[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     H.R. 2997, H.R. 3025, H.R. 3049, 
                         H.R. 3250, AND H.R. 4141

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Thursday, June 22, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-42

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-649 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDSTOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------                                
                                
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, June 22, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2

    Panel I:

    Plaskett, Hon. Stacey E., a Delegate in Congress from the 
      Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands.......................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
    Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     6
    Boebert, Hon. Lauren, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado..........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

    Morelle, Hon. Joseph D., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New York, prepared statement of...............    40

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Culver, Hon. Nada Wolff, Principal Deputy Director, Bureau of 
      Land Management, Washington, DC............................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    15
    McConkie, Michelle, Director, State of Utah School and 
      Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, 
      Utah.......................................................    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    18
    Pugliese, Hon. Rose, Assistant Minority Leader, Colorado 
      House of Representatives, Colorado Springs, Colorado.......    21
        Prepared statement of....................................    23

    Stuart, John, President and CEO, MTE Communications, Midvale, 
      Idaho......................................................    24
        Prepared statement of....................................    25

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    National Park Service, Statement for the Record on H.R. 3025 
      and H.R. 3250..............................................    41
                                     


 
   LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2997, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE 
 INTERIOR TO CONVEY TO MESA COUNTY, COLORADO, CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND IN 
   COLORADO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``CLIFTON OPPORTUNITIES NOW FOR 
 VIBRANT ECONOMIC YIELDS (CONVEY) ACT''; H.R. 3025, TO PROVIDE FOR NO 
NET INCREASE IN THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF FEDERAL LAND IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
NATIONAL PARK ON ST. JOHN, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS; H.R. 3049, TO 
PROVIDE FOR THE EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND AND STATE LAND IN THE 
      STATE OF UTAH, ``UTAH SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS 
  ADMINISTRATION EXCHANGE ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 3250, TO RECOGNIZE THE 
  MARGARET WOODBURY STRONG MUSEUM IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, ``NATIONAL 
   MUSEUM OF PLAY RECOGNITION ACT''; AND H.R. 4141, TO PROVIDE THAT 
  CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS PROJECTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS TO 
 PREPARE CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL OR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION REVIEWS, AND 
                           FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 22, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Curtis, 
Moylan; Neguse, Porter.
    Also present: Representatives Boebert; Morelle, and 
Plaskett.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee Chair is authorized to 
declare a recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider five bills: 
H.R. 2997, Representative Boebert's ``Clifton Opportunities Now 
for Vibrant Economic Yields Act''; H.R. 3025, Delegate 
Plaskett's bill to provide for no net increase in the total 
acreage of Federal land in the Virgin Islands National Park on 
St. John, United States Virgin Islands; H.R. 3049, 
Representative Curtis' ``Utah School and Institutional Trust 
Lands Administration Exchange Act of 2023''; H.R. 3250, 
Representative Morelle's ``National Museum of Play Recognition 
Act''; and H.R. 4141, Representative Fulcher's bill to provide 
that certain communications projects are not subject to 
requirements to prepare environmental or historical 
preservation reviews, and for other purposes.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert; the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett; and the gentleman from New 
York, Mr. Morelle.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. Today, we continue our work of holding the 
Federal Government accountable for managing America's land, 
empowering local communities, and jump-starting rural economies 
through innovative solutions. The bills before us today reduce 
the Federal footprint, restore decision-making to local 
communities, and cut bureaucratic red tape.
    Poor management and lack of access to public lands leads to 
stifled communities. The vast expanse of the Federal 
Government's reach is felt particularly in the West, in states 
like Colorado, where the Federal Government owns 36 percent of 
the land, and Utah, where the Federal Government owns two-
thirds of the land. Two of the bills right-size the Federal 
estate for these residents.
    Representative Boebert's CONVEY Act, H.R. 2997, would 
convey 31 acres from the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, to 
Mesa County, Colorado. This county is 72 percent Federal 
ownership, and as the population continues to grow the county 
is significantly limited in the land it has available to 
develop. The land would be used for economic development to 
support the local economy and residents. These expedited 
conveyances are a win-win, as growing rural communities can 
expand and develop, and the Federal Government can focus its 
limited resources on managing more high-value lands.
    I am also supportive of Representative Curtis' bill, H.R. 
3049, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration Exchange Act of 2023. During the expansion of 
our country, many of our Western states set aside land to 
support public schools and institutions commonly called trust 
lands. Trust lands generate revenue for education and public 
schools from energy and mineral leases, real estate development 
and sales, and surface estate development.
    Unfortunately, these trust lands have been subject to loss 
of revenue as administrations and bureaucrats here in DC seek 
to preserve and lock up land from use. This solutions-driven 
bill coordinates efforts from the local, state, and national 
level to exchange lands so the state of Utah is able to 
generate funds from trust lands to support K-12 education.
    Republicans are committed to right-sizing the Federal 
estate, holding land managers accountable, and supporting local 
communities. I am also pleased to consider two bills today from 
Members across the aisle aimed to do just that.
    Representative Plaskett's bill, H.R. 3025, would restrict 
any net increase in the total acreage of Federal land in the 
Virgin Islands National Park. The park already encompasses two-
thirds of St. John, the largest of the Virgin Islands. The 
remaining land is becoming increasingly expensive, and a burden 
to the local community.
    Representative Morelle's bill, H.R. 3250, would recognize 
the Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum as the National Museum of 
Play. Recognition as a national museum does not create a unit 
of the Federal Government to maintain or provide funding for. 
This is a creative way to recognize a significant museum 
without adding any burdens to the taxpayer.
    Last week, during our legislative hearing on H.R. 3397, 
which would require the BLM Director to withdraw a proposed 
rule that would further limit access and lock up lands from the 
public's use and enjoyment, Members on both sides of the dais 
were concerned about the input their constituents would be able 
to have on this proposed rule, given the lack of broadband 
access to rural and remote residents. While the agency 
continues to disregard this concern, since they have offered no 
more in-person listening sessions on their so-called 
conservation rule, Republicans of this Committee will not sit 
idly by.
    Representative Fulcher's bill, H.R. 4141, would streamline 
the Federal permitting process for certain broadband projects. 
Specifically, the bill would exempt deployments over certain 
previously disturbed lands from NEPA and National Historic 
Preservation Act reviews. The bill also enhances tribal review 
processes and establishes streamlined processes for moving 
forward with certain projects. These reforms build on the 
momentum to address NEPA barriers that are exacerbating the 
digital divide for rural communities across the country.
    I would like to thank all the Members on both sides of the 
dais for their leadership on the important bills before us 
today.
    I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here and 
traveling long distances to provide your expert testimony. Your 
work allows us to consider innovative and creative legislative 
ideas to manage the Federal estate.
    From rural Western towns to tropical territories, there is 
a clear and overwhelming need to control the size of the 
Federal estate to address skyrocketing deferred maintenance and 
concerns from local stakeholders. I look forward to hearing 
from each of you.
    First, I would like to recognize Delegate Plaskett for 5 
minutes on H.R. 3025.
    You get to go first.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. STACEY E. PLASKETT, A DELEGATE IN 
     CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, Chairman Tiffany. I really 
appreciate the opportunity to be here with you all. Thank you 
to the Committee members for the opportunity to present my 
views on H.R. 3025, which is my bill to prohibit the net 
increase of federally owned land in the Virgin Islands National 
Park on St. John in my district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    This bill solely relates to the Virgin Islands National 
Park on St. John, and it is intended to address the specific 
long-standing concerns of my constituents related to the growth 
of the national park on this small island of the United States.
    The Virgin Islands National Park boundary encompasses 
nearly two-thirds of the island of St. John, which is only 9 
miles long and 5 miles wide. The park includes over 7,000 acres 
of that land, and more than 5,000 acres of submerged land. 
Thus, this leaves a very finite amount of land for the people 
of St. John, who are confronting housing shortages that 
continue to escalate because of the park's continuing growth.
    As land is donated and conveyed to the park, some pre-
existing landowners have found themselves landlocked by the 
park and without easement, which can take a decade to receive 
due to national park bureaucratic processes. The reduction of 
privately owned and subsequently increases in property taxes 
have made it nearly untenable to retain ancestral home in this 
island of St. John.
    The continual expansion of the park has also stymied the 
government of the Virgin Islands' ability to create alternative 
ways to traverse the island, which were vital during a 
disaster, as were exampled and seen after the 2017 hurricanes.
    Since the Virgin Islands National Park was established in 
1956, when Laurence Rockefeller transferred nearly 5,000 acres 
of St. John to the U.S. Government, private entities and 
organizations have continued to purchase land with the 
intention of conveying it to the park. I share the view that 
the national park is a wonderful idea, and I am certainly not 
against conservation practices. But the residents of St. John 
have called the small island home for the last 3,000 years, and 
the scope of the park cannot continue to increase.
    My legislation addresses their unique needs. Under this 
bill, individuals and entities would still be able to donate or 
exchange land with the park. But if the park acquires any land, 
an equal acreage must be conveyed out of Federal ownership 
through a sale, exchange, or donation. This bill would not 
change the park boundaries, but rather prevent an increase of 
land owned by the park.
    Legislation to address specific concerns about expansion of 
Federal land owned by the National Park Service has happened 
before. This is not unique legislation. In 1986, Public Law 99-
420 established a permanent boundary for the Acadia National 
Park in Maine to ensure that the park could only grow to the 
extent of the standing boundary and no further. In 2019, the 
John Dingell, Jr. Conservation Management and Recreation Act 
further clarified that the Secretary of the Interior does not 
have the authority to adjust that boundary.
    The Virgin Islands National Park Service has a 
responsibility as a steward, as a partner to the Virgin 
Islands, but that has not always been the case. Unfortunately, 
often the park seems to be solely engaged in protecting land, 
not the people who were the original inhabitants of that land, 
nor those brought over as enslaved people who fought for their 
freedom and were able to obtain land on St. John. Albeit 
sometimes well intentioned on St. John, the Virgin Islands 
National Park has effectively crowded out Native people in 
furtherance of ideals acting under the assumption that local 
people cannot care for the land themselves.
    As we look at the history and future of the Virgin Islands 
National Park, our decisions must be intentional to support St. 
John and the entire Virgin Islands. With that in mind, I ask 
for your support of H.R. 3025. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Plaskett follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in 
         Congress from the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands
 on H.R. 3025, To provide for no net increase in the total acreage of 
 Federal land in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John, United 
                         States Virgin Islands

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
opportunity to present my views on H.R. 3025, my bill to prohibit the 
net increase of federally owned land in the Virgin Islands National 
Park on St. John in my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands. This bill 
solely relates to the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John, and it 
is intended to address the specific, long-standing concerns of my 
constituents related to the growth of the National Park on this small 
island of the United States.
    The Virgin Islands National Park boundary encompasses nearly two-
thirds of the island of St. John, which is only 9 miles long and 5 
miles wide. The Park includes over seven thousand acres of that land 
and more than five thousand acres of submerged lands. Thus, this leaves 
a very finite amount of land for the people of St. John, who are 
confronting housing shortages that continue to escalate because of the 
Park's continuing growth. As land is donated and conveyed to the Park, 
some pre-existing landowners have found themselves landlocked by the 
Park and without easement, which can take a decade to receive due to 
bureaucratic processes. The reduction of privately owned land and 
subsequent increases in property taxes have made it nearly untenable to 
retain ancestral homes. The continual expansion of the Park has stymied 
the Government of the Virgin Islands' ability to create alternative 
ways to traverse the island, which is vital during a disaster, as seen 
after the 2017 hurricanes.
    Since the Virgin Islands National Park was established in 1956, 
when Laurence Rockefeller transferred nearly five thousand acres of St. 
John to the U.S. government, private entities and organizations have 
continued to purchase land with the intention of conveying it to the 
Park. I share the view that National Parks generally are a wonderful 
idea, and I am certainly not against conservation practices; but, for 
the residents of St. John that have called this small island home for 
the last 3,000 years, the scope of the Park cannot continue to 
increase.
    My legislation addresses their unique needs. Under this bill, 
individuals and entities would still be able to donate or exchange land 
with the Park; but if the Park acquires any land, an equal acreage must 
be conveyed out of federal ownership through a sale, exchange, or 
donation. This bill would not change the Park boundary, but rather 
prevents an increase of land owned by the Park. Valid existing property 
rights within the Park boundary are explicitly protected.
    Legislation to address specific concerns about expansion of federal 
land owned by the National Park Service has happened before under 
similar circumstances. In 1986, Public Law 99-420 established a 
permanent boundary for the Acadia National Park in Maine to ensure that 
Park could only grow to the extent of the standing boundary, and no 
further. In 2019, the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, 
and Recreation Act further clarified that the Secretary of the Interior 
does not have the authority to adjust the Acadia National Park's 
permanent boundaries.
    The Virgin Islands National Park Service has a responsibility as a 
steward and as a partner to the Virgin Islands, but that has not always 
been the case. Unfortunately, often the Park seems to be solely engaged 
in protecting land; not the people who were the original inhabitants of 
that land, nor those brought over as enslaved people who fought for 
their freedom and through sweat and toil, were able to obtain land on 
St. John. Albeit sometimes well-intentioned, on St. John, the Virgin 
Islands National Park has effectively crowded out native people in 
furtherance of neo-colonial bourgeois ideals acting under the 
assumption that the local people cannot care for the land themselves. 
It is not in the interest of the Virgin Islands, and is not the mandate 
of the Park, for the Park to become an ever-expanding behemoth in a 
small insular area of the U.S.
    As we look at the history and the future of the Virgin Islands 
National Park, our decisions must be intentional to support St. John, 
and the entire Virgin Islands--the land, the people, the history, and 
the culture. With that in mind, I ask for your support for H.R. 3025. 
Thank you.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Plaskett. Your bill 
sounds like it is grounded in common sense.
    Next, I would like to recognize Mr. Curtis from Utah in 
regards to H.R. 3049.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN R. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really pleased to 
be here and representing that bill. I am grateful for the 
presence of Deputy Director Culver and Michelle McConkie, who 
have both worked in a way that is exactly in line with, I 
think, how we would like to see people work together.
    Some of you know I can be very critical of Federal 
agencies, but let me point out how well this has worked this 
time, and how well we have worked for the interest of those in 
my state bringing together stakeholders who are very difficult 
to pull together. And I think this is a great example where 
enough work and effort in bringing stakeholders together can 
find some common ground.
    I suspect it is fair to say not everybody is 100 percent 
satisfied, but satisfied enough that we have come to the table 
representing the Native tribes in the area, many of the 
residents in the area that have been there for generations and 
generations, and in a way that dramatically benefits 
particularly the schoolchildren of Utah with these trust funds.
    So, as we have an opportunity to dig into this in today's 
hearing just a little bit, I am pleased, and just want to 
express my appreciation to everybody that has been involved in 
this. And I hope this will be a bill that my colleagues on all 
sides should be supportive of and applaud the process.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Next, I would like to 
recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Representative Boebert, 
in regards to H.R. 2997, the CONVEY Act.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAUREN BOEBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to 
testify in support of H.R. 2997, my Clifton Opportunities Now 
for Vibrant Economic Yields, the CONVEY Act.
    This common-sense bill directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey 31.1 acres of land that the Federal 
Government no longer wishes to manage to Mesa County for 
economic development in Clifton, Colorado. Mesa County will 
purchase the land at fair market value.
    For over 5 years, Mesa County has been stuck in red tape as 
they have been diligently pursuing the acquisition of this 
parcel of land that is on the BLM disposal list. This land 
holds immense value for Mesa County, as it presents a critical 
opportunity for economic development in Clifton, an area of the 
county that has struggled economically for quite some time.
    Our witness today, Ms. Rose Pugliese, worked on this issue 
back when she served as Mesa County Commissioner with BLM to 
try to get this land exchange done administratively. I am happy 
that she is here today to testify to help close the loop on 
this issue, and finally move this common-sense land conveyance 
forward.
    I have worked closely with BLM, who supports this bill, and 
the Mesa County commissioners to cut through the bureaucracy 
and expedite this process for Mesa County.
    The economic potential of this land will allow Mesa County 
to attract job creators and foster an environment that 
encourages economic prosperity for Clifton. Once Mesa County is 
able to secure the land, they will establish an economic 
development board to solicit input from local stakeholders.
    My bill also ensures that the funds from the sale of this 
land will be deposited into the Federal Land Disposal account, 
established by the Federal Land Transaction Facility Act, and 
retained by the Bureau of Land Management Colorado Office. So, 
these funds will actually be used in Colorado.
    More than 55 percent of my district and 73 percent of Mesa 
County's land area is Federal land. As Mesa County continues to 
grow, the county is significantly limited in the land it has 
available to develop. These large Federal footprints often 
stifle local communities that lack power in decision-making 
over land in their own backyards from moving forward on 
important developmental opportunities.
    I am proud to empower local communities and jumpstart rural 
economies through innovative solutions that reduce our Federal 
footprint and cut bureaucratic red tape that is stifling 
economic growth with the CONVEY Act. I urge the passage of my 
bill through Committee.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Boebert follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Hon. Lauren Boebert, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of Colorado
  on H.R. 2997, Clifton Opportunities Now for Vibrant Economic Yields 
                              (CONVEY) Act

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am proud to testify in support of H.R. 2997, my Clifton 
Opportunities Now for Vibrant Economic Yields--the CONVEY Act.
    This common-sense bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
convey 31.1 acres of land, that the federal government no longer wishes 
to manage to Mesa County for economic development in Clifton, Colorado. 
Mesa County will purchase the land for fair market value.
    For over five years, Mesa County has been stuck in red tape as they 
have been diligently pursuing the acquisition of this parcel of land 
that is on the BLM disposal list. This land holds immense value for 
Mesa County as it presents a critical opportunity for economic 
development in Clifton, an area of the county that has struggled 
economically.
    Our witness today Rose Pugliese worked on this issue back when she 
served as a Mesa County Commissioner with BLM to try and get this land 
exchange done administratively. I am happy she is here today to testify 
to help close the loop on this issue and finally move this common-sense 
land conveyance forward.
    I have worked closely with BLM, who supports this bill, and the 
Mesa County commissioners to cut through the bureaucracy and expedite 
this process for Mesa County. The economic potential of this land will 
allow Mesa County to attract job creators and foster an environment 
that encourages economic prosperity for Clifton. Once Mesa County is 
able to secure the land, they will establish an economic development 
board to solicit input from local stakeholders.
    My bill also ensures that the funds from the sale of this land will 
be deposited into the Federal Land Disposal Account, established by the 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, and retained by the Bureau 
of Land Management Colorado office, so these funds will actually be 
used in Colorado.
    More than 55% of my District, and 73% of Mesa County's land area is 
federal land. As Mesa County continues to grow, the county is 
significantly limited in the land it has available to develop. These 
large federal footprints often stifle local communities that lack power 
in decision-making over the land in their own backyards from moving 
forward on important development opportunities.
    I am proud to empower local communities and jumpstart rural 
economies through innovative solutions that reduce our federal 
footprint and cut bureaucratic red tape that is stifling economic 
growth with the CONVEY Act.
    I urge passage of my bill through committee and with that, I yield 
back.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentlelady from Colorado.
    Next, we are going to move on to our second panel. It is so 
good to have you all here.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the 
microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please wrap up your statement.
    I would now like to introduce Ms. Nada Wolff Culver, 
Principal Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
    Deputy Director Culver, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. NADA WOLFF CULVER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
      DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, members of the Subcommittee. I am Nada Wolff Culver, 
the BLM's Principal Deputy Director. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify on the three BLM-related bills on 
today's agenda.
    On behalf of the American people, the BLM manages 
approximately 245 million acres of public lands, primarily in 
12 Western states, as well as 700 million subsurface acres. The 
multiple-use, sustained-yield mission established by the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs us to sustain 
the health, diversity, and productivity of our public lands for 
the long-term needs of future generations.
    H.R. 2997, the CONVEY Act, directs the BLM to convey 
approximately 31 acres of Federal land located near Clifton, 
Colorado to Mesa County for fair market value. The bill 
requires the conveyance to be made notwithstanding the previous 
Secretarial Orders that withdrew the parcel for use by the 
Bureau of Reclamation. Currently, the BLM is working toward a 
conveyance of the parcel under existing authorities. It has 
been identified in the current land use plan as potentially 
suitable for disposal, should it return to public land status. 
The BLM supports H.R. 2997.
    H.R. 3049, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration Exchange Act, would ratify a proposed land 
exchange between the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration, or SITLA, and the BLM. Under the bill, the BLM 
would acquire approximately 162,000 acres of land located 
mostly within the boundaries of the Bears Ears National 
Monument in exchange for approximately 167,000 acres of BLM-
managed public land in Utah. The BLM supports the bill.
    The Bears Ears National Monument, located in San Juan 
County, Utah, is managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest 
Service. The lands within the Monument are profoundly sacred to 
many Tribal Nations, and contain evidence of thousands of years 
of occupation by Indigenous peoples. The area is also prized by 
recreationists. The bill will ensure the acquired lands are 
managed to protect their cultural and natural resources, and 
improve the BLM's ability to effectively manage the monument by 
reducing the checkerboard effect from lands that SITLA is 
statutorily required to manage for revenue generation.
    The bill is consistent with the Presidential Proclamations 
establishing and restoring the boundaries of the Monument 
signed by Presidents Obama and Biden. Both proclamations direct 
the Secretary of the Interior to explore entering into 
Memorandum of Understanding with the state of Utah enabling 
this land exchange.
    In March of this year, the Department of the Interior, the 
state of Utah, and SITLA entered into an MOU setting forth the 
terms of a broad land exchange that is designed to promote 
conservation and appropriate resource management. We appreciate 
the good work and the good faith of SITLA and the state of Utah 
in achieving our mutual interests in this exchange.
    The BLM lands identified for conveyance to SITLA were 
selected to maximize the potential for revenue generation to 
benefit school children, while avoiding management conflicts 
with cultural and natural resources, including endangered 
species habitat, areas of critical environmental concern, and 
recreation. The BLM supports H.R. 3049, and looks forward to 
working with the sponsor, tribes, and Utah stakeholders on its 
implementation if enacted.
    H.R. 4141 would exempt eligible communication projects from 
National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic 
Preservation Act review. The bill would also limit the time 
frame for tribes to respond and disclose tribal interests in 
eligible communication projects to 45 days.
    Federal lands provide a tremendous opportunity to provide 
the public with access to wireless services through permitting 
communication facilities. Each year, the BLM processes 
thousands of applications for rights-of-way on public lands, 
and currently administers over 4,200 authorized communications 
facilities.
    We share the sponsor's goal of expanding communication 
networks, particularly broadband Internet in underserved and 
rural communities. However, we believe the bill would limit 
crucial public and tribal engagement by prohibiting critical 
project analysis for a potentially overly broad set of 
circumstances. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with 
the sponsor on modifications that would help maintain the 
integrity of the applicable laws governing environmental, 
cultural, and historical reviews, including tribal input. 
Information and feedback gained during the public review 
process can help prevent delays in implementation by ensuring 
agency decisions are robust and able to withstand scrutiny.
    Finally, the National Park Service has submitted statements 
for the record on H.R. 3025 and H.R. 3250.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to present this 
testimony. I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Culver follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Nada Wolff Culver, Principal Deputy Director, 
       Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
                 on H.R. 2997, H.R. 3049, and H.R. 4141

   H.R. 2997, Clifton Opportunities Now for Vibrant Economic Yields 
                              (CONVEY) Act

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2997, the Clifton 
Opportunities Now for Vibrant Economic Yields (CONVEY) Act. This bill 
directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to convey approximately 31 
acres of Federal land located near Clifton, Colorado, to Mesa County, 
Colorado.
    As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with states and 
local governments to resolve land tenure and land transfer issues that 
advance public policy objectives. H.R. 2997 directs the conveyance, for 
fair market value, of a parcel that the BLM has determined to be 
potentially suitable for disposal, and the BLM supports the bill.
Background

    The BLM manages 245 million acres of public land primarily in the 
west, of which 8.3 million acres are located in Colorado. Colorado's 
public lands are a significant contributor to the state's economy, and 
many Colorado communities depend on healthy public lands to sustain 
their livelihoods. Mesa County, home to approximately 155,000 residents 
and located near the Utah border in western Colorado, is no exception. 
Federal lands make up 73 percent of the county's land area, with the 
BLM managing the majority of the Federal acreage. The county seat of 
Grand Junction lies near the confluence of the Colorado and Gunnison 
Rivers in the heart of the Grand Valley. Clifton is bordered by 
Interstate 70 to the north and Grand Junction to the west.
Grand Valley Reclamation Project

    In 1907, the construction of the Grand Valley Reclamation Project 
was approved by the Department of the Interior. The Bureau of 
Reclamation (BOR), known as the United States Reclamation Service at 
the time, was tasked with supplying irrigation water to the farmlands 
and orchards in Grand Valley. The Grand Valley Reclamation Project was 
one of the first six projects to have lands withdrawn from settlement 
for project construction following the passage of the Reclamation Act 
of June 17, 1902.
    Since it first delivered water in 1917, the Grand Valley 
Reclamation Project has provided irrigation water to approximately 
33,368 acres and supplemental water to about 8,600 acres of fertile 
land. The project's works include a diversion dam, a powerplant, two 
pumping plants, and two canal systems totaling 90.1 miles.
    Mesa County has requested to purchase from the United States an 
approximately 31-acre parcel of land near Interstate 70 and 32 Road in 
Clifton for economic development opportunities. The 31 acres are part 
of an approximately 39-acre parcel currently withdrawn to BOR for the 
Grand Valley Reclamation Project. On April 28, 2021, BOR's Upper 
Colorado Regional Office submitted to the BLM Grand Junction Field 
Office a Notice of Intent to relinquish the 31-acre portion of the 
parcel, with the intent to retain approximately 8 acres of the 
withdrawn parcel for project purposes. Currently, the BLM is working to 
complete the remaining steps of the withdrawal revocation process for 
the 31-acre parcel, which has been identified by the BLM as potentially 
suitable for disposal if restored to public land status. The withdrawal 
revocation process must be complete before the BLM is able to pursue a 
direct sale of the parcel under existing authority.
Public Land Disposal Authority

    A variety of statutes provide the BLM with the authorities 
necessary to address various land tenure issues. Under the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), public lands may be identified as 
potentially available for disposal through the BLM's land use planning 
process. Public lands that are identified as eligible for disposal in a 
Resource Management Plan (RMP) generally require site-specific analysis 
prior to disposal to identify special circumstances that may act as 
impediments to disposal--such as the presence of threatened or 
endangered species, cultural or historic resources, mining claims, 
mineral leases, rights-of-way, hazardous materials, or grazing 
permits--and must also be appraised before a decision on disposal can 
be made. Furthermore, because land use plans may be decades old, public 
lands identified as potentially available for disposal in an RMP may be 
found to be unsuitable later because of new circumstances such as solar 
or wind energy development, a new conservation designation, oil and gas 
leasing, the listing of new threatened or endangered species, the 
establishment of rights-of-way, or other encumbrances.
    Under Section 203 of FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to transfer or 
dispose of public lands that have been identified as potentially 
suitable for disposal in an approved land use plan or through an 
amendment to an existing plan. The proceeds from sales are deposited 
into the General Fund of the Treasury. Typically, these sales are for 
low value lands or lands that are difficult or uneconomic to manage, 
such as isolated parcels surrounded by private land. Land sales 
conducted under FLPMA occur to serve the national interest at the 
discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and are made at fair market 
value in accordance with Federal law.
    In addition, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) 
allows the BLM to sell public lands identified for disposal through the 
land use planning process and retain the proceeds from those sales in a 
special account through the Treasury. These funds can then be used by 
the United States to acquire lands with high conservation or recreation 
value, or interests therein, from willing sellers.
H.R. 2997, the CONVEY Act

    H.R. 2997 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
BLM Director, to convey all rights, title, and interest of the United 
States in 31-acres of Federal land, referred to as the ``Clifton 
Parcel'' in the bill, to Mesa County, Colorado. The bill requires the 
conveyance to be made notwithstanding the Secretarial Orders that 
withdrew the Clifton Parcel for the Grand Valley Reclamation Project, 
dated August 26, 1902, and July 25, 1908. The bill further requires 
that the conveyance be subject to valid existing rights and for not 
less than fair market value.
    To determine the fair market value of the Clifton Parcel, H.R. 2997 
requires the Secretary to obtain an independent appraisal of the 
parcel. Under the bill, the appraisal must be conducted in accordance 
with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and 
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The Secretary 
is directed to pay all costs associated with the conveyance, while Mesa 
County is responsible for all costs associated with any survey 
conducted for the conveyance. The bill provides specific instruction 
for the proceeds from the conveyance, requiring them to be deposited in 
the Federal Land Disposal Account established by FLTFA, and made 
available for expenditure under that Act.
Analysis

    The BLM generally supports the conveyance of public lands when such 
conveyances are in the public interest and consistent with publicly 
approved land use plans. As the Clifton Parcel has already been 
identified as potentially suitable for disposal should it return to 
public land status, the BLM supports H.R. 2997 and the direct sale of 
the parcel to Mesa County.
    The BLM notes that the conveyance directed by the bill can be 
achieved under the existing authorities provided by FLPMA. This process 
is currently underway, as BOR has submitted a Notice of Intent to 
relinquish the withdrawal of the Clifton Parcel. The BLM Grand Junction 
Field Office continues to process revocation of the withdrawal with the 
intent of pursuing a direct sale to Mesa County. The BLM also notes 
that it is typical for the party requesting the purchase to cover the 
conveyance costs and recommends the bill be amended accordingly. 
Finally, a minor technical edit to the bill is needed to ensure it 
refers to the date of the most recent version of the legislative map.
Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 2997, 
and I look forward to your questions.

  H.R. 3049, Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 
                              Exchange Act

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3049, the Utah 
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration Exchange Act. The 
bill will would ratify a land exchange between the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) and the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration (SITLA). Under the bill, the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) would acquire approximately 162,000 acres of lands, and interests 
in lands, managed by SITLA that are located largely within the Bears 
Ears National Monument (the Monument), in exchange for a roughly 
equivalent amount of public land and interests in land managed by the 
BLM across the State of Utah. The bill includes a post-conveyance 
appraisal and equalization process to ensure that the exchanged lands, 
and interests in land, would be of equal value.
    The bill is consistent with President Obama's 2016 Proclamation 
establishing the Monument and President Biden's 2021 Proclamation 
restoring the boundaries and management conditions of the Monument. 
Both proclamations direct the Secretary of the Interior to explore 
entering into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the State of 
Utah that would set terms to exchange land owned by the State and 
administered by SITLA within the boundary of the Monument for land of 
approximately equal value managed by the BLM outside the Monument. The 
BLM supports H.R. 3049 as it would promote conservation and appropriate 
resource management, including the protection of invaluable cultural 
resources and sacred sites within Bears Ears National Monument.
Background

    The Bears Ears National Monument is located in San Juan County, 
Utah, and is comprised of approximately 1.36 million acres of public 
land administered by the BLM as part of the National Landscape 
Conservation System and National Forest lands administered by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The Monument lands contain 
evidence of more than 13,000 years of occupation by Indigenous peoples, 
including petroglyphs and pictographs, large villages, ancient cliff 
dwellings, ceremonial sites, and countless other objects that provide 
an extraordinary archaeological and cultural record. These 
archaeological and cultural resources were seminal to the passage of 
the Antiquities Act more than a century ago. The lands of the monument 
are profoundly sacred to many Tribal Nations, including the Ute 
Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and 
Ouray Reservation, Hopi Nation, and the Pueblo of Zuni, who continue to 
rely on these lands for religious, traditional, and ceremonial uses.

    The Monument contains several geologic marvels including deep 
sandstone canyons, desert mesas, the renowned Valley of the Gods, and 
the namesake Bears Ears Buttes, as well as a rich paleontological 
history that is only recently beginning to be understood. Areas within 
the Monument are also used by local communities and Tribal members for 
firewood gathering and livestock grazing. Beyond the vast cultural and 
natural resources found within the Monument, the area is also 
meaningful to recreationists who visit the Bears Ears region to 
backpack, rock climb, and river raft, among other recreational 
activities.

    Proclamation 10285, issued by President Biden on October 8, 2021, 
directed the Secretary of the Interior to explore entering into an MOU 
with the State of Utah to exchange land administered by SITLA within 
the boundary of the Monument for land of approximately equal value 
managed by the BLM outside the boundary of the Monument in order to 
further the protective purposes of the Monument. On March 17, 2023, 
after more than a year of working closely to develop an agreement, the 
Department, the State of Utah, and SITLA entered into the ``Memorandum 
of Understanding--Exchange of Lands.''

    The MOU sets forth the terms of a broad land exchange that is 
designed to promote conservation and appropriate resource management by 
exchanging SITLA inholdings within BLM-administered public lands, 
including the Monument, for other BLM-administered public lands that 
are more suitable for revenue generation located in 20 counties within 
Utah that would further SITLA's statutory duties to benefit 
schoolchildren and other trust beneficiaries in the state. The BLM-
administered public lands identified by SITLA for conveyance to SITLA 
were identified to maximize the potential for revenue generation (per 
the applicable statutory requirement) while avoiding management 
conflicts from significant wildlife resources; endangered species 
habitat; significant archaeological, cultural, and historic resources; 
areas that are sacred or are traditionally, spiritually, or religiously 
significant to Tribal Nations; lands within the boundaries of Indian 
reservations; areas of critical environmental concern; coal resources 
requiring surface mining; wilderness study areas; and significant 
recreation areas; and to promote the objectives and legal mandates of 
both the BLM and SITLA.

H.R. 3049

    H.R. 3049, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration Exchange Act, would ratify the terms of the MOU between 
DOI, SITLA, and the State of Utah, thereby facilitating the exchange of 
state-owned land, the majority of which is located within or proximate 
to the Monument, for BLM-administered public lands throughout Utah. 
Under the bill, the BLM would acquire approximately 162,510 acres of 
lands administered by SITLA, including State inholdings within the Fish 
Creek Canyon, Road Canyon, Butler Wash, Mancos Mesa, and Bridger Jack 
Wilderness Study Areas. In return, SITLA would acquire approximately 
167,012 acres of public lands currently managed by the BLM outside the 
Monument.
    H.R. 3049 requires that the exchange outlined in the MOU take place 
within 45 days following enactment. To ensure that the exchange is of 
equal value, the legislation further requires that SITLA and DOI 
complete an appraisal of the exchanged lands within 18 months of the 
exchange, using nationally recognized appraisal standards. If the 
appraisal identifies a disparity in the total value of the exchange, 
the value would be equalized through the conveyance of specific state 
or federal land, as appropriate. These ``equalization parcels'' are 
generally identified within the MOU.

    The land exchange contemplated in the MOU would allow the BLM to 
acquire lands containing important or sensitive resources, mostly 
within or adjacent to the Monument, while transferring public lands 
into State ownership for revenue generation that would further SITLA's 
statutory duties to provide a benefit for Utah schoolchildren and other 
trust beneficiaries. H.R. 3049 provides that the exchange of these 
lands is in the public interest, and that the values of the lands, as 
determined by the appraisal, are to be equal, consistent with land 
exchanges that would occur under Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act (FLPMA). Like FLPMA, the land exchange provides 
options for equalizing the value including adding or removing parcels 
from the exchange.
Conclusion

    The land exchange directed by this legislation would promote 
conservation and appropriate resource management in a manner consistent 
with the 2016 and 2021 presidential proclamations protecting the 
Monument. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support 
of H.R. 3049.

  H.R. 4141, To provide that certain communications projects are not 
 subject to certain environmental and historical preservation reviews, 
                         and for other purposes

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4141, a bill ``to 
provide that certain communications projects are not subject to certain 
environmental or historical preservation reviews, and for other 
purposes.'' Specifically, the bill would exempt eligible communications 
projects from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National 
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) review. The bill would also limit the 
time frame for Tribes to respond and disclose Tribal interests in 
communication projects to 45 days.
    The Department of the Interior (Department) supports the goals of 
the bill to expand access to electronic communications, including 
across Federal lands. We believe that Federal lands provide a 
tremendous opportunity to provide the public with access to wireless 
services though the permitting of communication facilities. However, 
the Department cannot support the bill as drafted, as it would limit 
crucial public engagement, limit the ability of Tribes to engage in the 
process, and prohibit the critical project-specific analysis provided 
under NEPA and NHPA for a potentially broad set of circumstances. We 
look forward to working with the Sponsor and Subcommittee on 
modifications to the bill.
Background

    The Department manages nearly one fifth of the surface acreage in 
the United States, much of which encompasses rural areas, and therefore 
can play an important role in permitting communication and broadband 
infrastructure.
    In 1976, with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act (FLPMA), Congress directed the BLM to sustain the health, 
diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and 
enjoyment of present and future generations. Under FLPMA's multiple use 
and sustained yield mandate, the BLM manages public lands for a broad 
range of uses, such as renewable and conventional energy development, 
livestock grazing, timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, 
and conservation--including protecting cultural and historic resources. 
In addition, BLM-managed public lands provide vital habitat for more 
than 3,000 species of wildlife and support fisheries of exceptional 
regional and national value.
Rights-of-Way

    Federal lands managed by the Department are crucial to facilitating 
the deployment of wired and wireless broadband communications 
infrastructure. These lands currently support a wide range of 
communication facilities and related technologies (e.g., radio, 
television, cellular, and microwave) on public lands through right-of-
way (ROW) grants.
    A ROW is an authorization to use a specific piece of public lands 
for a certain project. FLPMA ROWs are issued for a variety of uses, 
including electrical power generation, transmission and distribution 
systems, communications towers, highways, railroads, pipelines (other 
than oil and gas pipelines), and other facilities or systems that are 
in the public interest. Each year, the BLM processes thousands of 
applications for ROWs on public lands. The BLM currently administers 
over 4,200 facilities authorized by communication use ROWs on 
approximately 1,500 multi-facility communications sites.
    Furthermore, as the largest Federal land manager in the West, the 
BLM plays a key role in planning for siting communication facilities 
and broadband development. The BLM authorizes and administers ROWs and 
leases for individual communication uses and develops and maintains 
communications site management plans to proactively support orderly 
deployment of new or additional communication uses.
H.R. 4141

    H.R. 4141 would exempt certain communications projects and Federal 
ROWs and other easements for communications facilities from NEPA and 
NHPA review. The exemption would apply if a ROW or other easement had 
previously been granted for a communications facility or utility 
facility for the same Federal building or property, or if the ROW or 
other easement is for a communication facility in a public ROW. The 
bill would also amend the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act 
of 2012 to exempt any modification of an existing communication site 
ROW from NEPA or NHPA reviews. This would exempt agencies from needing 
to complete NEPA or NHPA review when approving the colocation of new 
transmission equipment, removal of transmission equipment from an 
existing facility, or replacement of existing transmission equipment.
    The bill also includes certain Tribal provisions in Section 3. It 
would establish a presumption that, if a Tribe receives a complete FCC 
form 620, then the Tribe has the necessary information to ascertain 
whether historic properties of religious or cultural significance to 
the Tribe may be affected by project. The Tribe then would have up to 
45 days to respond and disclose any Tribal interests in the 
communications project.
Analysis

    The Department cannot support the bill as written because it limits 
the ability of agencies to provide for appropriate environmental review 
and public involvement in a potentially broad set of circumstances. 
Environmental review and public involvement are critical components of 
the Department's responsibilities in managing federal lands. 
Environmental review can include the use of categorical exclusions, as 
appropriate. Even when the Department uses a categorical exclusion, 
however, it must still consider whether extraordinary circumstances 
exist in which a normally excluded action may have a significant 
effect. This provides the Department an opportunity to consider the 
particular circumstances of a given proposal.
    Further, we note that new information gained during the NEPA 
process, including public engagement activities where appropriate, 
routinely prevents delays in later stages of the project review process 
by ensuring agency decisions are robust and able to withstand judicial 
and other scrutiny.
    Finally, the Department cannot support the provisions in the bill 
that would restrict Tribal consultation by removing NHPA review 
requirements and severely limiting a Tribe's ability to fully identify 
and evaluate historical or cultural resources affected by a 
communications project. The time frame in the bill is inconsistent with 
Executive Order 13175 on Tribal consultation, which requires a 30-day 
notice and a 30-day post-consultation period. The Department recommends 
amending the bill to allow Tribes adequate time to review projects 
potentially affecting Tribal interests.
Conclusion

    The Department shares the goal of expanding communication networks, 
particularly for broadband internet in underserved and rural 
communities, and would appreciate the opportunity to work with the 
Sponsor on modifications that would help achieve these goals while 
maintaining the integrity of the NEPA and NHPA processes to conduct 
environmental, cultural, and historical reviews. Thank you again for 
the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 4141.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Nada Wolff Culver, Principal 
               Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management

Ms. Wolff Culver did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. H.R. 4141 could impact tribal sovereignty by including 
a provision that presumes that a tribe disclaims interest in a project 
if they do not respond within 45 days of receiving an FCC Form. Not 
only is this in bad faith, but it also fails to acknowledge the lack of 
resources tribal governments often face due to lack of federal funding 
from Congress.

    1a) Do you believe the legislation is consistent with President 
Biden's Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation?

    1b) How is BLM working with tribal governments to support tribes 
and address barriers that may limit tribal engagement in the NEPA 
process?

    Question 2. While telecommunications infrastructure is critical for 
rural and tribal communities, we need to ensure that such projects 
don't adversely impact sacred sites or cultural resources.

    2a) If H.R. 4141 waives environmental and historic preservation 
reviews and presumes that a Tribe has no interest in an area if they 
don't receive a response within 45 days, how can BLM appropriately 
ensure such projects do not negatively impact sacred sites or cultural 
resources?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy Director Culver. I would now 
like to recognize Representative Curtis to introduce our next 
witness.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am delighted 
to introduce Michelle McConkie, who serves as the Executive 
Director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration in Utah, known as SITLA.
    Michelle leads and directs all administrative and 
operational functions of this independent state agency, 
including oil, gas, mining, renewable energy surfaces, 
resources, and real estate development projects. The Trust 
Lands Administration manages over 3.4 million surface acres of 
trust lands and 4.5 million acres of mineral estate. All 
revenue generated from these lands benefit 12 state 
institutions, the largest of which is our school children.
    So, we frequently talk about their mission in terms of 
providing income to our school kids. And it won't surprise 
anybody to know that Utah has one of the largest, if not the 
largest, per household size of children. And it is always a 
struggle in our state to fund education, and this has been a 
very important part of that.
    Ms. McConkie has more than 20 years' experience in natural 
resource and real estate development issues. As an attorney, 
she worked for private law firms, and as Senior Legal Counsel 
for the Trust Land Administration. She has also worked as the 
Managing Director for the Trust Lands Administration Surface 
Resource Group and the division responsible for managing and 
generating revenue from nearly 3.4 million acres.
    She holds a juris doctorate degree from S.J. Quinney 
College of Law at the University of Utah and a Bachelor of Arts 
degree in Political Science from the University of Utah.
    Thank you, Ms. McConkie, for being here today.

    Mr. Tiffany. You have 5 minutes, Ms. McConkie.

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE McCONKIE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF UTAH SCHOOL 
 AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION, SALT LAKE CITY, 
                              UTAH

    Ms. McConkie. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and other members of the Committee for the opportunity 
to testify today.
    I would also like to thank Congressman Curtis and Senator 
Lee, as well as the entire Utah Congressional Delegation for 
their work in connection with the legislation now before the 
Subcommittee.
    As was said, my name is Michelle McConkie. I am the 
Executive Director of the State of Utah School and 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration, which is a state 
agency that manages state trust lands that were granted by 
Congress at statehood for the financial support of public 
education and other state institutions.
    SITLA manages approximately 3.4 million acres of state 
trust lands and an additional 1 million acres of severed 
mineral estate. Revenue from activities on these lands is 
invested, and annual distributions are made to every public 
school in the state to help with each school's most pressing 
academic needs.
    H.R. 3049 would ratify and authorize implementation of a 
March 17, 2023 land exchange agreement between SITLA, Utah 
Governor Spencer Cox, and Secretary of the Interior Deb 
Haaland. That agreement is a product of over a year and a half 
of discussions between state, Federal land managers, local 
governments, and other interested stakeholders. The proposed 
exchange is supported by rural county governments, various 
stakeholders, Governor Cox, and the Utah State Legislature.
    The fundamental problem addressed by this legislation is 
the issue of scattered state land in-holdings embedded within 
Federal conservation areas, such as national parks, and 
associated land management conflicts. The designation of the 
Bears Ears National Monument captured more than 200 scattered 
tracts of state trust land within its outer boundaries, 
totaling over 126,000 acres.
    The state has been charged by Congress with managing these 
school trust lands for the financial benefit of Utah's public 
education system through revenue-generating activities. But 
restrictions on the use of surrounding Federal lands through 
establishment of the Monument will limit the utility of the in-
held state trust lands for economic development. And 
development of school trust lands within national monuments and 
other designations is directly at odds with the conservation 
purposes for which the surrounding Federal lands were set 
aside.
    These conflicting mandates and the checkerboard pattern of 
state trust lands in-holdings will make effective management of 
both state trust lands and the Monument itself very difficult, 
if not impossible. While the declaration of the Monument and 
its large geographic scope are matters of significant 
controversy and litigation between the state of Utah and the 
United States, both governments agree that trading out state 
land in-holdings is in everyone's best interest.
    Land exchanges are an effective solution to the management 
conflicts associated with in-holdings. In the last 25 years, 
the state of Utah and the United States have worked 
successfully to complete a series of large congressionally 
authorized land exchanges. The hallmark of each of these 
exchanges was their win-win nature. School trust lands with 
significant environmental values were placed into Federal 
ownership, while Federal lands with lesser environmental 
values, but greater potential for revenue generation were 
exchanged to the state.
    H.R. 3049 authorizes a conveyance to the United States of 
over 162,000 acres of Utah State school trust lands and 
minerals within and near the Bears Ears National Monument, as 
well as additional lands near the Bonneville Salt Flats of the 
Great Salt Lake and other areas of the state where management 
conflicts exist. In return, the state of Utah will receive 
approximately 167,000 acres of Federal lands located in 20 
counties throughout the state with lesser environmental 
sensitivity, but greater potential for generating revenue for 
Utah's public education system, which is, again, the purpose 
for which Congress originally granted trust lands to Utah and 
other Western states.
    These lands have been targeted for oil and gas development, 
mining, renewable energy projects, real estate development, and 
land sales. The proposed land exchange will allow our agency to 
do what it does best, make money for our public schools, while 
allowing the Department of the Interior to implement unified 
management of the Monument consistent with conservation goals.
    I respectfully urge the Subcommittee and Congress to 
approve H.R. 3049. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. McConkie follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Michelle McConkie, Director, Utah School and 
                Institutional Trust Lands Administration
                              on H.R. 3049

    Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. I would also like to thank Representative 
Curtis and Senator Lee, and their colleagues in the Utah Congressional 
delegation, for their work and assistance in connection with the 
legislation now before the Subcommittee.
    My name is Michelle McConkie, and I am the Director of the Utah 
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (``SITLA''), an 
independent state agency that manages state trust lands that were 
granted by Congress at statehood for the financial support of public 
education and other state institutions. In addition to public schools, 
beneficiaries of Utah's trust lands grants include the University of 
Utah, Utah State University, a hospital that provides healthcare to 
disabled miners, and the state schools for the blind and deaf. SITLA 
manages approximately 3.3 million acres of state trust lands, along 
with an additional million acres of severed mineral estate. Revenue 
from school trust lands--derived from oil and gas, mining, real estate 
development, and other activities, is deposited in the Utah Permanent 
School Fund, a perpetual endowment supporting public schools. The Utah 
Permanent School Fund has a balance of approximately $3.2 billion. 
Proceeds from the fund are distributed annually to every public school 
in the state to help with that school's most pressing academic needs.
    I encourage the Subcommittee, and Congress, to act favorably on 
H.R. 3049, the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 
Exchange Act of 2023. This legislation would ratify, and provide 
authority to implement, a March 17, 2023 land exchange agreement 
between SITLA, Utah Governor Spencer Cox, and Secretary of the Interior 
Deb Haaland. That agreement is the product of two years of discussions 
between the State, federal land managers, local governments, and other 
interested stakeholders. The proposed exchange is supported by rural 
county governments, various environmental groups, Governor Cox and the 
Utah legislature. We have worked hard to put together an exchange that 
will be fair and transparent financially, workable in implementation, 
and conducive to more effective land management by both the state and 
federal governments. We believe that this legislation meets all of 
these goals.
Management Conflicts Created by Federal Designations Surrounding State 
        Land Inholdings

    The fundamental problem addressed by this legislation is the issue 
of scattered state land inholdings embedded within federal conservation 
areas such as national monuments and other designations, and associated 
land management conflicts. The designation of the Bears Ears National 
Monument captured more than 200 scattered tracts of state trust land 
within its outer boundaries, totaling over 126,000 acres. The State has 
been charged by Congress with managing these school trust lands for the 
financial benefit of Utah's public education system. This is 
accomplished through mineral and real estate development and other 
revenue-generation activities. But restrictions on the use of 
surrounding federal lands, through establishment of the Monument, will 
limit the utility of the inheld state trust lands for economic 
development. And development of school trust lands within national 
monuments and other designations is directly at odds with the 
conservation purposes for which the surrounding federal lands were set 
aside. These conflicting mandates, and the checkerboard pattern of 
state trust lands inholdings, will make effective management of both 
state trust lands and the Monument itself very difficult if not 
impossible.
    While the declaration of the Monument, and its large geographic 
scope, are matters of significant controversy, and litigation, between 
the State of Utah and United States, both governments agree that 
trading out state land inholdings is in everyone's best interest.
The History of Land Exchanges as an Effective Solution

    Land exchanges are an effective solution to the management 
conflicts associated with inholdings. Exchanges can allow each 
government to manage consolidated lands as each party's land managers 
deem most advisable, without interference. In the last twenty-five 
years the State of Utah and the United States have worked successfully 
to complete a series of large congressionally-authorized land 
exchanges. These have included congressionally-mandated exchanges in 
1998 concerning the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, in 
2000 concerning federal wilderness in Utah's scenic West Desert, in 
2009 concerning sensitive recreational lands within river corridors, in 
2016 concerning the Utah Test and Training military range, and in 2019 
concerning federal wilderness designations in the San Rafael Swell area 
of central Utah.
    The hallmark of each of these exchanges was their ``win-win'' 
nature: school trust lands with significant environmental values were 
placed into federal ownership, while federal lands with lesser 
environmental values but greater potential for revenue generation were 
exchanged to the State, thus fulfilling the purpose of the school land 
grants--providing financial support for public education.
The Proposed Land Exchange

    H.R. 3049 authorizes the conveyance to the United States of 
approximately 162,510.81 acres of Utah state school trust lands and 
minerals within and near the Bears Ears National Monument, as well as 
additional lands near the Bonneville Salt Flats of the Great Salt Lake 
and other areas of the state where management conflicts exist. In 
return, the State of Utah will receive approximately 167,012.69 acres 
of federal lands located in 20 counties throughout the state with 
lesser environmental sensitivity but greater potential for generating 
revenue for Utah's public education system--again, the purpose for 
which Congress originally granted trust lands to Utah and the other 
western states. These lands have been targeted for oil and gas 
development, mining, renewable energy projects, real estate development 
and land sales. The proposed land exchange will allow our agency to do 
what it does best--make money for our public schools--while allowing 
the Department of Interior to implement unified management of the 
Monument consistent with conservation goals.
    A few specific features of the proposed exchange legislation about 
which members of the Subcommittee may have questions warrant mention:
Timing of conveyances
    Conveyances of the exchange lands by both governments are to be 
made within 45 days of enactment of the legislation. This will 
consolidate federal ownership within the Monument expeditiously to 
protect sensitive lands, avoid management conflicts, and permit both 
governments to achieve their goals.
Selection of Lands
    Lands to be acquired by the State of Utah were selected by SITLA 
for their revenue-generation potential with recognition of potential 
environmental concerns and the values that may be placed on them by 
Tribal Nations. The agency's internal experts combined their own 
knowledge and decades of combined experience with that of local 
governments and industry partners to select lands that will not only 
provide millions of dollars in revenue to Utah's school trust but will 
also provide economic development opportunities for rural communities. 
The selection targets have been reviewed by BLM staff and other 
stakeholders to assure that they avoid significant wildlife resources, 
endangered species habitat, significant archaeological, cultural, and 
historic resources, areas that are sacred or are traditionally, 
spiritually, or religiously significant to Tribal Nations, areas of 
critical environmental concern, coal resources requiring surface 
mining, wilderness study areas, and significant recreation areas.
Land Valuation
    Preliminary estimates indicate that the State and Federal exchange 
lands are of approximately equal value. The MOU and ratifying 
legislation, however, provide that all exchange lands will be subject 
to independent appraisals using uniform appraisal standards and the 
existing standards contained in the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act and its implementing regulations following conveyance. The 
independent appraisals will be subject to review by each party 
(including the Appraisal and Valuation Services Office (AVSO) for the 
Department of the Interior). This will confirm that lands are conveyed 
on an equal value basis.
    If any disparity in the total value of lands to be exchanged is 
found, an inventory of high-value state land, and federal land, has 
been identified in southwestern Utah to be added to one side of the 
exchange as necessary to achieve equalized values. The federal 
equalization land the State would receive, if necessary, comprises real 
estate development land of low environmental sensitivity in Warner 
Valley, near St. George, Utah. The state equalization land the United 
States would receive is important habitat for the threatened desert 
tortoise in the area of the Red Cliffs NCA in southwestern Utah.
Protection of Rights Held Under Outstanding Leases, Permits, and Other 
        Grants
    The MOU and legislation protect existing grazing permits, 
associated preference and renewal opportunities, access, the use of 
range improvements, and related rights on both the State and Federal 
land to be exchanged.
    Existing mineral leases, rights of way, and surface use agreements 
on the State and Federal lands are also protected, as are any rights 
found to be valid existing rights as of the date of conveyance.
Post-Exchange Land Management
    The majority of the state trust lands to be acquired by the United 
States are located within the exterior boundaries of the Bears Ears 
National Monument, while other parcels lie within designated areas of 
critical environmental concern, special recreation management areas, a 
wilderness study area, and other environmentally sensitive areas. The 
MOU and legislation provide that exchange lands acquired by the United 
States that lie within the Monument will be managed for Monument 
purposes. Similarly, any lands lying within federal wilderness areas, 
or wilderness study areas, shall be managed consistent with those 
designations.
    All land acquired by the State in the exchange shall be managed as 
state trust land pursuant to governing state law.
Conclusion

    As President Biden stated in his October 8, 2021 Proclamation, an 
agreement between the State of Utah and United States for the exchange 
of trust land inholdings for development lands located elsewhere is in 
the public interest. The March 17th MOU, as authorized and implemented 
by H.R. 3049, fulfills that purpose in a manner that is fair to both 
governments. It is the product of two years of discussions between 
State and Federal land managers, with input from local governments and 
other interested stakeholders, and has the support of Utah Governor 
Spencer Cox and the Utah Legislature. I respectfully urge the 
Subcommittee to approve it expeditiously.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you much, Director McConkie. Now, I 
would like to recognize the good lady from Colorado to 
introduce our next witness.
    Representative Boebert, you are recognized.

    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my 
honor to introduce Rose Pugliese, the Assistant Minority Leader 
in the Colorado General Assembly.
    When Rose moved to Mesa County, Colorado she did not know a 
single person. Utilizing the entrepreneurial spirit she learned 
from her parents, Rose took a chance and opened her own law 
firm. Shortly after, she became active and engaged in the 
community, and earned the trust of her clients.
    Rose is what she calls an accidental politician. I am kind 
of one of those, too, Rose, and it is almost your fault.
    Rose actually inspired me with a state-led ballot 
initiative to enshrine what our founders had the idea for in 
our country. And we wanted to protect those ideals. And it 
certainly inspired me to be where I am today.
    In 2008, she went down to the local party's headquarters 
for a yard sign and began to get more involved politically. 
Years later, Rose was successful in her bid for Mesa County 
Commissioner, and served Mesa County for 8 years very 
diligently.
    And thank you so much for that service.
    She is here today to testify in favor of the CONVEY Act to 
bring economic opportunities to Mesa County, Colorado through a 
simple land conveyance, and actually worked on this issue back 
when she served as a Mesa County Commissioner 5 years ago.
    Rose, I am so happy to have you here in our Committee 
today. Welcome to Washington, DC. Don't get stuck in the muck, 
but the time is now yours. Thank you so much for being here.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROSE PUGLIESE, ASSISTANT MINORITY LEADER, 
 COLORADO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

    Ms. Pugliese. Thank you, Congresswoman Boebert, Chairman of 
the Committee, Ranking Member Neguse, and all of the Committee 
members for this opportunity to be here today to talk about 
this very important issue which, while it is very specific to 
one area of the country, I think affects probably all of your 
districts at some point and at some level.
    I also want to thank the Bureau of Land Management for 
testifying in favor of this bill. We have had a continuing 
partnership for years, and I am really excited for the 
opportunity to see this project move forward because it is so 
important for economic development, and alongside with the 
support of Bureau of Land Management.
    I also want to thank my Congressman, Congressman Lamborn, 
and Congressman Buck for also helping sponsor this bill with 
the good Congresswoman from Colorado.
    The Clifton Opportunities Now for Vibrant Economic Yields 
Act is incredibly important. Mesa County is a county with about 
73 percent Federal land, which means that the Federal 
Government basically controls any economic development 
opportunities in that area because there is such a limit on 
private land for development.
    Mesa County, when you think of Colorado, you think of 
Denver and the city center. Mesa County is a large county. It 
is considered urban and rural, but it is the only large county 
on the western side of the state, and actually borders our 
friends in Utah.
    So, because of those rural characteristics, as you all 
know, rural communities consistently struggle with economic 
development and those opportunities. And then, add on top of 
that the immense and significant amount of Federal land, those 
opportunities are even more limited.
    So, we cannot rely on Payment In Lieu of Taxes, although 
when I was a County Commissioner I came to DC often, and I 
would be remiss if I missed an opportunity to ask for the long-
term and sustainable funding of PILT for these communities who 
really don't have that opportunity for economic development in 
the property tax, which counties depend on.
    So, this particular project is incredibly important to me. 
Clifton was in my district when I was a County Commissioner, 
and we were looking for economic development opportunities. And 
one of our staff had realized that there was this parcel of 
land that was just below I-70, so a major thoroughfare across 
the United States, and this property was on the BLM disposal 
list. So, we are, like, great, BLM no longer wants to manage it 
for the people of the United States. We could use that for 
economic development opportunities. Clifton is a pretty 
depressed area, and could really use some help in economic 
development opportunities.
    So, we had all sorts of ideas of grandeur of what this 
property could be used for. At that time it was just over 40 
acres. And BLM worked with us, and worked really well with us 
to be able to start that process of disposing of this land to 
the county so that we could use it for economic development 
opportunities.
    Then we found out, as the Bureau of Land Management was 
investigating title, that the Bureau of Reclamation also had an 
interest in this land. So, then we had to go through some more 
bureaucratic red tape, which leads us to, literally, an Act of 
Congress that it will take today to convey this land. But 
Bureau of Reclamation was holding up any sort of transfer. And 
that was incredibly frustrating, to be perfectly honest.
    So, I was really happy, Mr. Chair, when you were talking 
about the purpose of this Committee today, and what you are 
looking at, because when the Federal Government controls your 
economy and then stands in the way of economic development 
opportunities, it is incredibly frustrating for those 
communities, especially when nobody wanted this parcel of land. 
Nobody. So, then the county says, hey, let's use it for 
economic development, and they are like, oh, wait a second, the 
Federal Government might want to use this for some purpose.
    So, I do appreciate the opportunity and the hard work that 
Congresswoman Boebert has done to get us where we are today, 
which gives you all the opportunity to help not just Clifton, 
this is bigger than just Clifton, but the opportunity to open 
up potential economic development opportunities, especially 
with lands like this, which are probably happening in your 
communities, as well.
    So, I think bringing this issue to light is incredibly 
important to a Committee that actually has the power to do 
something about it. Today, it is just about Clifton, Colorado, 
and I implore you to support this legislation and move it 
forward. But tomorrow it will be another parcel of land in any 
one of your communities. So, I implore you to look at the 
disposal process, and make it more streamlined, and cut back 
the red tape so that communities like Mesa County, Colorado can 
benefit, the whole state of Colorado can benefit, but all of 
our nation can benefit because the productive use of Federal 
land is incredibly important.
    This is a good governance bill. It is an efficiency in 
government bill, and I ask for your support to move it forward. 
Thank you so much for this opportunity, and I look forward to 
any questions you might have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pugliese follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Rose Pugliese, Assistant Minority Leader, 
            Colorado House of Representatives (District 14)
                              on H.R. 2997

    Chairman and members of the committee: Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify in support of the Clifton Opportunities Now for 
Vibrant Economic Yields, known as ``the CONVEY Act.''
    Today, I ask for your consideration of the importance of this 
legislation and its potential to bring about significant economic 
growth and opportunity to our community and our country as a whole. 
Mesa County, Colorado, is located on the Western Slope of Colorado, 
bordering Utah, and approximately four hours from Denver. While it is a 
large county in population, it is located in a rural part of the state 
and has both urban and rural challenges.
    Rural areas of our country face difficult challenges related to 
obtaining economic development opportunities, but that challenge is 
elevated in areas of the country, especially in the Western United 
States, where counties have limited private land. As you are aware in 
your own communities, counties with significant amounts of federal land 
are largely dependent on the federal government for economic 
development opportunities. Mesa County, Colorado, for instance, is over 
72% federal land. As you know, it is difficult for counties to rely on 
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (``PILT'') from the federal government as it 
has been consistently threatened. During my years as a Mesa County 
Commissioner, I, along with County Commissioners from across Colorado 
and the United States, advocated for the sustainability of PILT 
funding.
    For over five years, Mesa County has been diligently pursuing the 
acquisition of a parcel of land that the Bureau of Land Management has 
designated for disposal and no longer serves a purpose for the federal 
government. This land holds immense value for Mesa County as it 
presents a critical opportunity for economic development in Clifton, an 
area of the county that has struggled economically and is in desperate 
need of new opportunities.
    By introducing the CONVEY Act, which directs the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey 31.1 acres of land, that the federal government no 
longer wishes to manage to Mesa County for economic development 
purposes in Clifton, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, Congressman Doug 
Lamborn and Congressman Ken Buck are working toward a common-sense 
solution to aid an underserved community in Colorado that deserves a 
prosperous future. The bill ensures that Mesa County, Colorado, will 
pay fair market value for the land, guaranteeing a fair transaction for 
all parties involved.
    The economic potential of this land cannot be understated. By 
facilitating industry and business growth in Clifton, Mesa County can 
attract job creators and foster an environment that encourages economic 
prosperity and will directly and positively impact our community, 
providing employment opportunities and enhancing our residents' overall 
quality of life. It will also aid in putting this property back on the 
property tax rolls.
    The CONVEY Act also ensures that funds from the sale of this land 
will be deposited into the Federal Land Disposal Account, established 
by the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, and retained by the 
Bureau of Land Management Colorado office to be used within the state, 
which means that the economic benefits of this transaction will extend 
beyond Mesa County, Colorado and contribute to the overall welfare of 
not just Colorado, but the whole country. It will also decrease costs 
of management of this parcel of land by the Bureau of Land Management, 
which will contribute to increased efficiency of our federal 
government.
    The Board of County Commissioners would like to express our deep 
gratitude to Congresswoman Boebert for her tireless efforts to cut 
through the bureaucratic red tape that has hindered Mesa County 
Colorado's progress and the unwavering support of Congressman Lamborn 
and Congressman Buck. If passed, it will have literally taken an act of 
Congress to get this land that the federal government no longer wanted 
off the disposal list and back into productive use.
    The CONVEY Act presents a unique and invaluable opportunity for 
Mesa County, Colorado, to promote economic development and create new 
avenues of growth in Clifton in partnership and collaboration with the 
federal government. I urge this committee to support this legislation 
and allow the economic potential that lies within this land to be 
realized.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Pugliese, we 
appreciate it very much.
    I would like to now recognize Representative Fulcher to 
introduce our next witness.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to introduce a friend and a fellow Idahoan, John 
Stuart.
    John is President and CEO of MTE Communications, based in 
Midvale, Idaho. MTE is a 114-year-old communications provider 
that started out providing multi-party phone services to 
farmers in Idaho. And today, MTE has upgraded to digital 
switches and fiber home services, which can deliver gigabit 
broadband speeds. MTE is 100 percent employee owned, and serves 
over 2,000 square miles, including over 3,800 customers in 
Idaho and Arizona.
    Most importantly, John is very involved with family and 
community. So, thank you, John, for coming all the way from 
Idaho for this important hearing today.

       STATEMENT OF JOHN STUART, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MTE 
                 COMMUNICATIONS, MIDVALE, IDAHO

    Mr. Stuart. Thank you, Congressman Fulcher, Chairman 
Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you and testify in favor of H.R. 4141, the Broadband for 
Americans Responsible Streamlining Act.
    The legislation under consideration provides a measured and 
reasonable streamlining of Federal permitting rules to ensure 
that broadband can be deployed quickly to unserved and 
underserved communities.
    As Congressman Fulcher said, I am John Stuart. I am 
President and CEO of MTE Communications. I am also testifying 
on behalf of WTA Advocates for Rural Broadband, who I serve as 
a Director. And I am also a Past President of the Idaho 
Telephone Association.
    I have made more than a few trips over my career to 
Washington, DC. While there are many subjects that people 
disagree on, I have noticed that most everyone is in agreement 
that all Americans need to be connected to high-speed 
broadband. It is vital for communication, public service, 
public safety, commerce, health care, education, and more. I am 
heartened that Congress and the Biden administration have made 
it a priority to connect every American household to the 
Internet within 4 to 5 years. This is a bold goal. It is a 
correct one. However, the time it takes to acquire permits and 
to use existing right-of-ways puts that goal in jeopardy. 
Current interpretation and implementation of Federal, 
environmental, and historic preservation laws impose 
unreasonable and unnecessary delays and costs.
    Regardless of the technology deployed, MTE and companies 
like it always want to make use of existing right-of-ways to 
co-locate their equipment in existing buildings, towers, and 
other facilities. However, the networks built by small 
providers that are supported by Federal broadband programs like 
USDA's Reconnect or NTIA's coming BEAD program will 
automatically trigger reviews by NEPA and NHPA, whether we 
build on Federal lands or not.
    It is common after filing a permit to expect waits of 18 to 
24 months or longer to receive permission to start 
construction. In states like Idaho, where construction seasons 
are short, these delays have even greater impact because they 
can push the start of construction for another 6 to 8 months. 
The brunt of these delays are borne by Americans who wait years 
longer than they would otherwise to get broadband service they 
so desperately need.
    In one instance, MTE recently had an RUS-funded fiber 
project delayed for 3 years because of permitting. The route 
would have gone within an existing road right-of-way that 
crossed near an identified cultural site.
    Time doesn't permit me to go into other examples, but there 
are plenty of examples in my written testimony.
    The bottom line is if right-of-ways have already been 
established, and past construction of roads and existing 
utilities have already required surveys on the disturbed 
ground, it is inefficient to require additional reviews. Every 
Federal dollar diverted to repeated permitting requirements is 
dollars that are not invested in the networks. MTE and 
companies like it serve rural America, and we want to ensure 
our communities have the same communication connections that 
people living in urban America.
    We also care about our natural environment and historic 
preservation. However, lacking reform, current implementation 
of our environmental protection and historical preservation 
laws threatens to delay and add cost to the goal of getting 
broadband service to every American household.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this 
important issue. I look forward to answering any questions that 
the Committee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stuart follows:]
       Prepared Statement of John Stuart, President and CEO, MTE 
                             Communications
                              on H.R. 4141

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 
testify in favor of H.R. 4141, the Broadband for Americans Through 
Responsible Streamlining Act and, more generally, about the need for 
reforming the permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects 
on federal lands and in existing rights-of-way. The legislation under 
consideration provides measured and reasonable streamlining of federal 
permitting rules to ensure broadband can be deployed quickly to 
unserved and underserved communities.
Introduction

    I am John Stuart, President and CEO of MTE Communications (MTE) 
based in Midvale, Idaho. I am also testifying on behalf of WTA--
Advocates for Rural Broadband, on whose Board of Directors I serve. WTA 
represents more than 370 small rural telecommunications providers from 
across the county. I am also the former President of the Idaho Telecom 
Alliance and currently serve as its Past-President. I have worked in 
the telecommunications industry for my entire life while also being 
involved in many community organizations including the City of Weiser's 
Planning and Zoning Commission and two volunteer firefighter 
departments.
    MTE was started 114 years ago to mainly provide switchboard 
telephone services to farmer owned multi-party telephone lines. In 
1943, Verde and Charlette Williams, my grandparents through marriage, 
purchased MTE and were active in the company until Verde's passing in 
1991.
    In 1977, my mother, Mary Williams, and her husband, Lane Williams, 
moved back to Midvale to run the company. In 1987, I moved my family to 
the area to join the company.
    In the early 1980s, MTE acquired its first loan from USDA's Rural 
Utilities Service (RUS), which was used to upgrade the outside plant to 
enable single party telephone service and install our first digital 
switch. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, our company made a concerted 
effort to expand telephone service to the unserved areas of our 
regulated service area. These efforts include expansion of MTE's 
service territory to several unserved and underserved communities in 
rural Arizona through greenfield builds and one acquisition. Over the 
past decade, MTE's focus has been to upgrade our network to last-mile 
fiber-optic facilities in order to provide the latest services over 
broadband. Over the years, our network has been upgraded to where our 
broadband now reaches Gigabit speeds via fiber facilities. In 2008, the 
owners of MTE sold the company to the employees creating an Employee 
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The ESOP is now 100% owned by the employee 
trust.
    Today, MTE's combined regulated service area in Idaho and Arizona 
is over 2000 square miles and includes over 3800 customers. MTE also 
provides services in several areas competitively using copper, fiber, 
and wireless technologies.
    There are nearly 800 family-owned and cooperatively-owned rural 
broadband providers, very similar to MTE, around the country. We serve 
these rural communities because the large, regional and national 
providers avoided them due to the lack of a business case for serving 
such sparsely populated areas. We would not be able to provide the 
level of service we do without the Federal Universal Service Fund, 
which is administered by the Federal Communications Commission. We also 
make use of various rural broadband programs run by the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, and many of my industry colleagues are looking forward 
to participating in the historic Broadband Equity, Access, and 
Deployment (BEAD) Program created by Congress in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act.
Importance of Broadband

    I've made more than a few trips to Washington, D.C. over my career. 
While there are many subjects that people disagree on in this city, I 
have noticed that one thing most everyone is in agreement on is that 
all Americans need to be connected to high-speed broadband. It is vital 
for communication, public safety, commerce, health care, education, and 
more. I'm heartened that Congress and the Biden Administration have 
made it a priority through various federal programs to connect every 
American household to the Internet within the next four to five years. 
This is a bold goal, and it's the right one. However, the time it takes 
to acquire permits to cross federal lands puts this goal in jeopardy. 
Current interpretation and implementation of federal environmental and 
historic preservation laws impose unreasonable and unnecessary delays 
and costs.
Permitting Reform is Needed

    In general, when small broadband providers like MTE build networks, 
we bury fiber underground to the extent we can. In some instances, we 
string fiber along existing poles. In more remote, rugged areas, we 
might use fixed wireless or even microwave technology. Regardless of 
the technology deployed, we are nearly always making use of existing 
rights-of-way or looking to co-locate equipment with existing 
buildings, towers, and other facilities. Very rarely are we ever 
digging trenches through previously undisturbed ground or looking to 
put towers where there isn't any existing infrastructure.
    Because of our location in the rural, mountain west, we often need 
to cross federal land, usually administered and managed by the Forest 
Service or the Bureau of Land Management, but also land administered by 
other federal agencies. Even when federal land is not involved, the 
networks built by small internet service providers (ISPs) that receive 
support from federal broadband programs like USDA's ReConnect Program 
or NTIA's BEAD Program will trigger reviews under the National 
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA).
    These reviews greatly increase the length of time it takes to 
complete projects and the cost of building our networks. In general, 
after filing for permits, companies like MTE expect waits of 18 months 
to two years, if not longer, to receive permission to start 
construction. In states like Idaho, where the construction season is 
short, these delays have an even greater impact because they can push 
the start of construction off for another six to eight months. While 
the delays and additional costs are frustrating for small ISPs and 
should frustrate federal policymakers and taxpayers, the brunt of these 
delays are borne by the Americans who wait years longer than they would 
have otherwise to get the broadband they so desperately need.
    Over the years that MTE has expanded service to unserved 
communities, we have financed both environmental and cultural surveys 
and studies of the rights-of-way where we have placed underground 
facilities. All these activities add time and cost to the deployment of 
service. Some added multiple construction seasons to the projects. Most 
of the rights-of-way where our facilities have been placed mainly 
contain non-native fill materials from the road construction. Routine 
road maintenance often involves spraying herbicide to keep vegetation 
back from the road.
    In one instance, we were required to bore through subsurface rock 
along a state highway within the right-of-way next to an active rock 
quarry used by the Idaho Transportation Department. This was required 
to avoid a reported Native American rock chipping site, even though the 
entire area within the right-of-way has several feet of non-native fill 
material. The study and review added more than a year to the project 
completion.
    Another more recent example is our Round II ReConnect award to 
provide fiber-to-the-home service in four geographically diverse 
service areas. Under RUS rules, environmental clearance must be 
received for the entire award area before any final engineering can be 
completed. In one of the service areas, the preliminary design 
forecasted the underground facility to be placed along the edge of a 
road on federally controlled land that homeowners use daily to access 
their residences located on private land. The road crossed 
approximately 400 feet of an identified cultural site outside the road 
area. The review process not only added tens of thousands of dollars to 
the cost of the deployment of service, but it also delayed the start of 
the entire $10 million Reconnect package by two years in the other 
service areas and has delayed the start of service deployment in the 
impacted area by three years.
    Unfortunately, MTE is not unique in this regard. Another small, 
rural company in our industry reports that it took two years to get 
permission to bury fiber along an existing power line corridor.
    Another company, located in eastern Oregon in Congressman Bentz's 
district, had a permit for existing conduit on federal land, but had to 
file an additional permit to put new fiber through it. The company 
applied in the fall of 2018, hoping to get the work completed by the 
summer of 2019. The permit wasn't approved until October 2020, which, 
because of the short construction season, delayed construction until 
2021.
    A third company applied for a permit to bury 120 feet of fiber in 
February 2018 in previously disturbed ground. It did not receive the 
permit until October 2019, some 20 months later.
    Another company waited about 16 months to receive a federal permit 
to string 150 yards of fiber on existing power lines.
    In another example, a company applied to put a larger microwave 
antenna on an existing tower. Neither the height nor the footprint of 
the tower was going to change, but it took 12 months for the Forest 
Service to approve this request.
    This is, by no means, an exhaustive list.
    Not only does the current permitting process delay access to much 
needed service, it adds cost to network buildout. For MTE's ReConnect 
project mentioned earlier, the additional costs amounted to over 
$20,000.
    Another family-owned company is in the process of completing a 
project also funded by USDA's ReConnect Program. They are required to 
hire an archeologist to survey various points along the 120 miles of 
their project to ensure no artifacts are present despite the 
construction being within state and county road rights-of-way. This 
will likely add over $100,000 to the cost of the project. This ground 
has presumably already been surveyed and disturbed during construction 
of the roads.
    If rights-of-way have already been established and past 
construction of roads and existing utilities have already required 
surveys and disturbed the ground, it is inefficient to require 
additional reviews. Every federal dollar diverted to duplicative 
permitting requirements is another dollar that is not invested in 
networks. This constrains the reach and effectiveness of the broadband 
programs that Congress authorized. For this reason, the rural broadband 
industry I represent support the objectives of H.R. 4141, which 
provides a streamlined process for environmental and archeological 
reviews for broadband projects in previously permitted and disturbed 
ground and existing rights-of-way.
Conclusion

    In closing, I understand that if broadband providers are seeking to 
bury fiber or construct infrastructure in untouched, undisturbed areas, 
that it is proper to survey the area for historic preservation purposes 
and potential environmental issues. But the vast majority of broadband 
construction does not take place in pristine, untouched land. Roads and 
other utilities have already been approved and permits granted.
    MTE, and companies like it, serve rural America because the people 
who work for them live there. We want to ensure our families, friends, 
and neighbors have the same communications connections that people 
living in urban America have. We also care about our natural 
environment and historic preservation. However, lacking reform, current 
implementation of our environmental protection and historical 
preservation laws threatens to delay and add great cost to the goal of 
getting broadband to every American household.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this important 
issue. I look forward to answering any questions you might have for me.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Stuart, and I will now 
recognize Members for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher, you have 5 minutes for questions.

    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Stuart, thanks for coming today. I briefly 
want to cover a few points in your line of business.
    First, what need is there for Internet to be provided to 
rural areas in the West? If you could just quantify that, why 
the need for Internet in rural areas?
    Mr. Stuart. I don't know that there is anything that 
doesn't require the Internet anymore, whether it is education, 
health care.
    In our communities, you could have an hour's drive to the 
nearest doctor. So, being able to do tele-medicine at a remote 
location at somebody's home, if they are elderly or it is 
difficult for them to get there, it is critical.
    Education is the same way. During COVID, there were a lot 
of people that were at home doing schooling and, of course, 
work from home, as well.
    So, I don't know of any part of our society or economy that 
isn't built on the Internet anymore.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, when you are expanding fiber, for example, 
for a certain area, how careful are you in terms of the 
environmental considerations, property rights, and the 
historical aspects of the land when you do an expansion like 
that?
    Mr. Stuart. Many of the areas that we work in are our 
communities. Our employees live in those areas. So, not only do 
we have to do the construction there, but we have to live 
there. So, if we disturb somebody's property, or a cultural 
site, or something in the environment, we are not just going to 
walk away and not be there in a few months. We have a vested 
interest in those areas, as companies like ours that live and 
work in those areas.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    When you are looking to expand broadband into a rural area, 
you are already taking into consideration how delicate you need 
to be when you are installing additional lines.
    With that, what can the Federal Government do to make it 
easier for broadband providers like yourself to install more 
broadband access to areas that may include large amounts of 
Federal lands?
    Mr. Stuart. If it is pre-disturbed areas, a road has been 
built, and understanding that roads rarely use the native 
materials, that is usually not roadbed material to hold weight 
and that sort of thing, especially state highways, not having 
to do full reviews in those areas that have already been 
reviewed, they have already been disturbed, there are no native 
materials in many cases in those areas, being able to not 
really bypass, but not have to comply with all of the 
requirements of either NEPA or the National Preservation Act, 
not having those triggers would be very helpful and speed us 
up, in many cases, many years.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, that is a conversation point we frequently 
have on this Committee, Mr. Stuart. What you are saying is not 
the first time we have heard that, you might imagine.
    Just finally, can you speak to the increased benefits to 
your customers in terms of their quality of life, their health, 
job opportunities when they have access to actual broadband?
    Mr. Stuart. It is probably the same answer as the first 
question. It provides them the ability to do things that they 
would have to travel a long ways to go do, whether it is 
school, medical, or economic, being able to order something 
through the Internet and have it delivered, rather than having 
to drive 50, 60 miles to a store to pick something up. So, 
there are great economic benefits to that.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. Thank you for your 
testimony. And we can relate to your colleague right next to 
you there, Ms. Pugliese, if I pronounced that correctly.
    You said there was 73 percent Federal land within your 
county. And within our state it is close to that for the entire 
state. So, we can relate, and thank you for that.
    Mr. Stuart, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Fulcher. Next, I would like to 
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, 
thank you for hosting this hearing, and my apologies for being 
a little bit delayed, but grateful for your willingness to 
consider the bills that this Committee is considering today. I 
am certainly supportive of the bill that Mr. Curtis, my good 
friend from Utah, has introduced, as well as Mr. Morelle, Ms. 
Plaskett, whom I know we heard from a little while ago.
    And, again, I am grateful that this Subcommittee continues 
to be as engaging and, I think, adopting a robust portfolio of 
policies, as was the case when I chaired the Subcommittee in 
the last Congress. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have quick questions about H.R. 2997. Building off a 
point that our former Ranking Member, Mr. Fulcher, made, my 
district in Colorado is 52, 53 percent Federal land. And, of 
course, as many of you know, a number of counties in the 
Western Slope, we struggle and have had obstacles in terms of 
interactions with the BLM on land exchanges. So, that is 
certainly an area that I think is ripe for further improvement.
    As Ms. Pugliese, I hope I pronounced it right, my last name 
is a tough name to pronounce, so I will apologize in advance. 
But as you have, I think, suggested, there is some real room 
for reform, in my view, that is substantive and structural.
    I guess one issue I am trying to resolve in H.R. 2997, and 
the question could go to our witness from the BLM, is how this 
legislation would work in practice. As I read the text of the 
bill, it essentially directs the BLM to convey this land, I 
think the phrase is ``as soon as practicable.'' But I don't 
read any time period or prescriptive requirement that the BLM 
do this on a particular timetable. Am I misreading that?
    If this bill were to be signed into law, let's say, a year-
and-a-half from now by President Biden, would this enable you 
to skip or disregard the sort of existing procedures that are 
in place for disposal of property? I am just trying to get a 
better sense of how this would work in practice.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Representative Neguse.
    The main difference that would happen from the bill is 
there is not a timeline. We would follow normal procedures for 
appraisal and exchange. The challenge----
    Mr. Neguse. But aren't you doing that now?
    Ms. Culver. We are. With this particular parcel, the 
challenge is that originally this parcel was conveyed to the 
Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Grand Valley Reclamation 
Project. So, this would allow us to skip the ongoing step we 
have underway to have that land returned to the Bureau of Land 
Management's management, so that we can convey it to Mesa 
County.
    Mr. Neguse. And what does that step entail? Or why is that 
step taking particularly long?
    Ms. Culver. It requires the issuance of separate public 
land orders for the withdrawal to be revoked, sorry to use many 
technical terms here that may not convey accurately, but, 
basically, through our process the land was conveyed to the use 
of the Bureau of Reclamation for an irrigation project.
    Mr. Neguse. Sure. But I guess I am trying to understand. 
Why wouldn't the Secretary just simply do that now?
    Ms. Culver. We are underway, and have been working toward 
that, and we think we are making good progress.
    Mr. Neguse. OK, let me ask this a different way, because, 
obviously, this bill, this is a legislative hearing. So, this 
is step 1 of 12 steps, or however many steps it takes to get to 
the President's desk. How long do you anticipate that process 
taking right now, absent this legislation?
    Ms. Culver. I think we believe the process would speed up 
somewhat from skipping that step, but it would not change the 
effort that would be required to exchange the lands.
    Mr. Neguse. OK. Maybe I am asking this a different way, and 
maybe I am misunderstanding it. What is it about that step, as 
a technical matter, what does that step entail? Is it 
convincing the Secretary of the Interior to issue a reversal 
order?
    Ms. Culver. I don't think we would have to convince the 
Secretary of the Interior. So, thank you for that question. We 
are supportive of the process, and are underway in completing 
these documents. It requires surveys, it requires preparation 
of documents so that the Bureau of Reclamation can essentially 
give back their jurisdiction over the land as part of this 
irrigation project.
    Mr. Neguse. OK. Well, I guess what I would say--and I 
recognize I am out of time.
    Mr. Tiffany. I am going to give you a couple----
    Mr. Neguse. You will indulge me, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Neguse. I guess what I would say is I am a little bit 
more confused now than I was at the outset of the hearing, 
because it is not clear to me why that step is taking so long, 
and why the legislation--it sounds like, essentially, the 
position of the BLM is that this legislation would enable you 
to skip the step, which you support. But if that is the case, 
is there no way for you to, as an agency, expedite that step 
internally?
    And if you don't have the existing authority, then I think 
it goes to the point that Ms. Pugliese was noting, that we 
ought to think about how we reform the process in and of 
itself, statutorily, so that you don't have to go through this 
exercise for these land exchanges that the agency agrees with, 
and that the local county government agrees with.
    And I am happy to give you an opportunity to respond, but 
maybe I am just getting too technical about this one step, of 
understanding why that is taking a longer period of time.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you. I appreciate your point. I know that 
our local BLM has been working hard with the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and we feel we are making progress.
    We also support the bill. We will get this done. We are 
committed to getting it done, one way or another, and I am 
happy to provide more specific information on the process that 
has occurred to date.
    Mr. Neguse. If the bill--and now I know you are really 
indulging me--but let's say clearly the BLM does not believe 
that that process is necessary, because it supports the bill 
waiving the process. Does the BLM have existing authority under 
the law to do that, absent this bill?
    Ms. Culver. If I understand your question, we do not have 
the authority to waive the step that we are currently, we 
believe, close to completing of transferring the land back from 
the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Mr. Neguse. OK. So, I think what I would suggest is perhaps 
we should have a larger conversation as a Committee as to 
whether or not there should be legislation that gives the BLM 
Director--of course, exercised through his or her deputies at 
the regional level--to waive that step of the process if they 
deem it in the best interests of the agency and the land being 
conveyed, because this is a long process.
    So, notwithstanding this legislation that we are 
considering, it is an Act of Congress, and it is going to have 
to go through a pretty extended process to get through the 
Senate and the House, and so on and so forth. So, that seems 
like maybe a more time-effective way of achieving that.
    But in any event, thank you for your testimony. I thank all 
the witnesses, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Once again, you can't waive the process, to 
the question that the Ranking Member was asking.
    Ms. Culver. We cannot currently waive the process to revoke 
the existing withdrawal to the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK, thank you. Next, I would like to recognize 
Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I said in my opening remarks, I am happy to see this 
legislation before us today. I appreciate the Committee's 
effort to bring this forward.
    Ms. McConkie, to oversimplify the SITLA's mission, you own 
land throughout the state. I wish we could actually hold up a 
map and show people. If you could picture in your mind a 
checkerboard, and then randomly select checkers, boxes, it is 
not like it is an organized checkerboard, it is these random 
boxes. These could be on the side of a mountain, they could be 
in the midst of a sacred, ancient Native American site, they 
could be in all of these random places. And your mission is to 
maximize these parcels for revenue, and as we mentioned, among 
other things, for the schoolchildren.
    And what we have before us today is a solution that goes 
into the designated Bears Ears Monument area, consolidates 
these and moves them out, thus protecting the areas within the 
Monument.
    Before I go on, there are few issues more controversial in 
my state than public lands, and Bears Ears is among those, very 
controversial. And I want to point out that this legislation 
does not codify the Bears Ears Monument. It simply is a totally 
separate issue. And I just think that is important for my folks 
back home for me to put on the record, that this isn't an 
acknowledgment that that discussion is over, but this is a 
separate issue.
    Also, Ms. McConkie, let me start with you. This is a win-
win if you put it in the perspective, I think, of the public 
lands in the state of Utah. But one of the problems you dealt 
with as this matured was that some of these lands moved outside 
the County of San Juan. And in a perfect world, we would be 
able to do all of these exchanges within San Juan County 
because there is potential revenue coming from these exchanges 
that San Juan is sending off to other counties.
    Could you just touch on that, and the work that you went 
through to try to deal with that the best you could?
    Ms. McConkie. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, thank you for 
the opportunity to talk about this issue.
    San Juan County has been in a really difficult situation 
for many years because 6 percent of the land is private. The 
rest is either state land or overwhelmingly Federal land. And 
we have worked really hard with the County Commission. We have 
worked with different levels of different local government. We 
have had open houses. We have had a lot of feedback and really 
listened. We took their suggestions, we looked at the maps. BLM 
has been wonderful, and has really worked hard with us to find 
solutions that would work.
    And we have been able to keep a third of the land in San 
Juan County. And I do realize that a third is not a whole, but 
the third that they are getting is going to be consolidated 
into areas that have critical mineral development potential, 
oil and gas potential, real estate development potential. It 
has economic development potential that the scattered lands 
within what is now a national monument do not have.
    It was always difficult for us to make money off of these 
lands. We have made about $80,000 a year, typically, on 
grazing, historically. This allows us to be able to have 
economic development through all of these different industry 
uses. We have already had door knocks from industry on some of 
these lands. And it also allows us to make money for school 
children.
    Mr. Curtis. I think it is important to hone in for just a 
minute that two-thirds of this land is going outside of San 
Juan County, and that San Juan County in some ways is taking 
one for the team of the state of Utah, if that makes sense. And 
I think it is important to acknowledge that, in a perfect 
world, we would have been able to keep all of that in San Juan 
County, and recognizing as a state we need to do all we can to 
help those in San Juan County. Imagine trying to run a county 
with 6 percent of that land available for revenue. So, thank 
you for that.
    Deputy Director, we often talk in this hearing about Native 
American tribes. Could you just touch on how this impacts the 
Native American tribes in the area, and the efforts to reach 
out to them, and also their level of support for this?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Congressman Curtis. Yes, this area, 
the Bears Ears National Monument area and much of the 
surrounding area, is incredibly dense in both sacred sites and 
other examples of history. And there are many tribes that have 
ties to this region, in particular, as recognized in the 
monument proclamation, there are five tribes that make up the 
Bears Ears Commission.
    We worked hard to keep them updated as we worked on these 
maps. And also they have submitted, the Bears Ears Commission, 
signed by all five tribal members, a letter of support for this 
exchange.
    Mr. Curtis. I know I am out of time. If you would indulge 
me just a minute, Mr. Chairman, that is a big deal. These are 
five tribes, different geographic locations, different 
interests. And it is rare when they actually come together as a 
unified group and speak out. So, I want to acknowledge how 
important that is, that they have spoken out in support of 
this, and how that is no small accomplishment.
    I wish I had more time for both of you to talk about this. 
Thank you for making the journey out, Ms. McConkie.
    Thank you for being here, Deputy Director.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I am being particularly generous today to 
you gentlemen. Next, I would like to recognize Representative 
Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I often hear from my constituents back home in northern 
Minnesota about how Washington gets it wrong. Without a clear 
understanding of how policies, often one-size-fits-all, 
actually affect our constituents back home, we are going to 
continue to miss the mark.
    I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Fulcher, 
for his leadership on H.R. 4141, which streamlines the 
permitting process for broadband projects, especially in rural 
districts like the one I represent.
    I find it fascinating that, yet again, we are coming back 
to permitting reform. The challenges we face in regard to rural 
broadband access is just another example where burdensome and 
slow permitting processes are holding our communities back.
    Mr. Stuart, the challenges you outlined in your testimony 
are very similar to those my constituents faced in northern 
Minnesota. As you shared, due to the difficult NEPA process, 
rural broadband projects can take years to get through, and 
most of the timeline is eaten up by permitting long before a 
single shovel is even in the ground or any real work done. What 
kind of impacts do these delays have on the local communities 
and the communities that you serve?
    Mr. Stuart. It just delays the availability of services.
    And a lot of the bill does talk to a wireless provider, and 
we should remember that ground fiber or underground fiber feeds 
those towers. So, it may be wireless service from the tower to 
your device, but that tower is fed by fiber. And in many cases, 
that is the local company that is providing that, and we do 
that, as well, in very remote areas.
    So, permitting being slow to get additional bandwidth to 
those towers, as well as the local residents being delayed, 
just drives up costs. And as I spoke to, those costs just take 
away dollars from us deploying additional network.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Ms. Culver, it is good to see you again. In your written 
testimony, you shared that the Bureau of Land Management cannot 
support this legislation, and effectively argue that we need to 
allow the time-consuming NEPA process to play out.
    We are through COVID now. We saw the devastation of the 
lack of broadband to rural constituents across this nation, 
what students had to do, what parents had to do. Does the 
Bureau of Land Management consider the impacts that not moving 
forward with a rural broadband project or another 
infrastructure project will have on a community and its local 
economy, similar to what Mr. Stuart just shared with us?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the opportunity to address that 
issue.
    I think it is also in my testimony, we strongly support the 
ability of Federal rights-of-way to bring broadband to rural 
communities. We are working on a broadband rule that would help 
to streamline that. We have categorical exclusions from the 
reviews that allow us to site in existing rights-of-way, as 
well. And we would love to work with the sponsor on the bill so 
we can support it.
    Mr. Stauber. Just specific to my question, does the Bureau 
of Land Management look at the potential negative effects of 
not moving forward with the project in a timely manner?
    Ms. Culver. When we conduct our analysis of a project, we 
look at the costs and benefits of the proposed project.
    Mr. Stauber. But do you look at the negative benefits of 
delaying a project coming into a community, like Mr. Stuart?
    Ms. Culver. Certainly, we look at the importance of 
achieving the purpose of those projects.
    Mr. Stauber. Here is what I am hearing back home: 
Washington, DC bureaucrats do not think rural America matters. 
Agencies actively work to hinder projects that would propel our 
constituents forward and make them more successful, all because 
they think our communities are their playgrounds.
    Northern Minnesota is where I live, I work, I raise my 
family, and I recreate. This is, unfortunately, another example 
where we are held back from doing the right thing due to the 
one-size-fits-all policies developed here in Washington, DC. 
The existing permitting policies don't consider our 
constituents. They are holding us back from making progress in 
our communities for no good reason. Rural America matters.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize Mr. Moylan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 
have further discussion with the Deputy Director regarding the 
bill by Virgin Islands on H.R. 3025, which you are disagreeing 
with.
    Can you further clarify the amount of park land that BLM 
oversees, what is the percentage of that land compared to the 
total land mass? How much park land is there?
    Ms. Culver. Thanks for the question, Congressman. The 
National Park Service manages national park lands, so I don't 
have those figures at my fingertips. The Bureau of Land 
Management doesn't manage----
    Mr. Moylan. That is fine. But we heard a statement from the 
delegate here that it is a majority of the land there. Right? 
And the National Park Service is struggling to maintain that 
land. And the total land mass of St. Johns in the Virgin 
Islands is 19.6 miles. It is a very small area with less than 
4,000 people. The price of land is really high there, and I am 
understanding from the report provided by our Natural Resources 
here that housing is in a crisis. And there was an attempt 
there to do some exchange for land to build a pre-K to 12th 
grade public school, which was turned down. Is that correct?
    Ms. Culver. The National Park Service has submitted 
testimony for the record. It is my understanding that they are 
in discussions, and they certainly share the concerns of the 
Congresswoman with supporting the local community.
    Mr. Moylan. Is BLM in favor of the Congresswoman's concern?
    Ms. Culver. The Bureau of Land Management doesn't have a 
position on that bill.
    Mr. Moylan. I would hope that the Bureau of Land Management 
can support that, because it sounds like a relationship based 
on this property here is not in good terms with the residents 
of the Virgin Islands.
    I also understand that there is $82 million in deferred 
maintenance costs for the residents of St. John's. Again, you 
are going to reference that to the other Service, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Culver. Again, the National Park Service manages that 
land, so if there are questions I would be happy to ensure that 
they can be responded to by the Park Service.
    Mr. Moylan. So, is BLM in favor of this measure, H.R. 3025. 
Your statement was in favor of this measure offered by the 
Delegate?
    Ms. Culver. The Bureau of Land Management has not taken a 
position on the bill about the national park in the Virgin 
Islands.
    Mr. Moylan. OK. Well, I hope you can work with them kindly 
to give your interest in support of what the Delegate is 
asking, please.
    Ms. Culver. I think the National Park Service would work to 
respond to questions that you all have, certainly.
    Mr. Moylan. I appreciate it. OK, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize for 5 minutes the gentlelady from Colorado.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Assistant Minority Leader Pugliese, I know that you 
mentioned this in your testimony, but when did you first start 
trying to make this conveyance happen in Mesa County?
    Ms. Pugliese. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you, Mr. 
Chair, for this opportunity to answer the question.
    I know it says more than 5 years, because before it even 
got through this BLM process we had started working on it. I 
spent basically my whole second term working on this project, 
which is 4 years.
    And 2 years after I had termed out, I am here today to 
implore you all to pass this CONVEY Act so that this parcel of 
land can be conveyed to Mesa County, a partner government 
agency with the Federal Government, because we all live in the 
same community. So, economic development opportunities benefit 
all of us, regardless of whether you live in Mesa County or in 
this particular area of Clifton, or in your respective 
communities.
    And I also just want to say I really do, at least in the 
experience I had, I really do appreciate the Bureau of Land 
Management because they did help us try to navigate this 
process. Where I believe it got derailed was when the Bureau of 
Reclamation came into play.
    And I also want to put on the record that they are 
withholding 8.5 acres of this land for their own Bureau of 
Reclamation project. So, that other 31.1 acres will be conveyed 
by the BLM to Mesa County for that economic opportunity. I 
think you can have both. And the Congresswoman has worked very 
well with both agencies to make this happen, but the fact that 
legitimately it is going to take an Act of Congress to get this 
land conveyed that nobody wanted before we raised our hands and 
said, ``Hey, we will take it and use it for the benefit of all 
of us,'' again, I think we can do better.
    Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. And even in my first term here I brought 
this issue up, and I was told by the agencies that it would not 
require an Act of Congress, that they were taking care of it, 
and that it would get done. But I saw that this was still being 
slow-rolled, and dug in deeper to see what we could do to 
actually help.
    And I know that you had countless calls, e-mails, meetings, 
and discussions with Federal agencies. So, thank you so much 
for your diligence, and really just being so steadfast on this 
issue. You truly are one of the great leaders for Mesa County. 
I know you are not in Mesa County anymore, but you left a 
legacy there, and there is so much that you have done for that 
community.
    And thanks to your leadership and County Commissioner Cody 
Davis, it seems like we are finally making progress here, 
especially given the Deputy Director's statement. I think that 
you would agree with that.
    And I would like to give a big thank you to the Bureau of 
Land Management and their staff for working closely with us on 
this bill over the past year. Principal Deputy Director Wolff 
Culver, Colorado BLM State Director Doug Vilsack, Carol Lee, 
and the two Gregs from Grand Junction, as we refer to them back 
home, they were all super helpful in providing this.
    Representative Pugliese, you testified that the economic 
potential of this land cannot be understated. Can you further 
discuss why this is so important for Clifton and Mesa County?
    Ms. Pugliese. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you, 
Chairman, for the time.
    Why it is so important for this particular area is this is 
a depressed area. It is an area we have been trying to get 
economic development going because that area has struggled. It 
has struggled for decades.
    And the problem that we run into, as we talked about, was 
that 73 percent of Mesa County is Federal land, more than half 
of that is in BLM. So, there are such limited opportunities for 
private land. When you have a property that is on the disposal 
list in a depressed area that could really contribute to 
economic vitality for that whole community, and that whole 
county and the state as a whole, I think tying it up in 
bureaucratic red tape is not the way we should be working in 
partnership with our county governments at the Federal level, 
especially when so much of that land is in BLM, at least for 
Mesa County.
    And I also want to note for the record that the Federal 
Land Disposal Account, when that property is finally 
transferred, we all, the people of the United States, will all 
benefit from it because Mesa County will pay fair market value, 
that money will go into this account that will be used by the 
BLM in Colorado.
    But as one of the Congressmen said, we all recreate in 
Colorado, and we have so much to offer. So, being able to 
really strengthen that economic opportunity is really important 
for us. So, thank you.
    Mrs. Boebert. Absolutely. And that was actually my next 
question. But also the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, 
in that office will be used within the state for that funding, 
as well.
    And our time is expired, so thank you so much for being 
here with us and testifying and supporting the CONVEY Act. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Pugliese. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Representative Boebert, I am indulging our 
Members today. Do you have any additional questions you would 
like to ask?
    Mrs. Boebert. I do not have an additional question. Thank 
you so much for your generosity, Mr. Chairman. But I do just 
again want to thank the Deputy Director, Ms. Wolff Culver, so 
much for your support on this, and your work in getting this 
done. This is going to benefit Clifton, Colorado greatly, 
economically, and it is just a very straightforward process 
that I am glad that we are finally getting this done. So, thank 
you so much for your help in this.
    Mr. Tiffany. To any of the Members that are here around the 
dais, if you have additional questions, you may ask them.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. That would be me.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Curtis. And I don't have a question, but I would feel 
bad if I missed this opportunity, Deputy Director, to give a 
shout out to your local BLM folks on the ground, Greg Sheehan 
and team, great people. We enjoy working with them, have a 
great relationship. So, a big shout out from Utah to your 
people on the ground.
    Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you. Thank you both for your 
questions.
    Ms. Pugliese, I think about my home county, where there is 
a squabble going on in regards to 80,000 acres that the state 
wants to buy through their stewardship program. And, 
oftentimes, this land gets shut down, and the county is really 
talking about having affordable housing. Is this one of the 
issues that you are having, is being able to have enough land 
for affordable housing in a community like the one you are 
referencing and where you live?
    Ms. Pugliese. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. 
Affordable housing, at least when I was a County Commissioner, 
wasn't the issue that we dealt with as much as commerce, 
businesses being able to relocate in the state or outside of 
the state into this particular area.
    We had talked about a lot of different opportunities, but 
it was more for employment opportunities because they would 
have to go into Grand Junction, which is only about 20 minutes 
away, but most of the people in that community really wanted to 
stay in that community, and there really are just no employment 
opportunities, very limited businesses out there. So, this 31 
acres will open up the possibility for a developer to come in 
and put some businesses that would actually employ people. And 
that was really important for being able to lift up this 
community and make it a stronger, economically.
    Mr. Tiffany. Obviously, you have worked diligently with 
these processes all the way, local to Federal. Do you have a 
couple of suggestions of one or two things that you are, like, 
``You guys really should change this process,'' and what would 
that be, if there is?
    Ms. Pugliese. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, that is a question 
I have been wanting people to ask me for years.
    I am sitting next to my friend here, who was talking about 
the NEPA process, and I have actually written articles about 
how we have to continue to streamline the NEPA process, because 
that also helps to delay any sort of economic development 
opportunities in communities that have significant amounts of 
Federal land. So, I would implore you to continue to look at 
those processes, and see where you can streamline.
    Second, for this particular----
    Mr. Tiffany. So, that is in regards to NEPA, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Pugliese. In regards to NEPA, which could also have 
potential impacts on this property in Clifton.
    And then, with this conveyance, the county in kind donated 
services like surveys and all sorts of other services that were 
needed in order to help alleviate the burden on BLM to expedite 
this process. And like I said, BLM really did a great job.
    I think some more work needs to be done with Bureau of 
Reclamation, to be to be perfectly honest. They are already 
going to retain 8.5 acres of this property that nobody wanted 
for a potential future water project that may or may not 
happen, and I am fine with that because water, obviously, in 
the West is such an important issue. And having those services 
and those resources are incredibly important. So, I have no 
problem with that.
    But the fact that it takes an Act of Congress to get Bureau 
of Reclamation to step back and let the Bureau of Land 
Management do their job to convey this land to a county that, 
literally, this has been going on for way over 5 years. I think 
we can do better. So, personally, I would say looking at Bureau 
of Reclamation processes and, in fairness, while I appreciate 
all of the partnership with BLM, the fact that BLM didn't know 
before they put it on the disposal list that this property had 
an interest in Bureau of Reclamation also created problems 
because for 2 years we were working with BLM, and thought that 
this was going to happen, and then Bureau of Reclamation came 
in and then I felt like it restarted the process.
    So, I think that there are definitely some opportunities 
there.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Culver, do you think NEPA should be 
reformed?
    Ms. Culver. That is a very broad question, Representative. 
I think there is always room for improvement in how we 
implement that law.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Stuart, once again, you are in Idaho, 
correct?
    Mr. Stuart. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Could the state manage more land if the 
Federal Government was to dispose of it?
    Mr. Stuart. Thank you for the question, but that is 
probably a question for the state. I don't know what their 
management capabilities are.
    Mr. Tiffany. I appreciate that. Do you also have to get 
state permits for the work that you do?
    Mr. Stuart. Yes, if we cross state land, and a lot of it is 
controlled by right-of-way. So, even if we cross Federal ground 
that is a state highway, we have to get not only Federal, 
state, but also county permits to be along that right-of-way.
    Mr. Tiffany. And do you consult with all interested 
parties?
    Mr. Stuart. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. McConkie, could the state of Utah manage 
more land if it was transferred to them?
    Ms. McConkie. We manage 3.4 million acres with a crew of 
about 70. So, I think we could. We have been very efficient. I 
am sure we could manage more land if it was in our portfolio.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, I appreciate that very much.
    I don't know if any of you had questions here over the last 
half hour or so that you wanted to share any additional 
information. You are welcome to do that now. Otherwise, I am 
going to close this hearing. Go ahead if you have anything else 
that you would really like to add.

    With that, I would like to thank all of you for your 
testimony, and Members for your questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we will ask that you respond to these in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee 
must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on 
Tuesday, June 27, 2023. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, a Representative in 
                  Congress from the State of New York
         on H.R. 3250, National Museum of Play Recognition Act

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and distinguished Members 
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on my 
bill, H.R. 3250 the National Museum of Play Recognition Act.

    My bill the National Museum of Play Recognition Act identifies that 
the Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum, DBA Strong Museum, located in my 
district Rochester, New York, is the only museum of its kind that 
exists for the exclusive purpose of exploring the ways in which play 
encourages learning, creativity, and discovery, and how it illuminates 
cultural history. Furthermore, it officially designates the Margaret 
Woodbury Strong Museum as the National Museum of Play.

    The Strong Museum is a unique facility with over 100,000 square 
feet dedicated to educational, dynamic, and innovative exhibit spaces.

    Including the World Video Game Hall of Fame at which highlights 
electronic games of all types that have enjoyed popularity over a 
sustained period and have exerted influence on the video game industry 
or on popular culture and society in general.

    The Strong museum has recently announced its 90,000 square foot 
expansion. This expansion will feature the world's largest, playable 
Donkey Kong arcade game, standing nearly 20 feet tall.

    Due to hard work of its staff the Strong Museum has remained a 
museum of national importance year after year. I am incredibly proud to 
lead this legislation to officially grant this exceptional museum with 
the recognition it deserves.

    I thank this Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak in support 
of this bill and the Strong National Museum of Play.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                         National Park Service
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
                       on H.R. 3025 and H.R. 3250

   H.R. 3025, To provide for no net increase in the total acreage of 
 Federal land in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John, United 
                         States Virgin Islands

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department 
of the Interior's views on H.R. 3025, a bill to provide for no net 
increase in the total acreage of Federal land in the Virgin Islands 
National Park on St. John, United States Virgin Islands.
    The Department understands the land use realities the residents and 
the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands face on the Island of St. 
John and is committed to working with the Government and its residents 
to address the community's land use needs. However, the Department does 
not support the approach taken by H.R. 3025 to try to address land use 
issues. The Department prioritizes seeking solutions to quality of life 
and resource protection matters in partnership with residents and their 
elected officials and would welcome the opportunity to have further 
discussions with the bill sponsor and the Committee on these matters.
    H.R. 3025 would prohibit Virgin Islands National Park (park) from 
acquiring any land that would increase the total amount of acreage 
owned by the Federal government in the park, unless the park conveyed 
out of Federal ownership an equal or greater amount of acreage of land 
by sale, exchange, or donation. The bill would further require that 
when the park elects to sell Federal land to avoid an increase in net 
acreage, it must offer the land for sale within a year at fair market 
value. If the land is not under contract or sold six months after it is 
first offered for sale, the bill would require that the park reduce the 
price of the land by ten percent each month thereafter.
    Fundamentally, the Department disagrees with the concept of 
requiring the Federal government to dispose of an amount of land equal 
to an amount of land that it acquires in a given situation simply to 
keep the number of acres of land owned by the Federal government the 
same. Federal lands are an asset that belongs to all Americans and 
should not be disposed of without a compelling public interest. When 
Federal lands are conveyed to other entities, it is generally for an 
identified public benefit, and in many cases the conveyance is 
accompanied by a reverter clause that assures the land is used for the 
purpose intended.
    Under H.R. 3025, not only would the National Park Service (NPS) be 
required to sell, exchange, or donate lands as Virgin Islands National 
Park acquired other lands, it would be compelled to do so even if that 
meant selling at prices below fair market value. The required 
conveyance of lands from Virgin Islands National Park under H.R. 3025 
could result in less land available for the benefit of the residents 
and the public, and more land for private individuals and entities with 
the means and resources to take advantage of artificially depressed 
real estate prices. It would also threaten the protection of natural 
and cultural resources that are not found anywhere else in the Virgin 
Islands that are of deep importance to many Virgin Islanders and their 
elected officials.
    To complicate matters, within the congressionally established 
boundaries of Virgin Islands National Park there are multiple 
properties with life estates established decades ago that are due to 
transfer completely to the NPS. Additionally, the original 5,000 acres 
of land donated to create Virgin Islands National Park can only be 
reverted to the original donor--an entity that is now defunct. Other 
such deed restrictions, reversionary clauses, or easements exist on 
park holdings. The complexity of landownership within the boundaries of 
the Virgin Islands National Park would make implementation of this 
legislation extraordinarily burdensome.
    Through the use of existing authorities, the Department is 
committed to working with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands and 
its residents to address the community's land use needs, as we are 
doing in our current effort to complete a land exchange between the 
National Park Service and Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands to 
build a school on St. John. In this effort, the Department's Office of 
Insular Affairs (OIA) has been instrumental. The OIA serves critical 
needs in the U.S. Virgin Islands by providing technical assistance and 
financial support to a broad spectrum of territorial agencies as 
requested through the territory's executive branch. Through the OIA, 
the Department hears firsthand the critical territorial needs 
pertaining to infrastructure, health, education, tourism, disaster 
recovery and disaster preparation.
    In 2017, hurricanes Irma and Maria devasted the island of St. John 
and destroyed its public school. The Virgin Islands Department of 
Education (VIDE) determined that the site of the severely damaged 
elementary and middle school would not meet their redevelopment and 
future needs. In order to access post-disaster hurricane funds from the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the construction of a 
new school, VIDE would need to seek suitable land. Based upon new 
curriculum standards and updated education building design standards, 
VIDE identified a parcel of land within Virgin Islands National Park 
that would be suitable to construct--for the first time on St. John--a 
pre-K through 12th grade school.
    For this exchange, the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, on 
behalf of VIDE, worked the Department to exchange an uninhabited cay 
within the park's legislative boundary which would enable the park to 
undertake a more cohesive management and protection approach for the 
adjacent beaches and waters. Understanding the needs of VIDE and the 
requirements of the NPS, the territory selected these parcels for a 
mutually beneficial exchange. Together, all of the parties have broken 
through long-standing barriers to solve a critical need for the 
residents: a new public school located on St. John that has the 
potential to positively improve the educational outcomes and the 
quality of life on St. John for generations to come.
    Although conducting an exchange of Federal lands in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands admittedly is a rare, expensive, and time-consuming endeavor, 
this exchange serves as an example of how current authorities can be 
used to address these needs when there is a strong commitment to 
solutions to address quality of life and resource protection matters in 
partnership with residents and their elected officials. Going forward, 
the Department is committed to pursuing opportunities for collaboration 
to find solutions to critical needs of the territory for unforeseen 
events in the future, provide equitable solutions, and protect 
conservation principles and covenants.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the 
record.

           H.R. 3250, National Museum of Play Recognition Act

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department 
of the Interior's views on H.R. 3250, the National Museum of Play 
Recognition Act.
    H.R. 3250, the National Museum of Play Recognition Act, would 
recognize the Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum in Rochester, New York, 
and officially designate the Margaret Woodbury Strong Museum as the 
National Museum of Play.
    The Department does not have a position on H.R. 3250, as the museum 
would not be located at a site that is under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of the Interior.
    This legislation explicitly states that this Museum is not a unit 
of the National Park System, and that designation shall not be 
construed to require or permit Federal funds to be expended for any 
purpose related to the Museum.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the 
record.

                                 [all]