Business Meeting to Consider Multiple Public Lands, Water, and Energy Bills

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will come to order. Good morning to everyone. Before I uh commence with my opening statement, I wanna let senators know a little bit of it uh how we're gonna proceed this morning. Plan to start with opening statements um uh first from me and then from our ranking member, Senator Heinrich. Uh then we'll hold a business meeting to vote on a total of seventeen bills that are pending before the committee,

Mm-hmm.

which were noticed on the official agenda, the uh the official agenda that the committee released last week, um, as well as some accompanying amendments to go along with those. Finally, we'll move on to an oversight hearing, uh, uh, addressing matters related to the Colorado River Basin. I also want to accommodate the schedules of our committee members. And we've got a lot of committee members with competing committee assignments this morning. Um, uh, uh, people who will be either participating in or in several cases chairing other committee hearings this morning, uh, they couldn't be moved. So, uh, a- as soon as we have a reporting quorum present, I'll move to a roll call vote on the bills, uh, for which a roll call vote has been requested. Uh, so that, um, we'll adjust today's framework as necessary in order to make that happen. All right, while we wait for a quorum, I want to say a few words about a bill that I have on today's agenda that directs the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam. Glen Canyon Dam helps provide affordable reliable clean hydropower to communities across the West and its operations uh very much affect the broader Colorado River system. Over the years, questions have been raised about whether a selective withdrawal system could improve hydropower performance while also helping to address concerns related to invasive species. This bill does not alter the existing Colorado River operating guidelines. It authorizes a feasibility study so that policymakers and stakeholders can make informed decisions based on sound science and engineering. I appreciate the bipartisan interest in this issue, uh, a- uh, and the, uh, bipartisan support that it's received. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Uh, I - I wanna note that we're doing, uh, things just a little bit differently, um, this week. Since becoming chairman, I've made every effort to work in good faith, uh, with the Democrats on the committee and with the ranking member. and uphold uh and even exceed this committee's long-standing bipartisan tradition. To that end, um, we've marked up Democrat and Republican bills

Mm-hmm.

on a roughly one-to-one basis, uh, meaning one Republican bill, one Democrat bill. As the chart behind me shows, that's something that no recent chairman on this committee has done. Now, today's mark-up is a little bit different. We're marking up eleven Republican bills and six Democrat bills. Since I've become chairman, one of the goals that I've had has been to return the committee to regular order. We hear bills, we mark them up, and we pass non-controversial bills on the floor. You've all heard me talk about this, perhaps ad nauseum. We're marking up um uh uh bills, we're making progress on some of these fronts. We've held six legislative mark-ups and we've processed forty-five bills out of the committee. That's much better than the single mark-up that the previous chairman held in November of twenty twenty four, uh, where we reported over eighty bills. We can do better, uh, but, uh, this is a marked improvement on how the committee functions. Unfortunately, many of these bills that we've reported are needlessly languishing when we get to the Senate floor. Dozens and dozens have cleared the Republican hotline. Republicans are ready to go. We want to send these bills, both Democrat and Republican, to the House, um, uh, or pass the House-passed version of the same bills and get them signed into law. The minority has come up with a number of excuses as to why pairing and passing one Republican bill and one Democratic bill is generally unacceptable. Sure, a few bills have squeaked through, like Senator Cortez Masto's Sloan Canyon conservation and Lateral Pipeline Act or Senator Murkowski's Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act. But these are the exception, not the rule. I've worked with my Democrat colleagues to try to assuage concerns. I've often thought we've been on the precipice of a significant breakthrough. But very often what happens is that we make progress, uh, uh, and when we make progress it ends up being fleeting and we end up back where we started. So, uh, look, uh, uh, uh, especially until this changes, um, I can't, uh, justify the historically, uh, abnormally generous treatment that I've been providing to the minority in these committee markups. Again, uh, no chairman in modern history, as far back as we've been able to research in recent decades, uh, ha- has given this much of a balance, uh, m- essentially a one-for-one ratio. In fact, I, I believe with the exception of one bill, that was pulled at the request of Democrats, uh, in order to resolve disputes among Democrats on the committee. It has been a one-to-one path. Were I, were I to continue down this path, giving something for nothing, I'm pretty sure my Republican colleagues might jump me in the parking lot. So, look, um, this is important for us to get this worked out. Uh, to my Democrat colleagues, uh, on the committee, I'm committed to working with you to move bills on the floor. Time's running out in this Congress, and I think we ought to try to make some meaningful progress. Thank you. Thank you, Member Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. Um, while I am always glad to see good legislation moved through this committee, uh, I am disappointed that we have yet another business meeting where we are considering zero conservation bills that are priorities for my members. My colleagues on the Democratic side of the dais have a long and growing list of priorities that continue to be left off of the list of bills to be voted on by the committee, many of which have received bipartisan support in this committee in the past. For instance, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act has been reported three times, always with bipartisan support, but has been left off the list of final bills that will receive votes yet again. My own Gila River bill has been reported twice with bipartisan support, but will not receive a vote today. The Ruby Mountains Protection Act from Senator Cortez Masto has been reported by this committee in three previous congresses with bipartisan support, and will not receive a vote today. As fourteen thirteen, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, funding authorization sponsored by Senator Padilla, moved last Congress as part of a bipartisan pair with S forty forty, the Dakota Water Resources Act amendments, sponsored by Senator Hoeven. In fact, Senators Padilla and Hoven each cosponsored each other's bills in the pair to demonstrate the bipartisan tie between the two. But today we will only have a vote on Senator Hoeven's bill, and Senator Padilla's bill will be once again left behind. I'm also disappointed that some newer bills put forth by Democratic senators will not receive consideration today. S seven ninety-one, sponsored by Senator Van Hollen, would establish the Justice Thurgood Marshall School as an affiliated area of the national park system. The future Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, uh, received the former Supreme Court Justice received his elementary education at this segregated school, and then grew up to argue the landmark Brown versus Board of Education case before the Supreme Court that required American schools to desegregate. Senator Van Hollen's bill would not make this site a new National Park Service unit. It would simply allow the site to be named as an affiliated area of the National Park System and to be eligible for technical assistance from the Park Service. The non-profit organization that manages the site today would continue to own, operate, and manage it. This isn't a question of even adding a new National Park Service unit to the system. It's simply a bill to allow for consideration and support for a site that commemorates one of the most significant civil rights leaders of the last century. In fact, we have another affiliated area bill that will be voted on today. It's a bill to establish the grand village of the Natchez Indians in Jefferson College as affiliated areas of the National Park System. I have no objection to Senator Hyde's legislation, and I plan to vote for it. But I am extremely disappointed that we will not have an opportunity to vote on similar legislation from Senator Van Hollen. We have very few weeks of legislative business left in this Congress. And I know that senators on my side of the aisle are desperate desperately want to see their priority bills move forward. And that's the point. This is not about controversial or non-controversial. It's about being responsive to what members' priorities actually are. I hope that we will take the opportunity to seek collaboration and compromise, so that we can move some of these bills forward.

Right. Uh, we're missing just a couple of members who, uh, I believe are en route. We do have uh, voice votes on a couple of amendments that we can do right now in the absence of that, um, of that quorum. These are some technical, non-substantive amendments that have been distributed for eight agenda items. We'll vote on these amendments and bills on block. Uh, for those amendments, um, uh, five A, eighteen A, nineteen C, twenty-one B, twenty-three A, twenty-four A, twenty-six B, twenty-seven B and twenty-seven A has a block.

Thank you.

All those in favor of these amendments say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendments are agreed to with it. OK, we're waiting for one more and

I bet it was really long ago. I bet Don Cotton's coming.

Yeah. OK.

My part's in a little bit.

And and and that'll be enough, right? Once he gets here. He just, you know Yep. Senator Cotton's on his way, so he should be here momentarily while we we wait. If somebody wants to speak briefly on one of their bills, um

Right.

Uh, Uh, how much is it? so that we can have some entertainment while we're awaiting him. How much is it? How much is that? If not, uh we're gonna have Dave McCormick McCormick do a song and dance combination, uh I had the request to do that.

She didn't, she didn't say that.

Yeah.

She just said, " I'm not dancing."

OK. All right. Senator Murkowski has arrived, so, uh, we're in good shape. I'm not dancing. You're n- she's not, she's not dancing, you don't have to, don't have to dance if you hear votes.

Mister Chairman,

Yes.

I just have a question.

Yes.

Is Dave McCormick good at singing and or dancing?

Well, yes, it's part of his wrestling, um, i- part of his wrestling training, uh, in, in college led him to that, so, the Klee Club.

OK.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, so we'll now proceed, uh, now we've got a voting quorum. Present. And we'll proceed with a series of roll call votes. We'll begin with agenda item one, S one forty. This is from Senator Barrasso. Does any senator have a second degree amendment they wish to offer? If not, hearing none.

Mister, Mister Chairman?

Yep.

I have a second degree amendment to Barrasso.

Yes. Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off, didn't see that. Go ahead.

This amendment, colleagues, is with Senator Cantwell, Senator Padilla, Senator DiGaego, and Senator Hirono. strike the provision that would nullify the roadless area conservation rule. And for decades, the roadless rule has protected some of America's most iconic outdoor recreation areas. In Oregon, we're talking about extraordinarily uh, amazing landscapes, like the scenic lakes for swimming and kayaking and the Cascade Lakes around Mount Bachelor. hiking through wildfire meadows at Iron Mountain, or camping in old-growth forests on Mount Hood, all of these beloved places would be decimated if the roadless rule was repealed. In a number of instances, more roads mean more wildfires. And repealing the roadless rule is an open invitation to destroy these recreation areas and to spark catastrophic wildfires. And I'm gonna be brief this morning, cuz I wanna let my colleagues, led by Senator Cantwell, make any remarks that they have. But I just wanna introduce one fact involving a twenty twenty-six study You're nominated, I assume. of three decades of the national forest system, wildfire data. This data found that wildfire ignition density within fifty meters of roads I think it is, whatever. is roughly four times higher than in non-wilderness, non-roadless forest. wilderness and inventory roadless areas have the lowest ignition densities of any land category studied. And the point really is, Mister Chairman, and I'll close with this.

I know, what a great point.

There certainly are instances where you need active management and you ought to think it through carefully. And so often we've tried around here to proceed in that kind of way. I've been really pleased to work with Senator Budd on uh prescribed fire, because I think that's a big part of the future. But when people hear that the roadless rule is being wiped out, they say nobody's going in there with a scalpel, they're going in there more with, you know, a cannon or something. And I think we can do better. I urge members of the committee to support my amendment, to protect the fifty-eight million acres of national forest covered under the roadless rule, instead of in effect just saying we can go in there with this across the board approach without really thinking through what it means to protect these special places and do it in a thoughtful way in a manner that this committee historically has done so Mr. Chairman I yield back.

Thank you, Senator Wyden. Before we turn to Senator Barrasso um to respond, do we have any other second degree amendments, Senator Padilla? Not for an amendment, but I'd like to be uh heard after Senator Caldwell. Uh uh uh

I've got the center. Cantwell, Senator Padilla, and I believe Senator Gustav Iago are the second.

Oh, speaking on the, on the point?

Yes.

OK.

I'm on my second degree.

Yes, OK, uh, so Senator Cantwell and then Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um, I definitely am perplexed by this morning's mark-up and hearing. I would have loved to seen the Wild Olympics on this. I think we may be creating an artificial divide here this morning. I mean, it's clear, Mister Chairman, that you would like to sell public land. On our side of the aisle, we would like to continue to acquire public land and set it aside for the general public to use. This Sunday I will attend the memorial service for Jim Whittaker, the first American to summit Mount Everest and the founder of REI. It will be a great celebration of his life. But REI, and what the outdoor industry means, is that when you add public land the public gets to recreate, and we create an economy, and it grows jobs. So, what we have in this debate now on adding to the Barrasso bill, a bill that we've passed out a committee prior to help us fight wildfires, and I appreciate Senator Brasso attending a hearing with me in Seattle and helping pioneer some policy that we actually got implemented and help us change the fire borrowing problem that this committee was plagued with for many years. But we have much more to do on fire prevention and we should come together. But this amendment is now offering a eradication of the roadless rule, which is simply a rule that says, aren't there some elevations of public lands that are so high and so expensive to take care of that we should not basically try to use the public dollars to do so?

Mm-hmm.

I thank my colleague from Idaho for implementing, when he was And it shows that these policies can work and can be cost-effective for the public. Why is this so important? Because we're more challenged. We're more challenged on our public lands and we have to be smarter with the taxpayer dollars. But to now, it's today, to say we're gonna get rid of the roadless rule, which is basically like saying, OK, we're we're just gonna go build a road anywhere, even where it's not cost-effective, even where it costs the public more, and instead of focusing on the backlog, and getting out of this administration the money that was promised in a bipartisan bill to continue to implement the land policies that we agreed to under uh legislation that our former colleague from Colorado and many of us worked on is like there's a divide here and it's a bad divide and let's be efficient with the taxpayers' dollars let's not kill the roadless area rule let's make sure that we're working together on fire prevention and make smart use of public policy because it's a damn big economy. And doing anything else is just wrong-headed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, uh, thank you. We'll go to Senator Padilla now. Ag- again, we've got, we're running up against a clock with members with competing assignments. So, um, if you can speak, um, uh, on, on the, uh, amendment, um, and keep your remarks, uh, concise, I'll, I'll recognize you as long as you want after we've voted. Go ahead, Senator Padilla.

So, thank you. Yeah, and I'm one of those members with multiple committees, but this is important. Um. and uh as i begin to talk about the roadless ruling amendment currently before us i also wanna make a point to echo the ranking members concerns about democrats being cut out of the process for scheduling bills on this mark up and that includes colleagues my bill on the san joaquin river restoration settlement act which has historically moved together with senator hovind's dakota water resources act so moving forward i hope that uh we'd get a fair consideration not just for that particular bill of mine but also my grow smart act and my more water act um now while I always hope that we can work in good faith and find bipartisan compromises in this committee the action that the majority seems to be on the verge of taking today erodes some of that goodwill right at the deadline the majority filed an amendment to the previous previously bipartisan wildfire bill to codify the repeal of the roadless rule the last minute move destroys a bipartisan opportunity for compromise on this one and let me remind us and folks watching at home the two thousand one roadless area conservation rule was created through one of the most extensive and rigorous public rulemaking processes in history garnering over one point six million public comments with ninety five percent of them in support by the way the rule remains incredibly popular throughout the country with over half a million public comments in opposition to the administration's recent efforts to repeal the rule. And we now see the Republican majority on this committee working feverishly, uh, against the will of all of our constituents. So, let me explain why the roadless rule is so important to my home state of California. The rule helps protect almost four million acres of roadless areas in my state, from the Klamath Mountains in the north to the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains in the south. These areas help keep the headwaters of our important rivers clean, protect over two hundred threatened or endangered species of wildlife and supports the state's seventy four billion dollar outdoor recreation economy now to address the growing threat of wildfires California is also accelerating projects improving practices in the wildland urban interface and using fire as a natural process through prescribed burning republicans have claimed that the role this rule has hindered wildfire mitigation efforts and it simply false in fact more than two hundred and forty thousand acres of roadless land in california have undergone vegetarian maintenance uh and treatments to reduce wildfire risk and protect those nearby communities as this committee knows every single member of this committee knows studies have also demonstrated that the fire threat increases by four times with established roads due to human caused ignitions so opening in inventory roadless areas to road construction would put rural communities at increased risk of fire. Now finally, members on both sides of the aisle in this committee have discussed the need to address our deferred maintenance backlog. There's over three hundred and seventy thousand miles of roads in our national forest. The forest service has ten point eight billion dollars of of deferred maintenance backlog backlog fifty five percent of which is due to dilapidated roads one of the main reasons the roadless rule was created was because these roads are so expensive to maintain like i can go on and on about the roadless rule what it means to my state and my constituents but i just have to go on record with my disappointment on how republicans are pushing this poison pill in what is a tremendous bipartisan opportunity

mmm

and um proud to cosponsor this amendment with senator white and senator cantwell can we both say a word and i thank them for their leadership

it's crazy let's uh it's Uh, we we need to vote on the, do you have a a a point, we need to proceed to a vote on this amendment,

Yes. Let's go.

you you need to speak to on the

I absolutely.

Can we vote first and then uh talk, and then uh

Would you be willing to take the vote first and speak after?

uh

That's not much of a debate, but

No, we've we've heard three members already.

Alright. Uh, I'll keep it to ten seconds. I'm just really disappoint- the I wanna commend Senator Barrasso for working in a very partisan way, bipartisan way, on dealing with the wildfire threats that we're all struggling with. And I think putting a roadless rule uh repeal into this legislation just blows that up.

Let's proceed to a vote on the second degree amendment. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Lee.

No. No.

Mister Barrasso.

No.

Mister Risch.

No.

Mister Daines.

No.

Mister Cotton.

Out.

Mister McCormick.

Out.

Mister Justice.

No, I can't.

Mister Cassidy. Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoeven.

No.

Mister Heinrich.

Yes.

Mister Wyden.

Yes.

Miss Cantwell. Miss Hirono.

Yes, by proxy.

Mister King.

Yes, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

Yes.

Mister Hickenlooper.

Yes.

Mister Padilla.

I

Mister Gallego.

Yes, by proxy.

On this vote, the nays are eleven and the yeas are nine.

Before we proceed to a vote on the measure, is there any other second degree amendments?

Excuse me, Mister uh

Senator Padilla.

Sen- Mister Chairman, uh, I'd like to uh bring up my uh bro- uh amendment number S one forty. It's a second degree amendment.

Go ahead.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. My uh second degree amendment to the wildfire prevention act is actually pretty simple it would add back into the bill the important workforce provisions that were negotiated and passed by this committee last year by voiceover these provisions provide critical benefits to our federal firefighting workforce just as we enter peak wildfire season these heroes protect our communities and i find it incredibly disheartening to see that my colleagues uh many of whom say they support our federal firefighters and thank them when they respond to incidents, strip out these provisions that they voted to support last Congress. Specifically, this amendment would provide direct higher authority, correct a bureaucratic error regarding federal firefighters'

Okay.

specialized retirement and ensure a federal firefighter's uh rent never exceeds thirty percent of their base and locality pay. I appreciate the work that we did last year negotiating these provisions and again approving them on a unanimous bipartisan basis and I hope my colleagues will support these same critically important provisions today.

Chairman, just a question.

Yes.

I wanna ask uh the sponsor of this amendment. This strikes me as extraordinarily important, because in the West we are gonna be faced with an urgency with respect to enough firefighters and I think your amendment also applies to housing as well. Is that true?

That is correct.

I urge my colleagues to support the Padilla amendment.

Senator Bress.

Well thank you, Mister P- Mister P- uh, Mister Chairman, there are many members on our side who may be willing to support the amendment, We've been unable to determine the exact cost of this without knowing the budgetary impact of the amendment or a CBO score, which I believe is gonna be significant. I just can't support it at this time, so I'd urge my colleagues to vote no.

That's part of it last year.

Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Senator Murkowski.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question, and perhaps this goes to committee counsel here, but this is obviously a very important issue, but you're talking about about not only housing, um, uh, but but, uh, uh, pension. uh retirement benefits as well so my question is whether or not this actually falls within the jurisdiction of this committee. It's I'm not disagreeing that we need to address this but I'm just curious as to whether or not within E and R we actually have jurisdiction over this.

Yes. Win?

For amendments there's no general requirement for a germaneness, however if this were offered um as an individual stand-alone bill it would go to the Senate Parliamentarian and she would look at the preponderance test.

And and and respectfully,

Thank you.

that wasn't a concern last time when we voice voted it out.

Yep. A and in addition I I might add that if uh Senator Padilla had actually introduced this as an amendment on the Senate floor, it would have been referred to the committee as a trailing amendment to S one forty, which the parliamentarian has already referred to the committee. And um uh uh there there is of course a a provision in the rules that prevent any committee from reporting an amendment that's not within the committee's jurisdiction but I think because of the of the um fact that it is a, in a sense, a trailing amendment, it uh it would it's appropriate for the committee to consider it.

OK, we need to proceed to question on this. The clerk will call the roll on the s uh uh second degree amendment.

Mister Lee.

No.

Mister Barasa.

No.

Mister Risch.

No.

Mister Daines. Mister Cotton.

No.

Mister McCormick.

No.

Mister Justice.

No.

Mister Cassidy.

No.

Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoeven.

No.

Mister Heinrich.

Aye.

Mm.

Mister Wyden.

Aye.

Miss Cantwell.

Aye.

Miss Hirono.

Yes, by proxy.

Mister King.

Yes, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

Yes.

Mister Hickenlooper.

Aye.

Mister Padilla.

Aye.

Mister Gallego.

Yes, by proxy.

On this vote, the nays are eleven, the yeas are nine.

We'll now turn to the question on Senator Barrasso's legislation. Uh, to the Barrasso first degree amendment. Clerk will call, uh, it is.

Mister Chairman.

Go ahead.

Mister Chairman, before we go to the vote at some point in time,

Yes.

and I can do it after the vote, but I would like to speak to, uh, to the roadless rule. I deferred because of uh time, but I would like to speak to that.

You've got it. You got it. Clerk will call the rule.

Mister Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso.

Aye.

Mister Risch.

Aye.

Mister Daines.

Aye.

Mister Cotton.

Aye.

Mister McCormick.

Aye.

Mister Justice. Mister Cassidy.

Aye.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Aye.

Miss Murkowski.

Aye.

Mister Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich.

No.

Mr. Wyden.

No.

Miss Cantwell.

No.

Miss Hirono.

No, by proxy.

Mr. King.

No, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

No.

Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla.

No.

Mr. Gallego.

No, by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

We'll now proceed to the question on the legislation S one forty, the Barrasso bill, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso.

Aye.

Mister Risch.

Aye.

Mister Daines. Mister Cotton.

Aye.

Mister McCormick.

Aye.

Mister Justice. Mister Cassidy.

Aye.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Aye.

Miss Murkowski. Mister Mister Hoeven.

No.

Mister Heinrich.

No.

Mister Wyden.

No.

Miss Cantwell. Miss Hirono.

No, by proxy.

Mister King.

No, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

No.

Mister Hickenlooper. Mister Padilla.

No.

Mister Gallego.

No, by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

We'll now proceed to the question on agenda item number twenty seven. Clerk, will call the roll?

Mister Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso. Mister Risch. Mister Daines. Mister Cotton. Mister McCormick. Mr. Justice.

Ar. I'm sorry.

Mr. Cassidy.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven.

I'm sorry.

Mr. Heinrich. Miss Hyde-Smith.

No.

Mr. Wyden. Miss Hyde-Smith.

No.

Miss Cantwell.

No.

Miss Hirono.

No, by proxy.

Mr. King. Miss Hyde-Smith.

No, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto. Miss Hyde-Smith.

What? Third, fifth, and fifth? I would be here on the board now.

Oh. We're on the underlying bill.

What part of the bill is it?

As Or no, sorry, we're on the Oh, we're on

Broadway Canyon.

Oh.

Please, I'm sorry.

We haven't even debated that.

Oh,

OK.

I I've never heard of the legal canyon.

Proceed.

Um, Chairman, I'm not sure we adopted the voice the amendment by voice vote. Can we We did?

The call.

OK.

Yep. Yeah, we do.

I I applaud it. Thank you for the clarification. Um

Um

Miss Cortez Masto

Okay, so just so I know, is the underlying bill the length, and voice vote of the amendment passed?

Yes

No.

Thank you.

Yes.

Mister Hagen-Loper Mister Padilla Mister Gallego

No. No by proxy.

On this vote the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

We'll now proceed to agenda item number thirty-two. Are there Cuz you don't wanna have any second agree amendments to agenda item number thirty-two.

we have a first agree amendment. You've got a first agree amendment, so You have two points of base. Right. This is your time. OK. I have an amend meant to offer, uh, Mister Chair.

Yes, sir, alright, proceed.

Uh, I appreciate the improvements made, uh, in this, hold on. I have an amendment number thirty-two A that I'd like to call up. And, um, I understand that HR thirty-eight seventy-two is intended to allow hard rock mineral development on acquired lands uh where there's no current authority to lease hard rock minerals for development. military installations, corps of engineer projects, uh, or do e lands. Uh, the bill doesn't affect public domain lands, which are most of the public lands in the west, and doesn't affect acquired national forests in the east, which are governed by a separate statute. Uh, I'm not opposed to developing hard rock minerals on military or corps of engineer's lands as long as the mineral development does not interfere with the main mission of those lands uh whether national defense or for that matter flood control. I am concerned, however, that this bill also opens up hard rock mining on lands that were acquired with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or from the, uh, from FLIPFA, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act. These funds acquire public lands for conservation and for recreational use. But because they are acquired lands, minerals on them are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act for acquired lands, the law this underlying uh bill amends today. Now, while the MLA for acquired lands excludes areas within national parks, national monuments, uh that exclusion does not cover many LWCF acquisitions, especially those targeting recreational access to public lands, which open up new trailheads or new stream access, new uh access for hunters and fishermen. And we want to be able to protect those acquisitions and maintain that access. Many LWCF REC access projects are just effectively regular BLM or forest service land, but they facilitate those access points. Uh, my amendment simply ensures that lands acquired for the public with Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars or FLIPFA funds, lands acquired for the purpose of recreation, conservation, and wildlife habitat are not unintentionally opened to hard rock mining by this bill. Uh, I know that was not the sponsor's intent, but if we can adopt this amendment, it will close a potential loophole, and I would be happy to vote for the underlying bill.

I'd I'd love to respond to Heinrich Amendment thirty-two A. I'm gonna defer my comments until afterwards. I'd like the clerk to call the roll on Heinrich Amendment thirty-two A.

Mister Lee.

No.

Mister Barrasso.

No.

Mister Risch.

No.

Mister Daines.

No.

Mister Cotton.

No.

Mister McCormick.

No.

Mister Justice.

No.

Mister Cassidy.

No by proxy.

No by proxy.

Miss Hyde-Smith. Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoeven.

No.

Mister Heinrich.

Aye.

Mister Wyden. Miss Cantwell. Miss Hirono.

Aye by proxy.

Mister King.

Aye by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto. Mister Hickenlooper. Mister Padilla.

Aye.

Mister Gallego.

I by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

OK, Senator Heinerich, you have another amendment

Oh, well.

to thirty two.

Mister Chair, the uh, I have an additional amendment to H R thirty eight seventy two that is titled amendment thirty two B um the mineral development enabled by H R thirty eight will pay a royalty, uh, just like all minerals produced under federal mineral leases. For budget purposes, that revenue is new revenue. Uh, my amendment would take that revenue from this newly authorized hard rock mining, and it would dedicate it to the abandoned hard rock mine reclamation program that this committee created in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That program, which Senator Daines and I worked together to create, provides funding to clean up old abandoned hard rock mines uh these mines are in almost every state in the nation uh they're particularly um numerous in new mexico colorado utah uh montana idaho uh and they continue to leak pollution into our streams and rivers uh poisoning fish habitat contaminating farm fields in some cases um these are mines that have not operated in decades and any previous owner of them no longer exists. The estimated clean-up costs for all of them nationwide is roughly fifty billion, billion with a B, dollars. Uh, and currently there is no dedicated funding source for the reclamation program that all of us created in twenty twenty-one. My amendment would make uh would take the new royalties that will be generated by H R thirty-eight seventy-two and dedicate them to cleaning up these abandoned mines.

Uh, thank you. Uh, uh, we will, uh, now proceed to the question on Amendment thirty-two B. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Lee.

Nope.

Mister Barrasso.

No.

Mister Risch.

No.

Mister Daines.

Sisk.

Mister Cotton.

No.

Mister McCormick.

No.

Mister Justice. Mister Cassidy.

No, by proxy.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Yep.

Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoeven. Mister Heinrich.

Aye.

Mister Wyden.

Aye.

Miss Cantwell.

Aye.

Miss Hirono.

Aye, by proxy.

Mister King.

Aye, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

Aye.

Mister Hickenlooper.

Aye.

Mister Padilla.

Aye.

Mister Gallego.

Aye, by proxy.

On this vote, the nays are eleven and the yeas are nine.

Now we have the bill, H R thirty eight seven eight two, the clerk will call the roll on the bill.

Mister Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso.

Aye.

Mister Risch.

Aye.

Mister Daines.

Aye.

Mister Cotten.

Aye.

Mister McCormick.

Aye.

Mister Ca- Justice.

Aye.

Mister Cassidy.

I'm not quite sure what's going on here. What's

i got proxy

miss hyde-smith

i

miss merkovsky

i

mister Hoeven

i think it this one is a little bit too

mister heinrich

no

too much too much too much

mister wyden

no

miss cantwell

no

miss harona

no by proxy

mister king

no by proxy

miss cortez masto

no

mister hickenlooper

oh

no

mister padilla

hmm

mister gaego

no by proxy

On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

Now we'll go to agenda item number thirty-three. Does anyone have any amendments on thirty-three?

Mr. Chair, I have one.

Go ahead.

Uh, I have an amendment number thirty-three A that I would like to call up. And this amendment is pretty simple. Uh, usually when Congress passes legislation to sell small parcels of national forest land, it directs the money received from the sale to a special fund in the treasury. That fund was created by the SISC Act and it was used to acquire replacement national forest land in the state where land sale uh produced rep or where the land sale produced those revenues. Uh, so in this case, because HR thirty nine thirty seven sells national forest land in Wisconsin, the SISC Act would insure that the proceeds of that sale are used to acquire replacement land in the state of Wisconsin. Uh, this insures that small, reasonable land sales like uh, do not reduce the amount of public access to public lands for all Americans, and keeps the funding in the state where the revenues were created.

You're asking for a roll call vote on this amendment.

Mm-hmm.

Clerk, we'll call the roll on the amendment.

Mr. Lee.

Nope.

Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Risch.

No.

Mr. Daines. Mr. Cotton.

No.

Mr. McCormick.

No.

Mr. Justice.

No.

Mr. Cassidy.

No, by proxy.

No.

Miss Head-Smith.

Yes.

Miss Murkowski.

No.

Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich.

Aye.

Mr. Wyden.

Aye.

Miss Cantwell.

Aye.

Miss Hirono.

Aye, by proxy.

Mr. King.

Aye, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

Aye.

Mr. Hickenlooper. Mr. Padilla.

Aye.

Mr. Gallego.

Aye, by proxy.

On this vote, the nays are eleven, the yeas are nine.

Any additional amendments on agenda item number thirty three? Seeing none, we'll proceed to a roll call vote on agenda item thirty three H R three nine three seven, court

Mister Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso. Mister Risch. Aye. Mister Daines. Mister Cotton. Aye. Mister McCormick. Aye. Mister Justice. Alright. Mister Cassidy. I'll go first. Miss Hyde-Smith. I agree. I agree. Miss Murkowski. I agree. Mister Hoeven. Mister Heinrich.

No.

Mister Wyden. No. Mister Cantwell. No. Mister Horono.

No, by proxy.

Mister King.

Yes, by proxy.

Miss Cortez Masto.

No.

Mister Hickenlooper.

No.

Mister Padilla.

No.

Mister Gallego.

No, by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are twelve, the nays are eight.

Committee will now vote on thirteen bills by voice vote, which the chair presents to the committee to consider and block. They are S three thirty two, S seven seventy nine, S twelve eighty eight, S twelve twenty four thirty seven with H R three eight five seven, S twenty seven fifty three, S thirty five hundred with H R three six five seven, S three five one eight, S three six nine three, S seven three seven two three. S three seven three six, S three seven nine two, S three eight seven eight and S four O four O. The clerk, uh, uh, all those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

All those opposed, say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. Uh, these bills will be reported favorably. to the Senate. Now at this time I wish to recognize any Senator who wants to be heard on any of the bills that we voted on today, and again uh uh yeah go ahead. Yes, Senator Risch.

Um, Mister Chairman, I uh you know, anybody uh I I wanna talk about the one that has the roadless rule, cuz I have a particular interest in that, but anybody watching this from the outside would think that the two sides here are deeply deeply divided on these issues, and and we really aren't. Uh, I have found every time we've worked on these There's very little daylight between us, and almost always there's some middle ground that you can get to. Now, we haven't done that uh on the votes we have this morning, but uh obviously I think as we're going forward we ought to re- double our efforts to try to get these things through to where we can get everybody behind it. I wanna talk for just a minute about the roadless rule. Um, and I wanna explain the way I voted on this, Idaho doesn't have a dog in a fight on the roadless rule. And the reason is We've resolved this in Idaho. Um, in uh two thousand six uh the president at that time invited every state to take up the question of the roadless rule and see if they could develop their own rule, because the federal government had uh dealt with this since uh the wilderness uh pieces were uh put uh on the books. And these were pieces that were left over that they couldn't agree on and said well we'll take it up later. And as a result of that when the Republicans were in, they passed a rule where it could be used more. When the Democrats were in, that said it would be used less. And in the meantime, there were hundreds of lawsuits filed over this. N- none of which were actuall actually resolved because the new administration would come in before the suits were resolved. In any event, in two thousand six, the president uh said, state see if he can do it. Idaho was uh one, and Colorado was the other uh who took this up. In Idaho uh we had uh a governor who had a vision at the time and even more wisdom. And uh brought together at the table a collaborative group that represented the entire spectrum.

What's that going, what's that?

Uh well it's history history will record that, history will record that.

Jim Rish.

But in any event um we we sat at the table and hammered the thing out. We had two hundred uh parcels that we uh signed five different uh uh themes to. Uh we voted on them, we all agreed we'd stick together on the thing. Uh, everybody got something. We walked away from the table with a rule. They went to the district court, it was affirmed. Went to the ninth circuit, it was affirmed. Went to the Supreme Court, they declined uh to take jurisdiction, so it is the law in Idaho. And uh every time now a a roadless uh rule comes up, Idaho's always excluded. The president when he did his uh uh he did an executive order on this, as we all know, he excluded the Idaho rule. Um, and uh, in this particular bill, the Idaho rule uh was also excluded. This can be done, but it takes real hard work and it takes a collaborative effort. And uh, I would urge that everyone uh, every state that has uh road lists uh in it, you get a collaborative movement going and, and get a deal done. And so we stop these lawsuits and we w- and we stop wasting our time on this as we fight back and forth. And again, as I, as I said, when you sit down at the table and talk about this, you find that there's very little uh

I don't know the next senator.

Will the senator yield for question?

The senator will.

Um, Senator Rich, isn't the essence of this trying to figure out the best strategy for our our lands and to be efficient? And isn't isn't that discussion in Idaho, wasn't it about there are some areas where you just really, it was inefficient to build roads. It just was. And you made those decisions.

That's true. And what we found with the two hundred and some parcels, and with the five themes that we set out, that they felt that each parcel fell pretty naturally into one of those. There were some that were very close to general forest. And they should be general forest and should be able to harvest trees on it. There were oth other ones that nobody's gonna build a ro a road in there, and and almost no one would wanna see the land develop because it was prime wilderness kind of ground. And uh We we we actually uh got through this and it was it was Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, and we reached an agreement uh to where we could all live with uh, and and most importantly, this is nine million acres we're talking about that we wrestled away from the federal government wrote our own rule for it, and it is managed today by a committee of Idahoans that is appointed by the governor. Time remains with the United States government uh on the ground. But we manage it. And it, and you know what? Since this happened, not one lawsuit regarding uh our uh our uh roadless area in Idaho. This can be done. And it would save a lot of time. And, and like I said, all of us want the same thing for the public lands. We love our public lands. We wanna use them, we wanna protect them, uh, and, and each piece is different and it should be treated differently. This can be done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before we conclude the business portion of our meeting and proceed to the hearing, I wanna make sure we, allow anybody who wants to speak to do so. Senator Murkowski, thanks for your patience. Uh, I know you wanted to speak and i- may anyone else could speak afterwards before we proceed to the hearing. Go ahead.

Thank you, thank you, Mister Chairman, and I I I really appreciate the comments from Senator Risch because uh for us in in Alaska, the roadless rule has been um has been a real challenge for us for decades. Um most Alaskans maintain that the roadless rule should never have applied to Alaska. We didn't asked for it, we consistently opposed it. It's never been a good fit for us. Um, when you think about, particularly i- in the Tongass, because this is, this is where most of the attention is directed, but, uh, uh, with or without the roadless rule, um, the, the forest areas within the Tongass remain fully, fully protected through existing laws and through other regulations. So you can have a roadless rule come in But in terms of the areas that have been protected, and it's what, some nine point nine point two million acres that just off the top, um, i- i- are not subject to uh, to application uh of the roadless rule. And I think there are some who believe that if you if you remove the roadless rule that somehow or other then everything in uh in our forest is is available uh for for access and that's simply not the case. Um, in our situation, in in the Tongass, um, the concern has been with with, uh, an overlay of the roadless rule, um, it makes it near impossible to be able to to provide for what we would determine to be necessary projects. And that's when you're trying to to allow for a transmission, a hydro transmission, two small islanded areas um so that they can receive power. Pretty basic stuff. We're not asking for for permission to to clear cut an area. We're not asking, it's not about harvesting. It's basically being able to access for whether it's energy um uh or or renewable energy resources it just makes it um more expensive they say well yeah you can do it, but it's all helicopter logging. You tell me how you're going to put in a transmission line when you're literally taking one tree at a time by helicopter logging. And and then to Senator Risch's point, this is something that I think should be left to the individual states. If if you want a roadless rule, go for it. If you don't, um, you should be able to say no or you should be able to work the deals, and they are hard, because every acre is important. Certainly I know in the Tongass every acre is precious, so Uh, uh, w- we, we have been battling this for years and, uh, in fairness what happens is we see this, this, this kind of a ping pong effect between administrations in terms of what can happen within the Tongass, and then what is taken off the table in the Congres, in the Tongass. And that stalls out any level of economic activity, whether it is limited timber harvest or whether it is opportunity for for a more renewable uh uh power to proceed or for for tourism. And speaking of renewable power to proceed, and I will be very quick, Mister Mister Chairman, but I wanna I wanna thank you and and the ranking member for bringing the Flows Act before the committee today. I wanna thank Senator King for his help on this, his partnership. Um, for us in Alaska, it's hydro power in Southeast, this is what makes it happen. But, uh-huh, so often our operators face these unnecessary and, and oftentimes just really ridiculous delays when they're trying to maintain or or to upgrade existing facilities. We've got short construction season, we've got project sites that are remote. Um, you can lose a full season with a, a simple permitting delay. So there's real consequences there. So what we do is we preserve FERC's authority over major project modifications and dam safety. But we provide greater certainty that routine maintenance, uh, the repairs, the replacements, the temporary operational adjustments can move forward without unnecessary delay. And and this is helping us really unlock this next generation of of water power technologies. So what we have is a licensing pathway that is better suited for these smaller, innovative projects. And I know Senator Cortes Masto has been, uh, uh, working on some of these other hydro initiatives. We appreciate that.

Uh, uh, yes, uh

Just if I could make one quick comment.

Yes.

I I think that what Senator Risch said is so prescient, which is to listen to the people in in that state. And I think a roadless rule is a public process, and you do hear from people. in your state and you do take that information and you figure out how to make the best decisions. And so I'm not saying rich for governor of Alaska, but anyway, I am a, I am definitely

You see, I don't have a running up.

But I am say but I

It is.

But I, I am saying it is proof that the process can work. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

I mean, it's got a nice ring to it. I, we, we gotta admit. All right, let's see. Uh, so, uh, on the, on the order right now, we, we've got Senator Hickenlooper, then Senator Padilla, then Senator Heinrich. Now, Senator Daines' uh recognition, were you making a point uh in response to this, or do you wanna get in the speaking order?

No, to to this here. We're talking, it's current dialogues.

Yes, all right. If if it's OK, we'll hear from Daines and then we'll go to you,

Yeah.

Jeff.

J- just briefly, um, uh, Senator Risch, thank you for, uh, your words of common sense and reason. Um, I would hope that the Idaho model will continue to spread throughout the West. And, uh, I sure don't wanna spoil the broth here that we've had in this committee, of really making great bipartisan progress as it relates to force management reforms. I mean, So, um, I I think this is one of these difficult moments in the committee today, on the roadless rule. Uh, and I think there's frustration. We have over three hundred million board feet of timber tied up in litigation, as we speak, in Montana. And I think there's just this, the pendulum swings kind of back and forth too far at times. And, um, as the chairman and the ranking member, um, I do hope we can continue the the spirit of, uh, of dialogue and cooperation and, uh, maybe, um, maybe Governor Risch could insert himself and and help uh help us see the better path forward as it relates to being better stewards here and better outcomes on policy.

Great.

Sure.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful to you and to ranking member Heinrich for including several priorities that benefit Colorado in today's mark-up, helping us manage water in the face of the severe drought that we're dealing with is comes from building capacity of water managers to develop projects that make the most of the supplies we have, and we're making sure that we stay at the cutting edge of water forecasting by understanding our snowpack. A year like this one, we have to make the most of every drop. As just one example, the Ute Mountain Tribe in southwestern corner of Colorado is expected to receive less than fourteen percent of its typical water allocation or supply this year. That's a dramatic cut that we see play out on the fields of the tribe's farms and ripples across the states. and the region's uh uh economy. We see the severity of this crisis in farms, in the communities across the Colorado River Basin, which I'm glad we'll get a chance to discuss later this morning. In in the basin, we're breaking records for how low we can go. Projected inflows into Lake Powell will be roughly thirty-five percent of normal for this water year. So I want to thank Senator Lee for giving us a chance to address this drought by working with us on water management tools through the Water Project Navigators Act and the Stillwater Supply Forecasting Reauthorization. Uh, I would hope that the bipartisan work we've done on our water bills can translate into work on other issues we face. I care deeply about our response to wildfire, not just because of the decades-long drought in the Colorado River Basin, but because of the way that the fire has negatively affected communities, water coli- quality, and even insurance costs in Colorado. As I know, we can work on wildfire in a bipartisan way because we've done it. with our Fix Our Forests Act. One of the bills on the agenda today uh addresses wildfire, and I've v- voted for that bill in a previous form. Unfortunately, the amendment um in the process, that was added late in the process, would add that full-on repeal of the roadless rule uh on that bill. When I first came in as Governor of Colorado, we were going through our process of the roadless rule, and what Senator Rich described, the collaboration between Republicans and Democrats between various industries and citizens, uh, outdoor recreationists, that effort, uh, and we had hundreds of thousands of people participate in that, and like Idaho, we have a roadless rule. So this doesn't affect us, but the, the, the, the, the random cancellation of that is, is not a, uh, a constructive idea that I would support. Uh, a rule that thir- seventy-five percent of the voters supported a poll or earlier this year. Seventy-five percent rarely support anything. Um, they support the roadless rule. I know how important the protections of the roadless rule are for ecosystems, for watersheds, for western lands we all love. I stand with my colleagues who will vote to try to strip this poison pill out to do something that should help us respond to wildfire. Um, I am also collating an amendment with my colleague, Senator Padilla, here to use the approach we took in our Fix Our Forests Act for several sections of this bill uh, we'll be able to find a bipartisan path on several elements, uh, that appear in both bills. Uh, we won't be asking for a vote on our amendment today, but we will be laying, we're laying out a marker, we're ready to reject partisan point scoring, and let's collaborate and work constructively on real solutions. I yield back to the chair.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to echo some of the the sentiment of, uh, my colleague, Senator, uh, Hickenlooper from Colorado. And I moved by Senator Rich's comments earlier, for folks watching at home, uh this committee may not be as divided as it appears to be today. And I think exhibit A of that is the work that Senator Hickenlooper and I did, together with Senator Sheehy, Senator Curtis and others, as we crafted the Senate version of the Fix Our Force Act. True, bipartisan, substantive, meaningful legislation. And I think that's why I'm so dispirited with today's committee hearing, because that goodwill is being undermined by what we saw happen and how it happened. Couldn't agree more in terms of bringing stakeholders together on some of these um uh natural resource and land use decisions. It's how California has approached our proposals for national monument designations, for example, all to hear that that's potentially being revisited by the administration for no good reason. It's how we have improved air quality in California through the previously clean air act waivers authorities that the state of california had which the republican majority stripped from california on a partisan basis so i clearly am registering my frustration with the way the committee has operated today regarding several forestry provisions including the amendment in the nature of a substitute to s one forty not only does it include a poison pill in the form of codifying the role this rule repeal but clearly it makes a partisan change to the provisions that uh many of which are included in the fix our forest act as senator hickenlooper just highlighted we worked hard on that and the edits adopted today actually move us backwards in the goodwill and the progress made uh in the senate version of the fix our forest act it all remind us three Republican members of this committee sit on the Agriculture Committee and voted for the Senate version of the Fix our Forest Act after extensive discussion and debate. And their actions here today undermine the progress and the momentum of that bill. We um had an amendment offered today to uh fix some of that language and realign with the fix our forest act senator hickenlooper and i did and we chose not to bring it up um but we are waiting for that good faith to reappear with our public and colleagues to bring the measure adopted today back to its true bipartisan form to remind ourselves to remind the folks watching remind the general public that bipartisan legislative packages are indeed still possible. They're seemingly increasingly rare today. But if we can, uh, channel that goodwill, channel that spirit, I think we can re-engage in good faith to move along the Senate version of our Fix Our Forest Act and, uh, other previously bipartisan, many unanimous measures put through by this committee in the past. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. Um, I I wanna reinforce the comments of my colleagues. Um, we had a very bipartisan, wildfire-focused bill here. And, uh, now we have a very partisan bill. Uh, in part, we do need to make sure that this is consistent with Fix Our Forest, which an enormous amount of very positive bipartisan effort has gone into that legislation and I wanna commend my colleagues for their work on it. Uh, the workforce provisions were seemingly completely uncontroversial in the previous Congress. And if you don't think we have workforce problems with our firefighting uh readiness on the ground across the West then you haven't sat down at your local uh district manager office and talked to people cuz it's it's concerning. Uh, but the biggest issue here, I think the elephant in the room, is the fact that uh the wildfire legislation became a Trojan horse for repealing the roadless rule. That's the tail wagging the dog. That is a huge change for our country. And in my state at least, uh, I went to those hearings. They were overwhelmingly positive. I engaged across the board with my sportsman, uh, recreational interests, uh, grazing interests, you name it, in in New Mexico, and we've, it's not broke in New Mexico. So don't let DC come tell me that - that we have a problem in New Mexico when our biggest problem is just getting enough resources and enough staff to get into our force to do treatments because we do treatments hazardous fuel treatments in roadless areas, and we should. So we took a previously largely bipartisan constructive wildfire effort And now it has become a partisan, pitched battle over repealing the roadless area. That is a poster child example for how not to get successful legislation done. And I am disappointed.

All right, before we wrap and wrap this up, I wanna just say, look, the the roadless rule was a bad idea in two thousand one, and it remains a bad idea today, a quarter of a century later. The the rule restricts access for multiple use in on on nearly fifty-nine million acres of forest service lands uh i- i- in ways that in in different respects have a tendency to increase wildfire risk and danger communities and and limit economic activity. And there's no explicit statutory authority directing the forest service to do this, to to create inventoried roadless areas. The the rule has wreaked havoc on a lot of Western communities. including a lot of communities in my state, in the state of Utah. And, um, anyway, that's my point. With - with that, um, unless there's anybody else that wants to speak, before we conclude our business meeting, seeing, uh, no one seeking recognition on that part, we, uh, hereby conclude the business, uh, uh, business meeting portion of our gathering today.