisle have got to vote for this thing. Part of that is that some people's DNA says that wilderness is good and human involvement is bad.

I would just close by saying this: Facts are stubborn things. The first fact is this set of bills is going nowhere.

The second fact is wise management--that is using our mind--is much better than stagnating this resource.

Fact number three is when this stalls--and it will--those of us on this side of the aisle and those of us who live in the West will still be here asking for your cooperation in working with us.

Mr. Chairman, please don't let pride blind you. Work with us on putting some intelligence and some wisdom into managing this resource.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy recommending a veto of this bill package. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2546--Protecting America's Wilderness Act--Rep. DeGette, D-CO, and Rep. Neguse, D-CO

The Administration opposes H.R. 2546. This bill would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on more than 2.5 million acres of land in Colorado, California, and Washington State, including nearly 1.5 million acres in the form of wilderness designations. These restrictions will greatly reduce opportunities for multiple uses on these public lands, limit access to them, and significantly reduce the available productive acreage in working forests, rendering them more prone to catastrophic wildfires.

The Administration has expanded access to America's public lands; increased hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities nationwide; and enhanced conservation stewardship of our vast natural resources. With regard to the designation of wilderness on public lands, the Administration generally supports congressional action to resolve wilderness designation and Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) release issues, particularly for WSAs that were established more than 30 years ago. Many WSAs were recommended for designation, while others were recommended as not suitable, with suggestions that they be returned to agency management to integrate their other intrinsic values into surrounding land management plans. The Administration recommends addressing these long overdue WSA decisions before undertaking potential designations of new areas that did not meet the criteria established in the 1964 Wilderness Act when inventories were completed many years ago.

The Administration strongly believes that before new or potential wilderness areas or wild and scenic rivers are designated, it is important to first ensure that such designation is the most appropriate land management tool for a given parcel. For this and other reasons, successful conservation proposals that have incorporated this tool over the last decade have been more limited in geographic scope than this bill. It is important to ensure that designating new wilderness areas on public lands does not unnecessarily impede public access, limit outdoor recreational opportunities, or conflict with pre-existing uses. Unfortunately, a number of the proposals for wilderness designations in H.R. 2546 fail to follow this successful model.

While many recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, and hiking, are compatible with wilderness designation, other activities, such as mountain biking and off-highway vehicle use, are not. Some of the areas proposed for wilderness designation in H.R. 2546 contain popular motorized or mechanized recreation areas. In addition, existing energy development poses inherent challenges for wilderness designations, creating complex management issues pertaining to active mining claims and oil and gas leases within a designated wilderness area. The designations under this bill could impede future energy and mineral development, including development that is important to the economic and national security of the United States.

The Administration is committed to managing public lands as a good neighbor to the local communities and to the Americans who live and work in close proximity to them. Engaging local stakeholders and considering their on-the-ground expertise are critical steps in making decisions about public lands management, and local communities have concerns that many aspects of H.R. 2546 would produce negative effects for their citizens and their economies.

The Administration is willing to work with Congress to make the necessary improvements to this bill if it is considered further. If H.R. 2546 were presented to the President in its current form, however, his advisors would recommend that he veto it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment. We haven't been shy so far today over here on criticizing where we see issues. I just wanted to communicate with the gentleman that, in this case, I also want to point out the positive things.

I support the gentleman's amendment, and I commend him for bringing that forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, as stated, this amendment allows the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to manage for fire, insects, or disease the wilderness areas designated by this act. Again, I am not opposed to that, but I just want to point out in real life what really happens.

Many wilderness areas are overgrown and suffer from insect infestations. We have already talked about that. That contributes significantly to uncontrollable wildfires that really don't respect manmade boundaries very well.

In wilderness areas, the reality is that fires are allowed to continue, and they are only suppressed once they leave that wilderness boundary. That is a particular bummer for wildlife. We haven't talked about what happens in those situations, that wildlife is often decimated by this type of activity.

The other thing I just want to point out is that mechanized fire mitigation tools are banned in wilderness areas for anybody, including the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, or the Forest Service. That is another thing that is bothersome about all of this is that, when we make these designations, we throw out the commonsense ability to use appropriate tools when there are problems.

Again, we are in support of this amendment, but it will do nothing to improve the conditions in these wilderness areas.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

It is a simple study. We don't know what the cost is, but I want to use that comment to correct myself previously. I said that the Federal Government is $2.3 trillion in debt. I was off by a decimal there. It is over $23 trillion.

Wilderness areas are supposed to be ``untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.''

It is true that wildfires in wilderness areas definitely increase flood risk, and perhaps that points out an underlying flaw in the underlying bill, of course, and that is that there are wilderness areas too close to where residences are.

But, again, the study is okay. The amendment is okay. I think it does identify one of the 992 flaws in this underlying bill, which is that wilderness is too close to residential areas.

And that 992, Mr. Chairman, is an estimate.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source