Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a few points before I yield some time to my distinguished colleague from the Sixth Congressional District. I would first say, this reference to wilderness study areas and the notion that because, as my distinguished colleague from Colorado Springs mentioned, there are some wilderness study areas in certain areas, that, therefore, no further protections are needed, of course, as the gentleman from the Third Congressional District just mentioned, in his effort to eliminate some of those wilderness study areas, the case in point that permanent protections are, in fact, needed. There is a reason why we pursue these permanent protections, and that is, ultimately, to ensure that the lands are protected for future generations, like my daughter, so that she can enjoy the same treasured public lands that I have had access to. I would also say, with respect to my colleague from the Third Congressional District, what I failed to hear during his remarks or, for that matter, the gentleman from Colorado Springs' remarks is, again, any reference to a single county that is directly impacted by this bill that opposes this bill. I understand the gentleman referenced Montezuma County, and I found the letter from Montezuma County a bit perplexing given that none of the CORE Act designations are in their county or even bordering their county. As I mentioned earlier, the San Miguel Board of County Commissioners, which is in the Third Congressional District, supports this bill. The Gunnison Board of County Commissioners, the Eagle Board of County Commissioners, the San Juan Board of County Commissioners, the Ouray Board of County Commissioners, the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners, and a variety of other counties have expressed support for the provisions of the bill that impact their particular county, including the Garfield Board of County Commissioners, which is in the Third Congressional District. So, make no mistake, I respect philosophical disagreements that may exist about the need to protect public lands, and there may be--in fact, there clearly is a disagreement there, and we are going to land on different sides of that debate. But facts matter. And, ultimately, the local communities across the State that are impacted by this bill directly have made clear that they support the CORE Act. As I said, it is no surprise that they do because they have been engaged in the debate around the CORE Act for a decade. I have each title of the CORE Act that has been introduced since 2011 by Mr. Udall when he served in this Chamber, by Mr. Salazar, and, of course, by Senator Bennet in the upper Chamber. This bill is the product of a decade of collaboration. Ultimately, what I have heard from these county commissioners and so many others is that they are tired of waiting, Madam Chair. I recognize that I am new to Washington, but ultimately, I think our job here is to deliver results for the people who elect us to serve. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), who has served in our armed services so bravely, to discuss the HAATS issue, in particular. Then, I am happy to yield to Mr. Tipton so that we can engage in a colloquy.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairwoman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) to give him a moment to respond. It seemed like he had something to say.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I appreciate Representative Tipton, my distinguished colleague, for mentioning that. I would say a few things. First, of the nine counties that are impacted, as I mentioned, eight of them have expressed support for the provisions of the bill that impact them. While I don't have the letter from Montrose County that apparently came in today--and I am happy to visit with the gentleman further about that letter--my understanding is that they expressed support still for the Curecanti title of the bill in their district. I also would just say this: If the gentleman is willing to make a commitment that he will vote for this bill if the Montrose Board of County Commissioners supports the bill--is that the gentleman's intent?

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, the gentleman will have an opportunity to talk. I would just say this: We had this similar debate in the Rules Committee on Monday. Again, I am new to Washington, so perhaps this is just the way the process works, but this notion that amendments are offered and then a representation is made by the gentleman that even if every amendment passed, they would not support the bill, fundamentally, for me, this process is about good faith, negotiation, and discussion to get to a consensus. I believe there are a number of amendments that the Representative, along with several others that have been proposed, that we are going to debate tonight. Some of those may, in fact, be amendments that we can agree to. But I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would approach the discussion on those amendments with that same good faith, with understanding that they would hope to get to yes, because a similar discussion happened earlier this year with respect to the Garfield Board of County Commissioners. Their nonsupport of the bill was justified and rationalized as a reason to oppose it. Of course, eventually, by working with those county commissioners, Senator Bennet's office and myself were able to negotiate a compromise so that they could be in a position to support the title of the bill that impacts that county, so that we could protect the treasured public lands in the Thompson Divide. Again, I believe it is important to underscore that point, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, again, I think it is important to underscore the facts. While I appreciate the gentleman from California making his case, his characterization of local support or lack thereof on this bill is simply not consistent with the facts, because, again, I have yet to hear of a single community that is directly impacted by the CORE Act that opposes the title of the CORE Act that impacts that community--not one, Madam Chair. I have been waiting. Coloradans are waiting. Again, it is completely permissible to have a philosophical debate about whether or not to protect public lands. I happen to believe that these incredibly iconic places across our State ought to be protected. They ought to be preserved. My colleagues may disagree. That is their right. But it is important to stress the facts. To that point, the last point I will make, and just yet another area that apparently needs to be clarified, is around motorized recreation. Any characterization that the CORE Act mandates widespread closures of trails or roads is false. This bill does not close any existing roads, jeep trails, off-highway vehicle trails, motorcycle trails, or groomed snowmobile trails, not one. Facts matter, Madam Chair. I would ask the Chair how much time do I have remaining.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague from Arkansas. I know he has a deep experience in his field, I appreciate him on the Natural Resources Committee, and I enjoy serving with him on that committee. I would ask my distinguished colleague whether he would support the bill if we were to, say, amend the bill to give the Secretary unilateral power to do what the Secretary determines to be necessary for the control of fire and insects. Would the gentleman be amenable to that?

Mr. NEGUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arkansas; and I will tell the gentleman that we don't need to amend the bill because that language is in the bill, repeatedly in the bill because I share your concerns regarding wildfire, as do my distinguished colleagues from Colorado. So we put great care to put into the bill language that reiterates ``the Secretary may carry out any activity that the Secretary determines to be necessary for the control of fire, insects, and diseases.'' So since we have that provision in the bill, I am hoping that the gentleman will join the bill, and I certainly hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do the same, because I think this bill strikes the right balance in terms of protecting these incredible public lands and doing so in a way that ensures that we are not at risk of a wildfire and mitigating as best as we can. I would also tell the gentleman, of the 400,000 acres in the bill-- and I look forward to bringing my colleague from Arkansas to Colorado to see these public lands--only 73,000 of them would be designated as wilderness in this bill, and many of those acres are actually above the tree line or otherwise unforested. So, I think the language of the bill addresses the gentleman's concerns, and I appreciate his raising them. I also very much appreciate his quoting a personal hero of mine, and I suspect a hero of many of the Members in this Chamber, and that is Teddy Roosevelt, who, of course, was an esteemed conservationist in his time. I will share a quote that I have found to be very compelling: ``Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. ``Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance. Madam Chair, it is important that we not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that this bill is protecting iconic places like the Thompson Divide in Colorado from oil and gas development. The ranchers, the citizens of that community, they have been waiting an awfully long time for the protections in this bill, which is why I am so proud to be able to carry the baton for them in the CORE Act. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I am ready to close as well.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, it is important that we not divorce ourselves from the fate of this legislation. Whether it will become law or not is dependent on each and every one of us and where we stand on the bill. While I have great respect for my colleague from Colorado Springs, I think it is fitting that the closing that he offered cited President Trump and his threatened veto letter. For me, and for the people I represent, for the citizens of my State, this bill is not about the President. It is not about any of us in this Chamber. It is about them and the public lands that they are so blessed to have in their respective communities. I said this earlier--I will say it again--as a freshman lawmaker, I understand that I have not been in Congress long, but these pieces of legislation have been. Public lands are at the heart of who we are as Coloradans. You heard the dean of our delegation talk about our recent poll where 73 percent of Coloradans consider themselves outdoor recreation enthusiasts. Whether they live in Gunnison, Glenwood Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins, Eagle County, Summit County, and everywhere in between, 73 percent say the ability to live near, recreate on, and enjoy public lands, like national forests, parks, and trails, is a significant reason why they live in the West. Ninety percent believe that the outdoor recreation economy is important to the future of Colorado. It is why so many have labored on various components of this bill for so long--my predecessor, then- Congressman, now-Governor Jared Polis; former Senator Mark Udall; former Congressman John Salazar; and, of course, Senator Bennet today leading this companion legislation in the Senate; and the countless county commissioners, mayors, city councilors, town trustees, conservationists, and ranchers who have worked to build consensus on this bill, literally for a decade. Many of them traveled here just a few months ago when we had a robust debate in the Committee on Natural Resources, and we were able to mark up this bill and send it here to the floor. They deserve to have their voices heard. My colleagues can say as often as they would like that there are local voices missing or ignored, but that does not make it true. We know that the communities impacted by this bill support it. That is a fact. There can be no dispute about that. We know that strong policy requires compromise, years of input, and, yes, vigorous debate. I am happy to participate in that debate, but the people of Colorado have made their voices clear on protecting these public lands. I mentioned the stakeholder process that we have been engaged in, that the communities have been engaged in, that this State has been engaged in for a decade, regardless of what party was in power or what election year. It was local communities and stakeholders coming to the table to craft the designations that you see on the map to protect these wonderful iconic places that you see to my right. They have been advocating for far too long not to see action from their elected officials. Madam Chair, it is time that Congress listen to the people of Colorado and vote to protect the places that my home State hold so dear. It is time to hold ourselves accountable. It is time we pass the CORE Act. Madam Chair, I urge swift adoption of H.R. 823, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Chair, I have great respect for my colleague from the State of Utah. I enjoy working with him on the Committee on Natural Resources and have enjoyed being able to partner with him on a number of efforts surrounding regenerative agriculture and many other subjects. I would say that I oppose this amendment. The distinguished gentleman, I believe, mentioned--I hope I am quoting him right--that when his bill passed the Chamber, and I believe the bill earlier this year that passed our committee, that I was proud to vote for, he had the support of conservationists in his State, county commissioners, local elected officials, the Governor, and his congressional delegation. I would tell the distinguished gentleman that he may not be aware that, in our case, we have the support of conservationists, county commissioners, local elected officials, and our Governor. The gentleman is correct that the only support that seems to be missing is from Republican colleagues in the State's delegation, and that is a shame. I would hope that a bill that has this volume of support from local communities, as has been well established during the course of this very vigorous and robust debate, would earn the support of my friends on the other side of the aisle who also have the great privilege of representing the State that we love so much. With respect to the more esoteric point on legislating in areas that an individual may not specifically represent, my understanding--again, I have been in Congress here for only 10 months. But my sense of it thus far is that we take votes literally every day on bills that impact our respective districts and, of course, areas far outside of our districts. During the 114th Congress, just by way of example--I was not here. I believe my friends on the other side of the aisle who are gathered here today were. They voted to pass H.R. 8, which was the North American Energy Security Infrastructure Act of 2015, out of the House. This was a bill widely opposed by many Democrats who were concerned that the bill would lead to increased opportunities for constructing natural gas pipelines across Federal lands in their home districts. That, of course, did not stop my colleagues from voting for that bill. They searched their conscience. They made the conclusion that they reached. And that is their right. I would only say that it is the right of every Member on this particular bill to, again, search their conscience as to whether or not they believe areas like the Thompson Divide ought to be protected. If they believe that those areas should be protected, then they ought to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, we will continue to do that important work, and I appreciate the gentleman's statement in that regard. And I concur with it. It is worth mentioning--I don't know that it has been mentioned yet during this debate: We have worked very hard. I have a stack of emails. This is literally 35, 40 pages of emails, exchanges between my staff who work on public lands with the Representative from the Third Congressional District over the last 8 months, working, trying to get that consensus. I will certainly pledge to the gentleman that we are going to keep doing it. Mr. Chair, with that, I am ready to close as well, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, the section of the bill that the Representative referenced, in my reading of the bill and in my understanding of the bill, already includes some language that is nearly identical regarding Federal water rights. But, that being said, I made a pledge to the distinguished gentleman from Utah just a few moments ago in the debate that we would continue working to try to get to consensus. So I will support this amendment, and I will encourage my colleagues on this side of the aisle in good faith to support this amendment as well, and I hope the sponsor of this amendment would take that good faith and recognize the same. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I would like to claim time in opposition.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this amendment would add language regarding existing grazing to a public land withdrawal that protects a sensitive landscape and its ranchers from mining. As a reminder, the CORE Act is supported by many ranchers who have been involved with the Thompson Divide Coalition over the years and by the North Thompson and Coal Basin Cattlemen's Association because the bill would protect their ranching heritage on these lands for future generations. So, ultimately, I don't think that this amendment is necessary, and I do worry about the potential for unintended consequences. For example, I hope that adding it does not somehow imply that the many withdrawals that Congress routinely enacts without such language would somehow restrict grazing; although, I know that that is not my colleague's intent. Mr. Chair, I would ask the gentleman--I mean, if the gentleman is willing to support the underlying bill if his amendment is adopted, then I would be happy to support it. Mr. Chair, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, while I appreciate my colleague's statement-- and I don't know that I heard a particular answer to the fundamental question as to whether or not he would be supportive of this bill were his amendment to pass--again, I think we are trying to approach this in a good faith way. We want to find consensus. So, if the Representative from the Third Congressional District believes that this amendment is necessary to protect the ranching heritage on these lands for future generations, which is obviously a goal that he and I both share, I will support the amendment. Mr. Chair, I am no longer in opposition and will encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It does not reflect agency recommendations or on-the-ground support of title IV of this bill. Veiled behind the claim of compliance with existing management, this amendment is contrary to a longstanding agreement to transfer 2,560 acres of Forest Service land to the National Park Service, which is reflected in the CORE Act as written. Both agencies have agreed that the transfer would benefit both the national recreation area and the national forest, and the proposal has long enjoyed broad public support. This amendment is an attempt to both reduce the acreage included in the national recreation area and to prevent the most effective management of these lands. And I think it is important, Mr. Chair, because we have talked a lot about stakeholder involvement, community-driven processes, and we have yet to receive any letter opposing a provision of the bill impacting a county in which that county ultimately has acreage involved; any letter of opposition. The only letter, in fact, that we have received of communication is from Gunnison County. Gunnison County strongly opposes this amendment. They were never consulted by the sponsor on this amendment, despite the area in question being in their county. So ultimately, I would oppose this amendment, and I would encourage all members, respectfully, to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, with much respect to my colleague from the Third Congressional District, I have been to Montrose many times. It is a beautiful part of our State and there are wonderful people who call that community home. What I would say, again, I find it a bit ironic, with all of the discussion around local support and whether or not local communities support provisions of the bill or do not, on the one hand, we don't have a single communication that I am aware of from a county that is impacted by a provision of this bill opposing the title that impacts that county. We do not have one. The only letter of opposition, or the only communication that we have from a county opposing any of the matters that we are discussing today happens to be a communication from a county that opposes the amendment offered by the gentleman. And so, again, I struggle to understand the consistency there, but nonetheless, contextually I just want to make sure we fully explain the rationale behind the 2017 interagency agreement that my distinguished friend mentioned, because ironically enough, the agreement that the sponsor mentioned that ultimately the amendment is grounded in for the purposes of, ``managing recreational facilities while congressional action is expected to legislatively establish the Curecanti National Recreation Area.'' So in 2008 and 2009 these agencies all agreed that the transfer of the full acreage, 2,560 acres, that that was something they supported, and they were hoping that Congress would do something about it. Ten years later, it is 2019, and we have done nothing. Ultimately, the agencies came together on an interagency agreement in 2017 to at least do something in the interim with the hopes that Congress would step up and fill the void and codify those protections, which is precisely the opportunity that we have now before us. That is why I oppose this amendment and would encourage others to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would say, with respect to the technicalities in terms of active forest management and the interagency agreement, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. And I appreciate the gentleman's point and, ultimately, we have clearly landed on different sides of that issue. But, again, and I hate to belabor the point, it is important for those, you know, who may be watching these proceedings thousands of miles away back home in our home State for them to just appreciate the facts. So we are clear, there are nine counties directly impacted by this legislation. There is one county, in my understanding, that my friend from the Third Congressional District is citing when he mentions potential opposition to the bill. But what he is not clarifying, or rather what has not been clarified, is there is no county of those nine that oppose the provision of the bill that impacts their community; not one. We have been here for an hour, and I have yet to hear of a single county, or a town, or a city council for that matter. Facts matter. This bill has local support, and that local support extends to this title of the bill. The Gunnison County commissioners and the community in Gunnison have made that clear, which is why I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.