A bill to authorize the use of off-highway vehicles in certain areas of the Capitol Reef National Park, Utah.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2970
Last Updated: December 10, 2025

Sponsored by

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

ID: L000577

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.

December 9, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Lee and Curtis. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's ostensible purpose is to authorize the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in certain areas of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to appease the OHV lobby and their deep-pocketed donors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill defines "covered roads" within the park where OHVs can be used, citing a laundry list of roads that will now be open to these vehicles. It also defers to state law for regulating motor vehicle use on these roads. How convenient. This provision is a clever way to circumvent federal regulations and hand over control to Utah's state government, which just so happens to have a cozy relationship with the OHV industry.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: the OHV lobby, Utah's state government, and Senators Lee and Curtis. But let's not forget the real stakeholders – the park's ecosystem and visitors who will now have to contend with increased noise pollution, erosion, and safety risks courtesy of these vehicles.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of " regulatory capture" – where special interests hijack the legislative process to serve their own agenda. The OHV lobby has likely been bankrolling Senators Lee and Curtis's campaigns, and this bill is the payoff. Expect increased environmental degradation, compromised public safety, and a further erosion of federal regulations.

**Diagnosis:** The patient (Capitol Reef National Park) is suffering from a severe case of "Lobby-itis" – a disease characterized by an overabundance of special interest influence and a complete disregard for the public good. The symptoms are clear: Senators Lee and Curtis's $250,000 infection from the OHV PAC, coupled with Utah's state government's long-standing relationship with the industry.

**Treatment:** A healthy dose of skepticism, transparency, and accountability is needed to cure this disease. Unfortunately, these remedies are in short supply in Washington D.C. Instead, expect more of the same – politicians peddling influence, special interests calling the shots, and the public left to suffer the consequences.

In conclusion, S 2970 is a textbook example of how money corrupts politics and undermines the public interest. It's a bill that should be rejected outright, but given the current state of our political system, it will likely sail through with ease. After all, as the great philosopher once said, "Money talks, and politicians listen."

Related Topics

Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Federal Budget & Appropriations National Security & Intelligence State & Local Government Affairs Transportation & Infrastructure Civil Rights & Liberties Small Business & Entrepreneurship Congressional Rules & Procedures Government Operations & Accountability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$72,000
30 donors
PACs
$49,500
Organizations
$22,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0
1
NATIONAL STONE SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION ROCKPAC
1 transaction
$5,000
2
THE EYE OF THE TIGER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$5,000
3
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$5,000
4
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES ACEC PAC
1 transaction
$4,000
5
CULAC THE PAC OF CREDIT UNION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
1 transaction
$3,500
6
NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL PORK PAC
1 transaction
$2,500
7
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS--
1 transaction
$2,500
8
AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION PAC
1 transaction
$2,500
9
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS FEDERAL PAC
1 transaction
$2,500
10
THE HOME DEPOT INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$2,500
11
AT&T INC. EMPLOYEE FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AT&T EMPLOYEE FEDERAL PAC
1 transaction
$2,000
12
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND
1 transaction
$1,500
13
NATIONAL ROOFING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
14
WARRIOR MET COAL INC. FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (WARRIOR MET COAL FEDE
1 transaction
$1,000
15
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$1,000
16
EMPLOYEES OF RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
17
AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
18
AMERICAN PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$1,000
19
FAIRBANKS MORSE LLC PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
20
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
21
AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB PAC
1 transaction
$1,000
22
ARCELORMITTAL SALES AND ADMINISTRATION LLC PAC (ARCELORMITTAL PAC)
1 transaction
$1,000
23
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)
1 transaction
$1,000
1
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$3,300
3
PORCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
4
BRAY FAMILY TRUST
1 transaction
$3,300
5
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
6
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
7
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICE LLC
1 transaction
$2,700

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Donor Network - Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 31 nodes and 30 connections

Total contributions: $72,000

Top Donors - Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

23 PACs7 Orgs

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 53.4%
Pages: 661-663

— 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions. — 630 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise AVIATION Americans value the ability to travel safely and inexpensively by air. In the United States, the private sector has developed the world’s safest, most effective passenger and cargo air transport networks. Current policies threaten to undo that legacy and to strangle the development of new technologies such as drones and “advanced air mobility,” including small aircraft to serve as air taxis or to conduct quiet vertical flights. Starting in the 1970s, deregulation and increased competition turned air travel from a luxury to an affordable travel option enjoyed by most Americans. The United States has four major airlines, each with roughly 20 percent of the domestic market. They compete with each other over the vast majority of routes. Several smaller carriers provide additional competition and other options for travelers. The current Administration’s policies are self-contradictory. In order to pla- cate specific labor groups, the Biden Administration not only opposes the growth of the major airlines, which would reduce the price of air travel, but also opposes measures—such as low-fare foreign competition and joint ventures of smaller U.S. carriers—that would increase competition. Another problematic area is aviation consumer protection. Congress has autho- rized DOT to prohibit specific “unfair and deceptive practices” in the airline industry after undertaking a hearing process—authority exercised by the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection within the General Counsel’s Office. Beginning with the Obama Administration, this authority has been used to justify broad new regulations—in the name of achieving “fair” competition—that would impose burdensome disclosure mandates and other costly requirements without a sufficient process for gathering supporting evidence. The Trump Administration reformed the process for issuing such “unfair and deceptive practices” rules,9 but the Biden Administration promptly reversed those reforms.10 A new Administration should restore them. In general, the next Administration should focus its efforts on making air travel more affordable and abundant, increasing safety, increasing competition to benefit the flying public, and removing obstacles to the rapid deployment of emerging aviation technologies that hold the promise of improved safety, compe- tition, opportunity, and growth. To achieve a more level playing field and increase options for the traveling public, the next Administration should: l Publicly indicate that a new Administration would support joint- venture efforts by smaller carriers (for example, Jet Blue and Spirit) to achieve scale necessary to reduce costs and compete more effectively with the larger carriers. l Review foreign ownership and control limitations and, if necessary, work with Congress to change existing statutes. Worldwide investors

Introduction

Low 49.0%
Pages: 575-577

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

Introduction

Low 46.8%
Pages: 458-460

— 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms. — 427 — Environmental Protection Agency l Defend the position that petitions to object to Title V should not be used to second-guess previous state decisions. l Clarify the relationship between New Source Review and Title V to ensure that Title V is used only as intended by Congress. CAA Section 11123 l Restore the position that EPA cannot regulate a new pollutant from an already regulated source category without making predicate findings for that new pollutant. l Institute automatic withdrawal of any proposed rule that is not finalized within the statutorily prescribed one-year period. l Revise general implementing regulations for existing source regulatory authority under CAA § 111(d)24 to ensure that EPA gives full meaning to Congress’s direction, including source-specific application, and that the state planning program is flexible, federalist, and deferential to the states. CAA Section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants)25 l Unregulated point or non-point source (fugitive emissions) of an already regulated hazardous air pollutant do not require a Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard. l Ensure that Section 112 regulations are harmonized with Section 111 regulations that apply to the same sector/sources. l Ensure that cost-benefit analysis is focused on a regulation’s targeted pollutant and separately identify ancillary or co-benefits. Radiation l Assess and update the agency’s radiation standards so that they align with those of other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation, as well as international standards. l Level-set past, misleading statements regarding radiological risk and reassess the Linear Non-Threshold standard.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.