Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 440) to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property around the Dickinson Reservoir in the State of North Dakota, as amended.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 440, sponsored by Senator Hoeven of North Dakota. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation sponsored by our colleague who will soon be departing us, Congressman Kevin Cramer, which was favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee in August. This legislation would transfer small parcels of Federal land immediately surrounding Dickinson Reservoir in North Dakota. This will allow members of the local community to purchase the land under their own homes, providing them with financial security and the community with increased tax revenue that will be reinvested toward the upkeep of the reservoir. Other land will remain in use for recreation, public access, fish and wildlife habitat, a fish and game headquarters, or preserved in its natural character. If the land is not used for these purposes, it will revert to the Federal Government. Federal ownership of the land has led to financial uncertainty for private citizens and the State, and I applaud the dedication of former Natural Resources Committee member and future Senator Cramer and Senator Hoeven to alleviating these bureaucratic challenges and supporting their constituents. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who will speak on this and the following bill, because they are very similar.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2074) to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property around the Jamestown Reservoir in the State of North Dakota, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2074 sponsored by Senator Hoeven of North Dakota. This legislation is nearly identical to legislation sponsored by our colleague, Congressman Kevin Cramer, which was favorably reported by the Natural Resources Committee in August. This is another bill similar to the one that was discussed a few minutes ago that looks to transfer small parcels of Federal land to State and local government, this time surrounding the Jamestown Reservoir in North Dakota. The land will continue to be used for recreation and public purposes, public access, fish and wildlife habitat, a fish and game headquarters, and for cabins. If any of the land is sold, the proceeds will be given to the Federal Government or the land will revert to the United States. Like S. 440, which the House just considered, this legislation aims to alleviate financial uncertainty for private citizens residing around the reservoir and will help support the local community through tax revenue. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body approximately 3 inches long, a 4-to 6-inch long tail, and large hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily in streamside ecosystems in Wyoming and Colorado. To evade predators, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse can jump up to 18 inches high, like a miniature kangaroo. But this little acrobat's most famous feat was its leap onto the endangered species list back in May 1998, a move that has since hindered development on the front range of Colorado, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to the Wyoming border. Among projects that have been affected are the Jeffco Parkway southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of the Chatfield Reservoir, and housing developments in El Paso County along tributaries of Monument Creek. Builders, landowners, and local governments in affected areas have incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs because of this mouse. Protecting the Preble's mouse has even been placed ahead of protecting human life. On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event that damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and public works projects. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as Colorado sought a waiver. Moreover, the scientific evidence simply does not justify these delays or the millions of taxpayer dollars that go toward protecting a rodent that is actually part of a larger group that roams throughout half of the North American Continent. Several scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is actually related to one of the largest and most widespread genetic lineages of North American jumping mice. Even the scientist that originally classified this mouse as a subspecies has since recanted his work. Moreover, the Preble's mouse has a low conservation priority score, meaning that the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile species. My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by the inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and would refocus the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that should be managed by the Endangered Species Act. This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes. So I encourage my colleagues to, once again, support this commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will just conclude by saying, if the Fish and Wildlife Service worked together with developers, local communities, and other groups, that would be one thing. But when they come in with a hammer and say, you have to do it this way, that is really not working together. That has, unfortunately, been the experience of many parties on the front range of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that, once again, we support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is following current law, specifically section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, by conducting their review of all threatened and endangered plants and wildlife at least once every 5 years. Time after time, the Federal Government refuses to follow the will of Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act. The government designates land as ``critical habitat'' despite not meeting the ESA definition, and the government consistently refuses to remove plants and animals from threatened or endangered status even when those species are flourishing and no longer in need of ESA protections. But you may ask yourself: How does the government know when a species should be removed from the endangered or threatened list? How does the government know if a species is recovering? The answer could be found in the ESA, and it is a requirement that the Federal Government review all plants or species that are currently listed as endangered or threatened every 5 years. Under the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that threatened and endangered species have the appropriate level of protection. And because the ESA grants extensive protection to a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to regularly verify if a plant or animal is being properly classified or if it should be delisted. Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged earlier this year that it has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for nearly 1,000 species. By enforcing the 5-year review, my amendment will ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using the best available scientific information in implementing its responsibilities under the ESA, including incorporating new information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts. This amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Mining Association, and the American Farm Bureau, and it has previously passed the House of Representatives on three separate occasions, all by bipartisan votes. I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follows the law, the letter of the law, in the Endangered Species Act and that we do not allow the agency to spend money that would violate current law. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to once again support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Two quick responses, then I am going to yield some time. When it comes to funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service, they are just going to have to basically do what every other private or governmental entity, family, and individual has to do, which is prioritize their spending. They have to live within their means. We all have to live within our means. They have to have the priorities where they can do the job with the money that they are given. Number two, I think that maybe my colleague would agree with me that outside environmental groups are largely to blame for bringing massive lawsuits that tie up a lot of the resources of the Fish and Wildlife Service so they can't be doing their business of protecting the species that they are already supposed to be caring for. So I think they really get a lot of the blame here as well. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment, which we have done in the past three different times on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 985, I call up the bill (H.R. 3281) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the transfer to non-Federal ownership of appropriate reclamation projects or facilities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3281.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, the House is considering my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3281, which aims to streamline the process for the transfer of some of the Bureau of Reclamation's projects to local beneficiaries who have or will repay the Federal investment, and already operate and maintain these projects. Transferring these simple projects, or parts of them, will allow water districts and other local beneficiaries to leverage non-Federal financing through ownership equity while, simultaneously, decreasing Federal liability. During committee consideration of this bill, we heard that the current process is time-consuming, cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain. This has proven to be a disincentive to many water users who are now rightly asking for and deserving change. However, it wouldn't be fair to heap all the blame on the agency. Congress has done its fair share, slowing down some of these simple title transfers. Under current practice, every single transfer, regardless of the size or scope, requires congressional authorization. I want to be clear to my colleagues that this legislation does not remove congressional oversight. In fact, this legislation includes a provision offered by Ranking Member Huffman, of the subcommittee, that allows for congressional review of any transfer authorized under this process. Since my bill was introduced, we have seen the administration and the Senate put similar proposals together to achieve the same goals as this legislation that we are considering here today. At the end of the day, my bill provides an optional process that could be used to expedite simple title transfers. Any title transfer can still use the existing process, if the participants prefer. Now, despite what someone might say, this bill does not exempt any action from NEPA, National Environmental Protection Act, or any other environmental mandates. To be crystal clear, I want to reiterate that this bipartisan legislation requires that eligible projects comply with and satisfy the NEPA process; any remaining Federal obligation be repaid by the recipient; and that Congress be given a 90-day period to review and, if opposed, to pass a resolution of disapproval. The Bureau of Reclamation currently has the authority to transfer any water project that would be authorized under this legislation. My bill simply allows operators of these water projects throughout the West to receive title to the projects they have paid for and are currently maintaining, without subjecting them to having to get an act of Congress. Again, this legislation authorizes an optional process for an expedited process for specific types of transfers. My bill supports local infrastructure and gives local communities the ability to seek private financing, through equity, to improve their vital water infrastructure. This bipartisan legislation is supported by the Family Farm Alliance, Friant Water Authority of California, and the Kennewick Irrigation District of Washington State. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Costa, for sponsoring this bill with me, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think I may have heard, and I think it could be a misstatement to say, that this could have been a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill. Now, it may not be unanimous, but it is a bipartisan bill. And for that, I am glad. I also thought I heard an emotional criticism of President Donald Trump. This was an idea first proposed by Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration in the 1990s, so it is not a new idea, by any means. This is an idea that has been around for a while; Congress just hasn't acted on it. We are using the same old, case-by-case basis of doing transfers, which is cumbersome and works a hardship on the local people and communities out in the West. Now, for the allegation that this in some way shortchanges the taxpayer, that is simply not true. I don't call it a giveaway when someone gets title to something they have already paid for. When my colleague goes to the car lot and buys a car and they give him a car, that is not a giveaway; he has paid for that. He should receive title. He should receive ownership. Facilities eligible for transfer under this process would be subject to an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation that would require these projects to be fully paid off, based on the fair market value of any outstanding obligation to the taxpayers. That is in the language of the bill. The bill specifically requires a qualifying entity to repay any outstanding obligation to the Federal Government and compensate the U.S. for any other income stream derived from the transferred facilities. Furthermore, Congress routinely authorized title transfers that have already met many of the standards and financial safeguards established by this legislation. There is nothing new here. All the bill does is gets Congress out of the way, and it removes a layer of bureaucracy. In reality, any title transfers conducted under the authorities of this act would relieve the American taxpayer of associated liability, so it is a service to the taxpayers when they don't have to have liability for an already paid-off project that the local community takes over and assumes responsibility for. In short, title transfers are already designed to recoup taxpayer investment, and this bill would further protect the long-term financial interests of the public. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would disagree that we have not put in safeguards. We put in a safeguard that my colleague who just spoke offered in committee. He offered an amendment, and we adopted it in the spirit of fair play and bipartisanship, that Congress be given a 90-day notice if there ever were to be a transfer that we objected to, and we could do a resolution of disapproval, stopping that transfer. If something was wrong in the transaction, it was too big, multiuse, or whatever, we have a way to stop that. That was the amendment that my colleague offered, and we adopted that. So we have built-in safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is an expert on many water issues in the West.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response, I would just point out that the amendment that we adopted in committee giving Congress the ability to, within 90 days, do a resolution of disapproval on any one of these transfers that we have a problem with, was offered by my colleague. It was his language. So it is something that I think he should approve of. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.