Business meeting to consider S.90

[Gavel sounds.] Good morning. Committee will come to order. Before giving my opening statement, I want to let members know how we'll proceed this morning. I thank Senator Heinrich and his staff for working with us on today's markup. The purpose of today's business meeting is to consider pending legislation that was listed on the agenda that the committee sent to each of your offices on Friday, January 30. As soon as we have a reporting quorum present, I'll ask the committee to vote on those 12 items that were included in the notice last Friday. We'll begin by amending a handful of bills, followed by roll call votes on two bills, and then a voice vote en bloc to report the remaining bills as amended. After the votes, I'll recognize any member who'd like to speak on behalf of any of the items on which we have voted. The bills we consider today include priorities for both Republican members of the committee and also Democrats. They include protecting America's historic roadways, maintaining access to federal lands, and important legislation to address western wildfires. So I'd like to spend a few minutes discussing one of my bills on today's agenda, the Historic Roadways Protection Act. Utah is home to some of the most extraordinary public lands in the country. Many of the roads that still exist on those landscapes were built long before modern federal land management systems existed. The roads were established under a law passed in 1866, known as RS 2477. This was a law that was developed in order to encourage settlement of the western United States. When Congress repealed the statute in 1976, it did not erase those roads. In other words, it repealed RS 2477 non-retroactively, preserving valid existing rights-of-way in existence as of the moment of the law's enactment. It explicitly preserved them, and so they remain valid today. Yet in recent years, we've seen federal travel management plans sometimes close roads that likely do not belong to the federal government at all. So they're closing something that is not theirs to close. In one area near Moab, a single travel management plan closed more than 300 miles of roads. Of those, over a third are claimed as RS 2477 rights-of-way. So the question is not settled. It's being litigated. Now, Utah's counties, under Utah law, those roads are jointly owned by the state and county governments in which the in the counties in which the roads may be found. And the counties in Utah have filed over 12,500 claims, and final decisions are still pending. Utah's winning a lot of those. Last year, Judge Waddoups of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted the State of Utah and Kane County title to a number of RS 2477 rights-of-way. Titles to roads like the House Rock Valley Road, the main vein for access to dozens of world-class trails and sensational geological features, such as the Wave that people from all over the world travel to see. Or Hole-in-the-Rock Road, which runs through remote canyon country, following the route carved by pioneers as they settled the West. Closing these roads would destroy a tangible link for Utahns to their history and their ancestors who cut through difficult country to establish communities that they now call home. The problem is that the Bureau of Land Management is moving faster than the courts. The Bureau is closing roads faster than the courts can adjudicate these road claims within my state, and that's backwards. The Historic Roadways Protection Act simply says this: until the courts determine who owns the roads, the federal government may not permanently close them. It does not decide ownership. It does not resolve the lawsuits. It doesn't pick winners and losers. Instead, it would prevent funds from being used to finalize or implement certain management plans until these RS 2477 claims are fully adjudicated. That pause protects historic roadways. It protects local communities' access to hunting and fishing, farmland, scenic and rural preservation, water infrastructure, emergency response routes, and essential services. When these roads are closed or destroyed, communities are cut off. Response times for first responders increase. Everyday life becomes harder. And once those roads are gone, they rarely come back. So if the federal government turns out to have authority and full ownership over a road, it can manage and do so in accordance with law. But if it doesn't, it should not act as if it did. Because once an historic road is closed, the damage is often irreversible. The chair now recognizes ranking member Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. We have 12 bills on our agenda today, many of which I look forward to supporting. These bills address some important topics for our constituents: safety in national parks, places to bury loved ones, studying sites for future designation. I am, however, disappointed that there are no conservation bills under consideration today. No bills that would protect even another acre of public land for our children and grandchildren. There are conservation bills this committee could consider today. Bills whose sponsors asked for them to be included on today's agenda. Bills that would designate wilderness in Colorado, expand the park in California, or bills to establish new historic sites to remember national heroes like Justice Thurgood Marshall and civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. Now, I am glad our committee is taking care of the local public lands concerns all our communities have. It's important work. But in addition to that, I hope our future business meetings can reflect a more balanced agenda that includes the conservation of the places that make our states the places that we love. I also want to make one comment on S. 1321 to transfer some land and associated infrastructure from the Department of Energy to Grand County, Utah. I have no objection to transferring this DOE land. I do have some concerns about the specifics of how this site would be conveyed while groundwater remediation by the Department of Energy is incomplete. I hope that we might work on a technical amendment to clarify the standard for completion of remediation before the full Senate considers this legislation. Would you like me to talk about your RS 2477 legislation now or...

It's up to you. I don't believe we have a quorum present yet for a voting quorum.

Okay. I'll go ahead and do that now. This bill seems simple on its face: pause administrative actions until the courts can adjudicate some claims. But the problem is that these aren't just any claims. At issue are more than 12,000 individual roads and two-tracks totaling nearly 36,000 miles. That's literally enough roadway to get from here to San Francisco and back 12 times over. Or circle the Earth and get halfway around again. And all of these ways are in just one state alone. There is no way for the courts to figure out which of these 36,000 miles of potential roads qualify for the grandfathering provision passed by Congress in 1976 in a timely manner. So supporting this bill would effectively halt any agency actions indefinitely. I also want to talk about why it matters where roads are and where they aren't, as someone who used to be a guide in southern Utah. There's a reason that Congress decided in 1976 that it would no longer be legal for any person to decide to put a road anywhere on our public lands. Public land roads serve important purposes. They get people to trailheads and fishing holes, they provide access to neighboring private land, they facilitate energy production and transmission lines. But they also have consequences and downsides. Roads fragment habitat. They wash sediment into streams. They allow invasive species to spread. 88 percent of wildfires are started by human activity, and 95 percent of human-caused fires begin within a half mile of a road. So like everything else on public lands, that means that roads need to be a matter of balance. We need enough roads to get people where they need to go, but not so many that we lose elk habitat and trout streams. We need access, but not at the cost of more human-caused wildfires. Which means that we need to actually plan what roads should stay open and which ones cause more harm than good. The good news is that FLPMA has provided a way for us to do this. The BLM is directed to produce resource management plans to balance all of the many uses on public lands, including transportation. And to do this, the BLM developed travel management plans, which help resolve these road claims in Utah. Those plans incorporated input from everyone who uses public lands. And this bill would put all of that work on hold while we wait for federal judges to sort out 36,000 miles of claims on roads that may or may not have existed 50 years ago. I would love to resolve RS 2477 issues once and for all. I've dealt with them for my entire adult life. But the solution isn't to tie the hands of land managers using the one tool that might actually get us there while we wait another 50 years for federal judges to get us out of this. So with that, Chairman, I'm going to turn it back to you.

Thank you very much. We'll begin with nine amendments to the bills on today's agenda. I'm offering five of them. They are amendment 2 to agenda item 1, amendment 3 is modified to agenda item number 2, amendment 4 to item 6, amendment 5 to item 6, and amendment 7 to item number 13. The four remaining amendments are being offered jointly by me and ranking member Heinrich. They are amendment 6 to number 7, amendment 8 to item 15, amendment 9 to item 18, and amendment 10 to item number 23. Those amendments will be by voice vote. If there is no objection, we'll vote on all nine amendments together en bloc.

Mr. Chair, on amendment number 5, Senators Wyden, Hirono, Gallego, and I would like to be recorded as a no.

Duly noted. They will be recorded as a no.

Mr. Chairman, same no vote on the same amendment.

Wonderful. Senator Padilla will be recorded as a no on the same amendment.

Amendment number 5, I'm a no.

Also a no from Senator Cantwell on amendment number 5. Hearing no objection to voice voting these, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Nay.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendments are adopted. Now we'll turn to the two bills for which a roll call has been requested so that we can take action on these bills while we have a quorum present. If no member objects, I'd also request that my colleagues hold their statements that they may have concerning the bills until after the votes conclude. Hearing no objection to that plan, we'll begin with agenda item number 1, S. 90, the Historic Roadways Protection Act, a bill I introduced as amended. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Barrasso.

Aye.

Mr. Risch.

Aye.

Mr. Daines.

Aye.

Mr. Cotton.

Aye.

Mr. McCormick.

Aye.

Mr. Justice.

Aye.

Mr. Cassidy.

Aye.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Aye by proxy.

Miss Murkowski.

Aye.

Mr. Hoeven.

Aye.

Mr. Heinrich.

No.

Mr. Wyden.

No by proxy.

Miss Cantwell.

No.

Miss Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. King.

No by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

No.

Mr. Hickenlooper.

No by proxy.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Gallego.

No by proxy.

On this vote, the ayes are 11 and the nays are 9.

The ayes have it. The bill as amended is reported to the Senate. Next we'll turn to agenda item number 6, S. 446, a bill to prohibit Big Cypress National Preserve from being designated as wilderness or as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes, from Senator Scott of Florida as amended. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Barrasso.

Aye.

Mr. Risch.

Aye.

Mr. Daines.

Aye.

Mr. Cotton.

Aye.

Mr. McCormick.

Aye.

Mr. Justice.

Aye.

Mr. Cassidy.

Aye.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Aye by proxy.

Miss Murkowski.

Aye.

Mr. Hoeven.

Aye.

Mr. Heinrich.

No.

Mr. Wyden.

No by proxy.

Miss Cantwell.

No.

Miss Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. King.

No by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

No.

Mr. Hickenlooper.

No by proxy.

Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Gallego.

No by proxy.

On this vote, the ayes are 11 and the nays are 9.

The ayes have it. The bill will be reported to the full Senate. If there are no further requests for roll call votes, we'll now turn to the remaining agenda items and agree to them by voice vote. They include agenda items 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 23. Let me just go through the bill numbers in case there be any confusion. That's S. 91, S. 290, S. 291, S. 700, S. 790, S. 1353, S. 1516, S. 1518, and S. 2881. If there are no objections to voice voting, the committee will voice vote these bills en bloc. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The bills just listed will be reported favorably to the Senate. If there are no objections, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that the committee staff be allowed to make any necessary technical and conforming changes to the legislative text that will be reported to the Senate. Hearing no objection, it's so ordered. And at this time, I'll recognize any senator who'd like to make a statement on the bills reported today. Mr. Barrasso.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman and ranking member Heinrich, I want to thank you for including my bill, the Making Parks Safer Act. Thanks to Senators Hickenlooper, Hyde-Smith, and King for co-sponsoring this bill. The bill directs the Department of Interior to develop a plan to upgrade National Park Service 9-1-1 call centers with next-generation 9-1-1 technology. You know, folks travel from all across the world to enjoy our national parks. In Wyoming especially, Yellowstone National Park, the Grand Tetons. That's why I think it's vital for visitors to these great national parks to have access to up-to-the-date emergency service technology. This much-needed update is going to improve our national parks and protect the safety of our visitors. So I thank those co-sponsors and thank all the fellow committee members for continued support.

Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Senator Hyde-Smith.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as voting no.

Without objection, you'll be recorded as... wait.

Voting yes.

Oh, voting yes. I think that's what you meant.

I'm sorry, voting yes.

Yes. Yes. Without objection. I mean, you can change your vote too. I just think that's what you meant.

No.

Yeah. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to start by thanking you for organizing this business meeting and appreciate you and our colleagues for advancing two of my bills out of committee today. And I especially want to thank Senator Cortez Masto for her leadership on S. 91, the Western Wildfire Support Act of 2025, and for working with my office to ensure that local governments and local fire departments are not saddled with unnecessary costs. She was willing to accept an amendment to that effect prior to our vote. My first bill, the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Amendment Act, would establish an interest-bearing account for non-federal contributions to the existing conservation programs. In so doing, it won't just enhance the program's success, but actually save the federal government money by reducing the amount needed in future federal appropriations. My second bill, the Otay Mountain Land Exchange Act, would authorize a simple land exchange between the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service to help both manage their respective land areas much more efficiently. I also want to recognize that there were three other bills important to my state that were included on the markup agenda but did not receive a vote today. This includes my bill to authorize additional funding for the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, my Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, and Senator Schiff's Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act. I remain engaged and hopeful that these bills will move during the next business meeting. Lastly, I want to take a moment to discuss the frustrating process by which we are seeing public lands bills move through Congress. I've spoken about it previously in this committee, I've spoken about it on the floor, and many of us on both sides of the aisle have had conversations about this privately. While I'm pleased to see that this committee can work in a bipartisan manner to advance our bills, as we did today, we still have no assurances that the House will advance Senate Democratic bills, or that the President would actually sign them into law. In fact, we recently saw the President veto two lands bills, both led by House Republicans. And the House was unwilling to override those vetoes or attempt even to override those vetoes on their priority bills. This should be a wake-up call to every member of this committee. Like I said, I've spoken repeatedly before, both in committee and on the Senate floor, and I want to reiterate what I've said: I will not consent to any additional House Republican bills passing the Senate until the House begins to pass and the White House begins to sign into law Senate Democratic bills. A House Republican-sponsored bill led on the Senate side by a Democrat, in my opinion, is still a House Republican bill. So, Mr. Chairman, the status quo is not working. But I remain committed to working with you and all of our colleagues on this issue and hope we can all sit down soon with our House counterparts as necessary and develop a process that provides assurances for these non-controversial bills. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. I will note we had six Republican bills, six Democrat bills on the agenda today. We're doing our best to move things forward. It does make it hard when we get... yeah, it does make it hard, though, when we've got a lot of Democrat objections to passing bills by unanimous consent, even those that are not controversial and that have been passed through committee with bipartisan consensus. And the way that they like to do this in the House of Representatives is such that they like to pass it on the suspension of the rules over there. Suspension of the rules requires a bipartisan supermajority at 290, and so it's literally impossible for them to pass them the way they tend to pass these bills over there without Democrats and Republicans supporting it. And so I think that would help lift the logjam, but I'm happy to work with you and with other members of this committee and the Senate in trying to get these passed. Senator Heinrich.

Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleague from California because I have the same concerns. I want to say a few words about the S. 446, the Big Cypress National Preserve bill. The establishment of Big Cypress National Preserve in 1974 was an important moment in the history of our nation's incredible National Park System. It created for the first time the national preserve model, a model that is different from parks but has been so successful that it has been used across states, including New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska. And at Big Cypress, conservationists, local governments, recreationists, and tribal nations came together to establish the nation's first national preserve, which protected the land and waters while allowing for a pretty diverse set of uses. This includes hunting, fishing, off-roading, and other activities that you often don't see in national park units, as well as traditional uses for tribal nations. It's a pretty important model, and one we used and modified when establishing the Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico a few years ago. That said, I do oppose this bill. And not because I believe we should designate new wilderness in Big Cypress without the support of tribes with a connection to the area. We should not do that. I understand and respect the views of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Tribe of Florida as it relates to wilderness in Big Cypress. It's extremely important that we recognize traditional use and access for tribal nations and their members when discussing new land designations. And rights guaranteed to tribal nations should always be protected and respected. In fact, the National Park Service decided not to recommend any new acres of wilderness in the final plan for Big Cypress because it would not be appropriate given the tribal concerns. I oppose this bill because of the precedent that it sets and the inconsistencies that it will cause in land management planning. Identifying land suitable for wilderness is a long-standing practice carried out by land managers when trying to develop management plans for their areas. It is required by the Wilderness Act, and that has been the standard for 50 years. Placing an outright ban on wilderness is not the appropriate method for concerns about proposed wilderness. We have other ways to do so, including through public comments. This bill to ban wilderness outright in Big Cypress is both unnecessary and unworkable. It is unnecessary because no president can designate wilderness on their own. Wilderness can only be designated by an act of Congress. And it is unworkable because this Congress cannot bind a future Congress that chooses to designate wilderness, and Congress cannot forbid a future president from recommending that a future Congress designate wilderness. This action and the proposed amendment from Senator Lee would degrade the National Park Service's authorities in land use planning and could complicate future efforts for wilderness identification and designation in appropriate places not related to Big Cypress. And so for those reasons, that is why I and others in my conference oppose this bill.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich, for your remarks on that. Big Cypress National Preserve is an important natural resource that should be maintained for public use and enjoyment. Now, the bill was introduced by Senator Scott of Florida at the request of the Miccosukee Tribe. And it had been managed as wilderness by the Biden administration. It hasn't been designated as wilderness by Congress. But the tribe made this request because the preserve has been used to preserve historic uses that they've had there, including hunting, cattle grazing, and other traditional uses by the Miccosukee Tribe. And so the legislation introduced by Senator Scott of Florida just ensures that those traditional uses can continue and prevents this administration or subsequent ones from locking them out of those traditional uses, and I commend him for introducing that. Any other senator seeking recognition? If not, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you. [Gavel sounds.]