Search

Search bills, members, committees and pages...

H.R. 376

U.S. HouseIn House Committee

Summary

H.R. 376, the Historic Roadways Protection Act, was introduced in the House on Jan 14, 2025 by Rep. Mike Kennedy (R) with 3 co-sponsors. It was referred to Natural Resources, and last saw action on Jan 14, 2025: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.


Record

Text

H.R. 376 has 3 co-sponsors.

hb376/introduced-in-house.txt
119 HR 376 IH: Historic Roadways Protection Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2025-01-14
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
I 119th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 376 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 14, 2025 Mr. Kennedy of Utah (for himself, Mr. Owens , Mr. Moore of Utah , and Ms. Maloy ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources A BILL
To prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah.
1.
Short title
This Act may be cited as the Historic Roadways Protection Act .
2.
Prohibition on use of use of funds to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah
(a)
Definitions
In this section:
(1)
Applicable period
The term applicable period means the period that begins on the date of enactment of this Act and ends on the date on which the Secretary certifies to Congress that each of the R.S. 2477 cases has been adjudicated.
(2)
Covered travel management area
The term covered travel management area means any of the following travel management areas in the State of Utah:
(A)
The Henry Mountains and Fremont Gorge Travel Management Area.
(B)
The Dinosaur (North) Travel Management Area.
(C)
The Book Cliffs Travel Management Area (Vernal Field Office).
(D)
The Nine Mile Canyon Travel Management Area (Vernal Field Office).
(E)
The San Rafael Swell Travel Management Area.
(F)
The Nine Mile Canyon Travel Management Area (Price Field Office).
(G)
The Book Cliffs Travel Management Area (Moab Field Office).
(H)
The Dolores River Travel Management Area.
(I)
The Trail Canyon Travel Management Area.
(J)
The Paunsaugunt Travel Management Area.
(3)
R.S. 2477 case
The term R.S. 2477 case means each of—
(A)
Beaver County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–423–CW);
(B)
Box Elder County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 1:12–cv–105–DB);
(C)
Carbon County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–427–DB);
(D)
Daggett County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–447–RJS);
(E)
Duchesne County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–425–CW);
(F)
Emery County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–429–CW);
(G)
Garfield County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–478–TC);
(H)
Grand County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–466–DN);
(I)
Iron County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–472–BSJ);
(J)
Juab County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–462–DB);
(K)
Kane County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–1073–CW) (consolidated with Case No. 2:11–cv–1031–CW; Case No. 2:12–cv–476–CW);
(L)
Millard County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–451–DB);
(M)
Piute County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–428–CW);
(N)
Rich County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–424–DN);
(O)
San Juan County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–467–DAK);
(P)
Sanpete County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–430–DB);
(Q)
Sevier County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–452–DN);
(R)
Tooele County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–477–CW);
(S)
Uintah County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–461–DAK);
(T)
Utah County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–426–CW);
(U)
Washington County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–471–RJS); and
(V)
Wayne County and State of Utah v. United States (Case No. 2:12–cv–434–DN).
(4)
Secretary
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
(b)
Prohibition on use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior To finalize and implement certain travel management plans
During the applicable period, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may not obligate or expend Federal funds—
(1)
to finalize or implement, with respect to land within the boundary of the State of Utah, a new travel management plan for a covered travel management area; or
(2)
to implement, with respect to land within the boundary of the State of Utah—
(A)
the Indian Creek (Canyon Rims) Travel Management Plan;
(B)
the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan;
(C)
the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan; or
(D)
the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan.

Tracker

The tracker indicates the progress of this legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

  1. Introduced2025-01-14
  2. Passed House
  3. Passed Senate
  4. Conference
  5. To President
  6. Became Law

CRS Summary

The summaries are the Congressional Research Service’s, one per stage. Read them in full.

Introduced in House Jan 14, 2025

hb376/introduced-in-house.md

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/14/2025)

Historic Roadways Protection Act

This bill prohibits the Bureau for Land Management (BLM) from closing historical roads on public lands in certain areas of Utah until the Federal District Court for Utah makes a decision on each of the R.S. 2477 cases, which are cases brought by Utah and counties to keep historical roads on BLM land in Utah open for public use.

By way of background, a provision of the Mining Law of 1866, commonly known as R.S. 2477, granted rights-of-way to states and counties across public lands for the construction of roads for public use in order to promote settlement of the American West. In 1976, Congress repealed R.S. 2477 when it enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), but FLPMA preserved rights-of-way that had been established under R.S. 2477. After the BLM released travel management plans that closed some historical roads, Utah and 22 counties filed lawsuits about their rights-of-way across public lands for historical roads.

Until the BLM certifies that those cases have been decided, the bill prohibits the BLM from obligating or expending federal funds to (1) finalize or implement a new travel management plan for certain travel management areas in Utah; or (2) implement, with respect to land within the boundary of Utah, the Indian Creek (Canyon Rims) Travel Management Plan, the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan, the San Rafael Swell Travel Management Plan, or the Labyrinth/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Plan.

Sponsors

Rep. Mike Kennedy (R) sponsors H.R. 376, and 3 members have co-sponsored it, all of them from the day it was introduced.

Committees

H.R. 376 went before 1 committee: Natural Resources.

Natural Resources
Natural Resources
Referred To · Jan 14, 2025 · 395 Bills

Actions

H.R. 376 has taken 2 actions since Jan 14, 2025.

ChamberAction
Jan 14, 2025
House
Introduced in House
Jan 14, 2025
House
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.Natural Resources Committee

Votes

H.R. 376 has not gone to a roll call.

1 bill is related to H.R. 376, as Identical bill.

Titles

H.R. 376 goes by 3 titles, 1 of them short titles.

  • Historic Roadways Protection Act — Display Title
  • To prohibit the use of funds by the Secretary of the Interior to finalize and implement certain travel management plans in the State of Utah. — Official Title as Introduced
  • Historic Roadways Protection Act — Short Title(s) as Introduced

Lobbying

2 clients hired 2 firms and 9 registered lobbyists who named H.R. 376 in 3 quarterly filings, 2025 to 2026. Reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act; a filing’s income covers everything its registrant worked that quarter, so the amounts below are the filings’, not this bill’s.

Filed under Automotive Industry, Environment/Superfund, Labor Issues/Antitrust/Workplace, Real Estate/Land Use/Conservation, Small Business, Taxation/Internal Revenue Code, Animals, Budget/Appropriations.

Clients

Who paid to be heard, by how many filings named the bill.

ClientBusinessStateFirmsFilingsReported
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATIONDistrict of Columbia12
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFEDistrict of Columbia11

Firms

Registrants who filed on the bill, by filings.

RegistrantClientsFilingsReported
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION12
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE11

Lobbyists

Named on the filings that cite the bill.

Filings

The documents themselves, on the Senate’s Lobbying Disclosure site, largest reported first.

ClientRegistrantPeriodReportedDocument
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATIONSPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION2025 first_quarter$360K1st Quarter - Report
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATIONSPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION2025 second_quarter$350K2nd Quarter - Report
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFEDEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE2026 second_quarter$270K2nd Quarter - Report

Classification

The Congressional Research Service files H.R. 376 under Public Lands and Natural Resources, one of its 31 policy areas, and gives it 3 legislative subjects.

CRS Subjects

CRS assigns every bill one policy area from its 31; H.R. 376’s is Public Lands and Natural Resources.

hr376/policy-areas.txt
Public Lands and Natural ResourcesAgriculture and FoodAnimalsArmed Forces and National SecurityArts, Culture, ReligionCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesCommerceCongressCrime and Law EnforcementEconomics and Public FinanceEducationEmergency ManagementEnergyEnvironmental ProtectionFamiliesFinance and Financial SectorForeign Trade and International FinanceGovernment Operations and PoliticsHealthHousing and Community DevelopmentImmigrationInternational AffairsLabor and EmploymentLawNative AmericansScience, Technology, CommunicationsSocial WelfareSports and RecreationTaxationTransportation and Public WorksWater Resources Development

Legislative Subjects

H.R. 376 carries 3 of CRS’s legislative subjects, from Land use and conservation to Utah.

hr376/subjects.txt
Land use and conservationRoads and highwaysUtah

Constitutional authority

The clause the sponsor cites as Congress’s power to enact H.R. 376, as entered in the Congressional Record.

[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)][House]From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]By Mr. KENNEDY of Utah:H.R. 376.Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuantto the following:Article 1 Section 8[Page H149]

Source: congress.gov · legiscan.com