First, welcome to RME.
As the RRWA is a very controversial bill, it might be nice to know what your thoughts on it are. First time poster asking comments on a subject like this has me a bit confused. Are you writing an article? Forming your own opinion?
On that note, there are dozens of threads here on RME referencing the RRWA and user thoughts.
My cliff notes version. It has morphed into too much. If they can keep revising the bill and keep finding 'new Wilderness', then we ought to just leave things as they are and at their rate, the entire state will still be Wilderness in 50 years lol. I'm OK with new Wilderness, where and only where it meets the definition, does not lock out historic access to historic sites and is done in accordance with the State, counties and local user groups. I'd suspect 50% of the RRWA would meet this criteria, however for obvious reasons SUWA and cohorts are not going to budge on their proposal. I think the entire idea of 'Wilderness' has become a self fulfilling fundraiser, used to provide the lifeblood for what has grown from a true grass roots group to a multi-million dollar budget litigation machine at the hands of crooks and our of state millionaires.