Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021

Floor Speech

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

Contrary to the name, this bill will damage our environment, while simultaneously killing jobs in rural America.

The proponents of this bill will say it is broadly supported. Listen to the Members who represent the districts most affected by this bill. They don't want it.

Listen to the groups opposed: American Farm Bureau, American Forest Resource Council, or the Grand Junction, Colorado, Chamber of Commerce. They don't want this bill.

This bill creates nearly 1.5 million of acres of new wilderness, withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production, and designates over 1,200 miles of wild scenic and recreational rivers. For perspective, the wilderness designated in this bill is the same size as President Biden's home State of Delaware.

This Chamber has bypassed the committee process and circumvented the will of Members who represent districts directly impacted by this legislation. It was scheduled for the floor before the Committee was ever organized.

The consequences of this bill on the four Western States it impacts will be far-reaching. For example, if you live in Colorado and you enjoy recreating on mountain biking and ATV trails like the people pictured here on the Tabeguache Trail, this bill will shut down your ability to recreate on those lands. The same goes for snowmobilers, OHV users, and parents with strollers.

It is very concerning that these wilderness areas will now be off- limits to active forest management. 2020 was sadly another record- breaking fire season. We have a problem on our national forests that is not going to be solved with handsaws and shovels. Now is not the time to rely on century-old management techniques stipulated by wilderness designations when over 80 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land is in desperate need of treatment.

If that wasn't enough, this bill also designates lands as wilderness in the wildland-urban interface. This is a matter of life and death.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up some misconceptions about the last title of this bill, the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Nobody is mining in the Grand Canyon; nobody wants to mine in the Grand Canyon; and nobody will mine in the Grand Canyon--ever. Proponents of the bill would have you believe that this is happening right near the Colorado River. In fact, there are already buffer zones in place. It is called the Grand Canyon National Park.

The only saving this bill will do is saving Chinese and Russian uranium mining jobs. In 2019, we only produced 0.5 percent of the domestic uranium needed for commercial reactors. This bill goes far beyond the park's boundaries and the boundaries of the sponsor's home district to simply kill jobs to the direct benefit of our adversaries. This bill will make us more dependent on hostile nations like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in Namibia.

In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters from multiple organizations in opposition to H.R. 803. Independent Petroleum Association of America, Washington, DC, February 23, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker: The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) is opposed to H.R. 803, the ``Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.'' This bill creates nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and permanently withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production. It is in direct opposition to the multiple use mandate given to the Department of the Interior to manage the federal estate. Many of the local communities impacted by this measure, including Garfield County in Colorado which has existing mineral leases and planned for further development, have raised significant concerns due to the elimination of multiple use of the land and the overall threat to local economies and rural jobs.

Further, many of the lands under consideration in H.R. 803 do not meet the basic characteristics for consideration as wilderness. Instead, the legislation arbitrarily designates areas as wilderness and wild and scenic rivers despite official testimony provided by the relevant land management agencies to previous Congresses that many of these designations are inappropriate and not recommended. To declare areas that do not possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The process by which H.R 803 is coming to the House floor is also concerning. The bill did not go through regular order, receiving no hearings or mark-ups in the 117th Congress. In fact, the bill was scheduled for floor consideration before the Natural Resources Committee had even organized. Local input, especially with regards to managing active mineral leases which affect jobs, should have been solicited in an effort to allow the House to better understand the broad impacts of the bill.

For these reasons, IPAA is strongly opposed to H.R. 803.

Sincerely, Dan Naatz, Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Political Affairs, Independent Producers Association of America. ____ February 23, 2021. Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman: The signatories to this letter urge you to vote in opposition to the ``Grand Canyon Protection Act'' (H.R. 1052), as stand- alone legislation or as part of the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives this week. H.R. 1052 perpetuates false claims of mining in one of our nation's most beautiful national parks. It also fails to acknowledge our nation's alarming reliance on foreign sources of minerals and would further weaken the already vulnerable supply chains for key U.S. industry sectors, including manufacturing, infrastructure, energy, and defense.

Federal lands--predominantly in the western U.S.--are the source of much of our nation's mineral endowment. Of these federal lands, half are either off limits or under restrictions to mineral development. While mining is certainly not appropriate on all federal lands, maintaining responsible access to the very resources that drive innovation, feed economic growth and improve our nation's quality of life is essential. Given the vast amount of federal lands already closed to mining operations, caution should be exercised when determining whether additional lands should be placed off limits.

H.R. 1052 targets more than a million acres of mineral rich lands, including world-class uranium ore deposits that are located well outside the boundaries of the Grand Canyon National Park. The park, as created, already includes a built-in buffer zone to protect park resources from activities taking place outside the park boundaries and an additional million-acre buffer zone is not justified. H.R. 1052 deliberately disregards our dangerous dependence on countries like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan to meet our nation's need for uranium to fuel our nuclear Navy and supply 20 percent of our nation's electricity.

Furthermore, H.R. 1052 ignores not only the comprehensive framework of federal, state, and local environmental regulations that govern every aspect of mining, but the findings of the Department of the Interior that the park was not at risk from mining given these existing protections. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey recently concluded that the nine uranium mines that have operated in northern Arizona since the 1970s (since modern environmental laws took effect) have caused no adverse impact to environmental or health. This unwise and unwarranted mineral withdrawal is bad public policy that ignores the vast sectors of our economy that depend upon a reliable and secure supply chain of responsibly sourced minerals and metals. It also puts President Biden's renewable goals at a risk, forcing domestic manufacturers of clean energy technologies to rely on increased imports of these materials.

Access to our nation's vast and diverse resources and fair regulatory policies that promote certainty in the mine permitting process are the elements of sound public policy that should be considered when addressing resource development on federal lands. We urge you to vote against this misguided bill and support policies that promote responsible resource development. Sincerely,

American Exploration & Mining Association, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Arizona Mining Association, National Mining Association, Women's Mining Coalition, Wyoming Mining Association. ____ NSSGA, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, February 19, 2020. Hon. Raul Grijalva, Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Hon. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman: On behalf of the 400 members of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA), I am writing to express our concern with certain provisions included in H.R. 803, the ``Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act''. Our members take extraordinary strides to responsibly produce construction materials and we oppose legislation that arbitrarily and permanently prohibit the development of aggregates operations on millions of acres of federal lands.

NSSGA represents aggregates producers and those who manufacture equipment and services that support the construction industry. Our members are essential to the work of this country, and we represent more than 90 percent of the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel consumed annually in the United States. Our members employ more than 100,000 hard-working men and women and are responsible for the essential raw materials found in every home, building, road, bridge and public works project.

NSSGA is most concerned with Section 802 that would permanently ban aggregate production on millions of acres of land in Arizona. Such a ban would severely diminish the ability for communities to access key resources that are necessary for building roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, homes and businesses. Allowing this ban to proceed would have a significant impact on the cost of public works projects due to the necessity for stone, sand and gravel required to develop and repair infrastructure and buildings to be imported into the area. These products are expensive to transport and would further strain the budgets of local communities and federal entities that are seeking to make infrastructure investments in Arizona including improvements to National Parks like the Grand Canyon.

Further, permanently banning aggregate operations on these federal lands would greatly impact the region and our nation's energy development. Industrial sand is a key component in energy production. Under the proposal access to these essential materials would be limited, driving up production costs that would likely be passed along to customers--families and businesses that are facing uncertainty during the pandemic.

While this legislation will clearly create a competitive disadvantage that has negative economic impacts for the families in the impacted communities, it will also have significant environmental impacts. Delaying and increasing the cost of improvements to congested roads or eliminating access to a material that is needed to develop a new clean water project and cleaner energy sources will have real environmental impacts on establishing cleaner air and water and access to public lands.

Instead of taking broad, unilateral actions to withdraw access to these lands, NSSGA urges Congress to consult with local stakeholders and communities to find more tailored approaches to preserve treasured lands. NSSGA members strongly promote conservation in both their business practices and personal lives. Our member companies have advanced award-winning environmental stewardship projects to build critical habitats, promote biodiversity and drive greatest access to recreational activities. Further, as most NSSGA member quarries and plants have literally served as the bedrock of their communities of decades, they take great pride in engagement and are actively involved to giving back to their local communities.

Rather than rushing through the legislative process to advance H.R. 803 on the floor of the House of Representatives, NSSGA urges the Committee to move this large public lands package through regular order in order to allow more input, dialoged and discussion of these important issues from all involved stakeholders.

We appreciate your consideration of our views and please do not hesitate to reach out if NSSGA may be of any assistance. Sincerely, Michael W. Johnson, President and CEO, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. ____ February 25, 2021. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the nearly six million Farm Bureau member families across the United States, we write in strong opposition to H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. Collectively this package of bills impacts lands in California, Colorado, Arizona and Washington by creating nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness, the most restrictive federal land use classification. Additionally, it would designate 1,200 miles of wild and scenic rivers and create 110,000 acres of National Monument expansion. Further, many of the wilderness and wild and scenic river designations contained in this bill are not suitable for these restrictive designations. To declare areas that do not possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as well as the lands that possess those features.

Farmers and ranchers rely on federal forests and rangelands for economic and recreational opportunities. Livestock grazing on federal lands forms an integral part of ranching operations across the United States, especially in the West. But farmers also use national forests and rangelands throughout the United States in a variety of other ways. Federal lands throughout the country are important components of our nation's watersheds that provide water to a large number of Americans. Active land management practices such as timber production and livestock grazing are critical to protect against wildland fires which devastate range resources, damage watersheds, threaten wildlife and put rural communities at great risk.

American farmers and ranchers have a genuine interest in healthy and productive federal forest and rangelands. At the same time, we have a genuine interest in seeing lands managed in an environmentally sound manner. Farmers and ranchers understand and appreciate that active management of our federal lands is critical to the long-term viability of the ecosystem, the resource, and the communities they support. Designations included in H.R. 803 threaten multiple use areas by prohibiting the employment of motorized tools and mechanized vehicles in watershed management, trail maintenance, soil treatment, noxious weed control, waste management and fire protection.

Our nation's federal forests are facing serious threats from fires, insects and disease due to a lack of active forest management. The poor health of our federal forests also threatens wildlife populations and neighboring non- federal lands, as well as the vitality of rural, forested communities across the country. A vibrant livestock and forest products industry helps diversify rural economies in ways that compliment ranching and agricultural operations. Wilderness and National Monument designations eliminate federal land management agencies ability to effectively protect against the threat of catastrophic wildland fire.

Farmers, landowners, and grazing permitees should be fully involved as affected partners in any process to execute federal land use designations which restrict public use and access. Federal land use designations that lack local stakeholder input from agricultural and resource management professionals often generates significant controversy and economic hardship at the local level. The detrimental effects of a federal land use designation frequently causes residents, elected state and county officials, and local stakeholders significant reductions in economic activity and the loss of jobs in rural communities. Past designations have also affected water rights, public lands grazing and access to State and private lands.

Farm Bureau supports the multiple-use concept of federal lands, recognizing that definable land areas have dominant- use capability, which should be recognized with the concept of multiple uses without the total exclusion of other uses. The Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act stands in clear violation of AFBF policy. Additionally, the California, Colorado, Arizona and Washington Farm Bureau's oppose passage of this legislation.

Farm Bureau urges you to oppose passage of H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. Sincerely,

American Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Farm Bureau, California Farm Bureau, Colorado Farm Bureau, Washington Farm Bureau. ____ Raul Grijalva, Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC. Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.

Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Westerman:

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Sheep Industry Association and the Public Lands Council are deeply concerned about the potential immediate and long-term impacts of H.R. 803, the Colorado Wilderness Act. NCBA is the nation's largest and oldest trade association representing America's cattle producers, with other 250,000 producers represented directly and through its 46 state affiliate associations. Since 1865, ASI has been the national trade organization representing the interests of more than 100,000 sheep producers located throughout the country who produce America's lamb and wool. The Public Lands is the only national organization dedicated solely to representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers who hold federal grazing permits and operate on federal lands. H.R. 803 's passage would be detrimental to public lands ranchers who utilize federal grazing permits.

While this bill obviously seeks to appeal to the desire to protect a landscape's natural state, the impact of designating lands as wilderness, especially such vast swaths, significantly compromises long-term ecological health. Currently, federal lands managed for multiple use provide valuable opportunity for livestock grazing, which is a tool to manage fuels that contribute to the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Further, grazing helps to cultivate landscapes that are more suitable and healthier wildlife habitat. The objectives the sponsors profess that they seek to achieve are immediately undermined by designating these millions of acres of wilderness. Designations limit management options, making it more difficult for land managers and stewards to protect these landscapes and their valuable attributes.

Like ``wilderness,'' ``preservation'' is often a term used to convey the prioritization of maintaining an area's natural state, regardless of impact. While preservation may seem optimal, federal lands provide significantly greater benefit to all who utilize it when the conservation of resources is prioritized. While preservation seeks protection of nature from any use or change, conservation seeks the proper use of nature, providing opportunity for ecological enhancement. Grazing, for example, is a vital conservation tool to curb invasive species growth, promote improved soil and forage health, and reduce wildfire fuel load.

Beyond general concerns about promoting wilderness designations as a land management tool, H.R. 803 fails to follow established criteria for ``wilderness,'' instead arbitrarily designating areas as ``wilderness'' and ``wild and scenic rivers'' despite official testimony from relevant land management agencies. At a minimum, wilderness determinations must be grounded in science and fact.

As Congress continues to develop natural resources and federal lands policy, it must prioritize legislation that recognizes that conservation, not preservation, is the key to effective land management and continued enjoyment for future generations. We urge you to oppose H.R. 803, the Colorado Wilderness Act, and seek more engaged, thoughtful management of our precious natural resources. Sincerely,

American Sheep Industry Association,

National Cattlemen's Beef Association,

Public Lands Council.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Natural Resources to consider our cancel the Biden ban amendment to H.R. 803.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. The amendment is simple. It will nullify Executive Order No. 14008 and Secretarial Order No. 3395 issued during the President's first weeks in office.

The Biden administration wasted no time in imposing their extremist environmental agenda. On day one, political appointees created a nightmare for our energy operators and a never-ending bottleneck for approvals necessary to keep our energy economy running.

Just a few days later, President Biden halted all new energy production on our Federal lands and waters, jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of Americans in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis.

The administration has tried to downplay the impact of these actions, but we are already feeling the consequences of what I like to call the Biden ban. The economic impact of the decisions will be far-reaching, impacting thousands of companies, many of which are small businesses. Recent studies have concluded that a long-term ban on onshore leasing would cost 72,000 jobs annually, and a long-term ban on offshore drilling would cost 145,000 jobs.

Federal energy development represents a sizable portion of State budgets. Can we afford to cut off this crucial source of revenue as our communities are struggling to recover from the pandemic? Our schools need funding to buy PPE that they need to reopen. Yet, the Biden ban would disrupt a critical source of revenue that our K-12 schools rely on.

In addition, these actions will bankrupt programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The ramifications of these actions by the Biden administration will be devastating to our rural communities. Americans who work hard every day to keep the lights on and our gas prices low deserve better than a pink slip from out-of-touch political appointees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, recommit H.R. 803 to the Natural Resources Committee, and put Americans back to work.

Mr. Speaker, today we heard concerns from our Members, including Members most affected by this legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate amendments that include 15 new unrelated matters to make the total amount of bills in this one bill 23. This will make this bill three times worse after we consider amendments.

I believe we have the responsibility to leave our environment better than we found it. We talk about the economy so often that many people think that we forget about the environment. That couldn't be further from the truth, we all breathe the air and drink the water.

H.R. 803 would attempt to preserve our resources, locking them up and throwing away the key. Congress' focus should be on conservation and conserving these resources instead, using them in sustainable, responsible ways that every American can enjoy.

Since we weren't given any opportunity to debate this bill in committee, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill will harm the environment; it will kill jobs; it will limit access to outdoor recreation; it will hurt State water rights; it will imperil our national security and American energy independence; it will impede necessary forest management; and make us more reliant on hostile foreign nations.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source