Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I, first of all, disagree with the characterization of the safeguard that Mr. Huffman put into the bill as being flimsy and phony. I think what Mr. Huffman proposed was legitimate. This legislation also includes other multiple provisions to ensure that stakeholders are consulted and protected throughout the title transfer process. The bill requires that operations in use must remain consistent after transfer of title. An entity seeking title transfer must sign a written agreement with the Secretary in full consultation with any existing water or power customer affected by the transfer. Transfers must be consistent with the Secretary's responsibility to protect land and water resources held in trust for a federally recognized Tribe, and no conveyance under the act may adversely impact power rates or repayment obligations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the people of Iran, who are sick and tired of living under the mullahs' rule and have courageously taken to the streets across their country to demand freedom and sound governance. The Ayatollah's regime duped the Obama administration into a nuclear deal in which they received a tremendous payout. The people of Iran expected to benefit financially from the deal, but the regime squandered everything on foreign wars at the expense of their citizens. The Islamic regime funds the ongoing deadly tactics of Hamas and the Palestinians, supports Bashar al-Assad of Syria, finances the ongoing war in Yemen, builds rocket factories in Lebanon and Syria, and I could go on and on. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are ideals that America champions, the same ideals that the Iranian protestors are risking their lives to achieve. To this end, I support the Iranian people, as do the Trump administration and the free world.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, well, let me just conclude by saying in opposition, if it hasn't been developed yet, you don't know that it doesn't work. We have hundreds or even thousands of bright minds. I appreciate my colleague's credentials, but we have hundreds of scientists and engineers working in the Missile Defense Agency and at the government-sponsored laboratories and in other parts of the defense community in the private sector, and at the Department of Defense in the government sector, and there are possibilities here that are being pursued that have great promise, have great potential. I think it would just be the height of foolishness to cut it off all right now when there is not even any money being appropriated for this. It is just even the possibility that the gentleman is trying to cut off, when we have potential for something that would be helpful to saving our homeland, and making those who want to rain missiles on us have to suffer the consequences of those missiles coming back down on themselves. So we shouldn't foreclose the possibility and shut the door. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, as noted by Secretary of Defense Mattis: Space is a contested domain by our strategic competitors just like air, land, and sea. This dangerous amendment would place our country at a disadvantage with our strategic competitors by limiting the work that can be done to continue our efforts in protecting our dominance in space, and, further, from protecting our homeland from intercontinental ballistic missiles. With the significant advances being made today by our adversaries in key areas, such as hypersonic weapons and expanding nuclear weapon proliferation, we must not restrict the Defense Department from pursuing options to deploy directed energy in space or any other capability that would result in the possibility of boost-phase capability that could be deployed from space. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is against even the possibility of investigating and going down this road. House authorizers and appropriators understand the importance of employing a layered missile defense capability, and this dangerous amendment would significantly constrain options for developing critical defensive capabilities in a gap of our current ballistic missile defense system. A proponent of boost-phase missile defense, General Hyten, the commander of Strategic Command testified this year that: The day you can actually shoot a missile down over somebody's head and have that thing drop back down on their heads, that will be a good day. Because as soon as you drop it back on their heads, that is the last one they are going to launch, especially if there is something nasty on top of it. I think directed energy brings that to bear, although such weapons do not yet exist in the U.S. arsenal. Finally, I would also point out that the issue of space-based intercept was debated at length last year, passed with bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee, and that the National Defense Authorization Act last year passed with broad bipartisan support on the House floor. This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee has also provided broad bipartisan support on this critical, technological development area. Now, is not the time to curtail this emerging potential capability. Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment, as modified.

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

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of debate. This has been a good debate. I have been struck by the fact that every single speaker from the Northwest, on both sides of the aisle, has spoken in favor of this piece of legislation. I find that very remarkable. Rarely do we have that kind of consensus, and yet we have that here with H.R. 2083. Just to conclude, I would say that this is a commonsense piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Federal Government sometimes has conflicting mandates. We have a law, on the one hand, that protects sea lions, but we have the endangered status of various salmon. These two are in conflict, unfortunately. So let's take the side of the endangered species. We can do so on a limited and scientific basis, with the way that this bill has been crafted through a lot of compromise. In fact, before it even takes effect, there will be an environmental impact statement, which is a very lengthy process with lots of public comment, lots of judicial scrutiny, and so on. So I find this to be a very commonsense piece of legislation with a lot of compromise built in, a lot of consensus. It makes so much sense that I hope that there would be no opposition or almost no opposition when this comes up for a vote. Let's all adopt H.R. 2083, a great piece of legislation for our environment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I include the Record letters of support for this legislation from Trout Unlimited, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and an additional list of supporters. Trout Unlimited, June 26, 2018. Re Trout Unlimited Support for H.R. 2083, Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We, the undersigned represent the nearly 10,000 members of Trout Unlimited in the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Trout Unlimited is the country's largest and oldest, coldwater conservation organization with over 300,000 members and supporters nationwide. TU has been deeply engaged in wild salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin for several decades, and it is our goal to restore healthy, fishable, naturally reproducing salmon and steelhead populations. Many issues impact salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin. Habitat degradation, hydropower operations, harvest and hatchery management issues are all significant factors. This legislation will help to provide resource managers with the necessary tools to help reduce predation by pinnipeds, a problem which has become increasingly significant over the last decade, and is particularly impactful at key locations, such as Willamette Falls. Pinniped predation rates in the basin are significant. NMFS marine mammal biologists believe that sea lion predation accounts for 20% of Spring Chinook Salmon losses in the Columbia. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has completed a risk analysis that place the likelihood of extinction for wild winter steelhead in the Willamette river at 90% due in part to pinniped predation at the falls in Oregon City. H.R. 2083 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow NOAA to issue permits allowing state agency representatives in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, as well as several area tribes to use lethal take of sea lions in a portion of the Columbia river or certain tributaries in order to protect fish from sea lion predation. While we support a targeted approach to culling individual sea lions in specific areas to help reduce the impact to wild salmon and steelhead populations, we recognize that this action is necessary, but not at all sufficient, to help recover salmon and steelhead populations. To rebuild wild salmon and steelhead we need to take a comprehensive, science-based approach that addresses other major factors in their decline. Restoring their habitat, improving hatchery operations and fine-tuning angling regulations must be part of the long-term solution. Many of these actions are underway, and we need to redouble these efforts. We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 2083. Sincerely, Terry Turner, Oregon Council Chair. Ed Northern, Idaho Council Chair. Brad Throssel, Washington Council Chair.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that, when there is a population of 300,000 sea lions, I would not call that endangered. They are protected under a Federal law, but they are not found to be endangered or threatened, as far as I know. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), who is also a bipartisan cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), who will talk, among other things, about the mitigation efforts that the ratepayers have been funding for the salmon.

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. 2083.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2083, a bipartisan effort by Ms. Herrera Beutler and Mr. Schrader, aims to cut red tape by updating Federal law to provide a temporary, expedited process to give States and Tribes the ability to address California sea lion predation of endangered salmon and other species on a limited basis. Right now, ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year to help recovering salmon populations, only to have them end up in the stomachs of sea lions. Federal law provides conflicting mandates to protect each species but does not provide the flexibility to account for broader ecological interactions. California sea lion populations on the West Coast have exploded, yet salmon runs continue to decline. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the sea lion population has grown to a level of roughly 300,000 individuals, and marine biologists conclude that their population is currently at carrying capacity. Historically, California sea lions have foraged at the mouth of the Columbia River, but they have recently continued to move inland. As the sea lions move further upstream to feed, their diet exists increasingly more of endangered salmon. H.R. 2083 will authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide to State and local Tribes the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions that have migrated outside their historic range and pose an imminent threat to fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Federal permits authorized under H.R. 2083 would be limited to State and Tribal fishery managers who have a direct stake in a healthy regional ecosystem. It is absolutely imperative that we give local stakeholders the tools they need for a balanced ecosystem where both fish and sea lions can thrive. This bipartisan bill has broad support from States, Tribes, public utility districts, advocacy groups, and hundreds of local businesses across the Pacific Northwest. It is a win for not only the endangered fish of the Pacific Northwest, but the ratepayers who are heavily invested in keeping these fish stocks flourishing and healthy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill. And that is just the way it is. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.