Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Western Economic Security Today Act of 2023, or the WEST Act. My bill, as has been discussed, would require the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw their proposal regulating…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Western Economic Security Today Act of 2023, or the WEST Act.
My bill, as has been discussed, would require the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw their proposal regulating conservation of landscape health.
Utah's farmers and ranchers for generations have worked on this land, leaving it better than they found it. They understand how to live in a way that strengthens the landscape but allows for them to provide for their family and their community. I like to tease them that they are the original environmentalists. They don't always like that term.
Ironically, this rule also undermines the work of these individuals who keep the land in good health and help prevent the risk of wildfires to instead lock the public out of Utah's lands.
Let me be clear: I have immense respect for Utah's local land managers who do their best with the resources they have. I appreciate their commitment to integrating into each unique community and working hard to find consensus. They are not the problem. The problem is Washington politicians who think they know better than the generations of families who actually live in Utah.
The question isn't whether or not we want to protect these lands but who gets to make the decisions.
Since coming to Congress, one of my favorite experiences has been connecting with Utah's rural communities. They give so much and ask for so little. They work hard to feed our families, protect American energy, and lead in manufacturing. We should be making it easier for them.
Instead, the Biden administration is pushing this rule to allow environmental groups funded by Swiss billionaires who pretend to be representing Utahns to lock up public lands. This is completely backward.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two stories about how this foreign dark money is funding environmental groups in Utah.
ADVENTURE . . . What's in a Name?
Recently I Googled ``Moab'' and ``adventure'' on my
computer and came up with 480,000 hits. Apparently there are
adventures enough to be found in Moab to keep tourists
entertained and spending their money until the next
Millennium. Just to mention a handful, I found the Moab
Adventure Center, Moab Adventure Xstream, Moab Adventure
Headquarters, Moab Adventure Inn, Moab Adventure Package,
Moab Adventure Guide, Moab Desert Adventures, Adventure
Xscapes, Adventure Racing Retreats, Moab Resort Adventure
Package and a link to the Moab Adventure Park, from WWTI
Newswatch50 in, of all places. Watertown, New York. They
reported the following:
MOAB, Utah--Riding down the ski lift from the highest point
on the red-rock rim overlooking the Moab Valley in Utah, our
feet dangled some 800 feet in the air as Scott McFarland
talked about the latest project for his Moab Adventure Park.
``We're applying for permits for a zip-line, a 2,500-foot-
long cable that goes from the top of the hill to the
bottom.'' McFarland said. ``You get into a harness on the top
and cruise to the bottom, kind of like you're flying.
``Without a braking system, you'd hit about 145 miles per
hour. With the system, you'll go 50 or 60. That's on the
computer, anyway. We'll see.'' One of the city's concerns in
considering the permits is its noise ordinance. Nearby
residents are worried about screams coming from riders
zipping down the cliff.''
Sad to say that's one adventure we'll never have to
embrace, thanks to one of my favorite environmental groups,
The Nature Conservancy, who bought the tram and removed it
from the face of the earth.
By comparison, if you travel just 55 miles south to the
sleepy Mormon/cowboy hamlet of Monticello, the ``adventure''
falls off dramatically, to just 759. What do you expect nom a
town without a brew pub? I kept searching for an adventure-
free town and the best I could hope for was Benkelman,
Nebraska that could only muster 154 hits and Gnaw Bone,
Indiana with a paltry 64.
At the other end of the adventure scale, nearby Aspen,
Colorado kicks Moab's relatively passive as with 1,890,000
adventure hits and New York City, the Gotham of all Thrills,
generates an incredible 8,370,000 hits. But if you can
believe this, according to Google, you can find four times as
many adventures in New York as You can in Baghdad, which
produced less than 2 million hits. That is a telling piece of
information. Just what kinds of adventures are we talking
about?
And what exactly is an ``adventure?'' According to one
internet dictionary, an adventure is ``an undertaking or
enterprise of a hazardous nature,'' or ``an undertaking of a
questionable nature (both sound like Baghdad to me as well as
certain areas of the Big Apple).''
Or . . . ``an unusual or exciting experience.''
This is the definition I was looking for. This is the kind
of adventure that tourists are in search of when they come to
places like Moab. Most if not all of the ``Moab Adventure''
Google hits are commercial enterprises, anxious and eager to
provide an ``exciting and unusual experience'' for the paying
public. Their businesses certainly CANNOT be, to even a
modest degree, ``hazardous in nature.'' I doubt if any
adventure tour company could survive if its owners faced
their first customers of the day and announced, ``Listen up
people . . . we want all of you to understand that there's a
real good chance only half of you will survive this hike to
the Fiery Furnace . . . the rest of you will probably die in
free falls or rock collapses. So call your friends and family
now and tell them how much you love `em.''
And forget about experiences of a ``questionable nature.''
Add to the previous warning this addendum: ``And don't forget
our climbing equipment is as old as my granny and she passed
on in 1965, so don't be surprised if that ol' rotten frayed
rope we use snaps like a dry twig.''
No . . . none of this would pass muster. Instead, the
adventure tour companies must endure all kinds of
inspections, meet various federal standards, and pay
substantial insurance premiums, to insure that the
``adventure'' is as free of hazards as humanly possible. It's
okay for the customer to get excited, and compared to the
workaday/cubicle life he or she leaves behind to come on this
adventure vacation, how could it be anything but? But is it
really an adventure?
I have my own adventure definition--I would call it a
``spontaneously sought, poorly planned, even stupidly
conceived exploration of a mystery.'' Spontaneity is critical
to an adventure. How can an adventure be planned and
scheduled? And a real adventure should have an unknown
component to it . . . maybe there will be hazards ahead . . .
maybe not. Who knows? It's a Mystery!!
But this is what it's become:
``Now let's see Kimberly . . . I'm thinking . . . an
adventure that starts around 10am would be perfect because I
want to have a leisurely breakfast at the Jailhouse Cafe.
Love the eggs benedict! Then maybe a rappel somewhere? Or
would you rather do a boat thing? No more than $100 . . .
$150 tops. And back here by four for drinks at McStiff's . .
. does that sound perfect or what?''
I know . . . I know! Once again, I'm out of touch with
Mainstream Adventure America and how can I argue with 480,000
Google hits and a booming adventure economy? (I think even a
couple of my advertisers have ``adventure'' in there
somewhere). But like so many other words--wilderness--for
instance, an adventure just isn't what it used to be, or even
mean, I'll take my adventures as they come, unplanned,
unscheduled, free, and if it kills me, I just hope I don't
die with a cell phone clutched in my hand, frantically
punching 911 as I hurtle toward the greatest adventure of
them all.
Mr. Speaker, the link to the second story can be found here: https://www.eenews.net/articles/quietly-philanthropic-tycoon- makes-his-mark-in-the-west/.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration didn't even pretend to care what rural Utahns thought about this rule. I sent a letter nearly a year ago with my Natural Resources Committee colleagues, asking the agency to hold more public listening sessions on this rule, including a session in Utah. Instead, the agency ignored this request and finalized the rule.
Over 60 percent of Utah's land is federally managed. I have counties with 90 percent, yet no public listening session was held in Utah.
This rule has an oversized impact on our State. That is why the WEST Act must pass today.
We must fight to stop this rule and then immediately repeal it under the
next administration. It is critical that Utah's lands remain under the stewardship of those who have tended it for generations.
There is a lot of hyperbole in Washington, and I am genuine when I say this is one of the most offensive attacks on rural Utah I have seen in my career. I will continue to work tirelessly to repeal this disastrous effort.
My bill, the WEST Act, is pushing against this flawed rule. We should be empowering local communities, not punishing them.