Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response, I just have to say one word: earthquake. During the 2008 Great Southern California ShakeOut, which studied and analyzed the potential effects of a major earthquake, the USGS discovered that there would be a shortfall of building materials, namely, sand and gravel, if there was a major earthquake, God forbid, causing significant damage in the L.A. basin and the surrounding areas. This amendment, if we accept it, would preclude that sand and gravel would be defined as critical, hindering expedited development of these resources. Furthermore, by explicitly excluding sand, gravel or clay, this amendment is at fundamental odds with the National Research Council study--I have quoted it earlier--which stated: ``All minerals and mineral products could be or could become critical to some degree, depending on their importance and availability.'' The California Geological Survey recently released information forecasting a continuing shortage in California of permitted aggregate resources so as to meet only one-third of demand over the next 50 years in the State of California. So we have a shortage coming, whether people like it or not, and that is without a major earthquake. Once again, God forbid. The bill, as currently structured, does allow the market and the Nation's needs to define a mineral as critical, thereby allowing the flexibility necessary for carrying out the provisions of the act. However, this amendment would hinder the efficiency and fluidity this bill seeks to inject into the permitting process for critical and strategic minerals by imposing an extra bureaucratic determination to be made by the Secretary of the Interior. It also picks winners and losers in the mining industry. So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), a senior member of the Natural Resources Committee. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out to my friend and colleague from California that the National Research Council study has said: ``All minerals and mineral products could be or could become critical to some degree depending on their importance and availability.'' So you have to look at the total circumstances surrounding the current supply of a mineral and what that mineral is, and they all, literally, could fit that definition according to the National Research Council. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), my colleague, who is also the vice chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), who is also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, much has been debated here on the floor about what is strategic and what is not strategic. Let me suggest two ways that you could define strategic minerals. You could define it by making a definition so narrow that, in effect, the legislation picks winners and losers or you could write law that says that certain conditions that require certain elements will be the driver of what is strategic and critical. That means the marketplace will decide what is strategic and critical. I think that is a much better approach when I talk about this because I recall hearing that, in the late 1890s, the U.S. Patent Office issued a statement--I think I have this correct here--saying that we ought to close down the U.S. Patent Office because everything that can be invented has been invented. That was in the 1890s. That was before airplanes. That was before cars were commercially available. That was before most telecommunications. This means all the minerals that go into these things weren't even thought of at that time. What we do in this bill is just very straightforward. We say that the strategic and critical minerals will meet any of the following four criteria--and, by the way, you can find these on page 5, section 3, under ``Definitions'': A, for national defense and national security. That is so evident, it hardly needs to be debated. B, for the Nation's energy infrastructure, including pipelines and refining. That is because of the importance of energy. That certainly should not be debated because we have to have a good energy source if we are going to have a growing economy. Also, C, to support domestic manufacturing. That includes, obviously, agriculture and housing as well. In other words, to support our economy. Doesn't that make good sense to have a source of strategic and critical minerals for that? Finally, D, for the Nation's economic security and balance of trade. That makes such good sense because we are seriously out of balance now with China. This approach is more of a long-term solution because 25 years from now there will be a mineral that somebody will find that will be used for new technology. But if we have defined it so narrowly, as the other side would suggest, that we don't know what that technology is, we have, in fact, been picking winners and losers, and that is the wrong approach. The right approach is what is embodied in this bill to say that these four conditions will be the ones that define strategic and critical minerals. Finally, let me close on this: Some people make fun of sand and gravel as being strategic. I guarantee you that, after a major earthquake in northern or southern California, when the freeways collapse, I can tell you that cement and sand and gravel will absolutely fit that definition. In this bill, strategic and critical minerals are not defined, as some have suggested, as all minerals all the time. Instead, H.R. 1937 allows any mineral to be deemed strategic and critical at a given time when the appropriate situation warrants it. This is vital to protecting our economy, our jobs, and our way of life. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2082, and I thank Chairman Miller for his efforts to extend authority for various VA healthcare, benefits, disability, housing, education, job training, and other assistance programs. Part of this bill also ensures that Colorado veterans will receive a completed, state-of-the-art new hospital in Denver. In addition to funding the hospital, though, S. 2082 ensures that the type of construction mismanagement and cost overruns will not happen on future large-scale VA construction programs. The VA has shown us on multiple projects, Denver being, unfortunately, the largest, that they are not properly equipped to handle these large construction projects with their own in-house capabilities. The bill requires that the Army Corps of Engineers or NAVFAC or a different construction agency, but not the VA, will take on the task of managing these large construction programs. We must be good stewards of the taxpayers' money and use that money wisely to care for the veterans. This bill is a step in the right direction to get VA construction back on the right path, while fulfilling the promise made with the hospital to our Nation's veterans. We have a sacred trust to take care of the men and women who have defended our country.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I want to thank my colleagues Representative Sinema and Representative Benishek for their leadership on this issue today and for organizing this time together. I also want to thank Representative Russell for his hard-earned insights that he has shared with us. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we raise awareness for veteran suicide prevention. Unfortunately, this much-needed awareness comes too late for one of my Colorado Springs families. I would like to tell you the story of Noah, a former marine, who served with honor in Iraq in 2009 and in Afghanistan in 2011. I will not use his last name, but his parents have offered the use of his picture. After leaving the Marine Corps, Noah began working on a business degree at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, and started his own online business. Now, Noah comes from a military family, his dad having honorably served for 23 years. He chose to put off college so that he could serve this great Nation. Unfortunately, his parents are appalled by the care their son did not receive from the VA. They believe their son would still be alive had he received better care. Noah was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and received a 50 percent disability rating due to PTSD. On April 2 of this year, he went to the Colorado Springs VA clinic, where medical notes from his visit state that he had had suicidal thoughts. Noah was prescribed a psychotropic drug and was sent on his way. He was not referred for suicide prevention; he was not offered counseling; and there was no follow-up from the VA. He went missing on May 4 and was found dead from an apparent suicide on May 12 of this year. As you can imagine, his family is devastated. They are asking a lot of serious questions. I had the opportunity to ask some of their questions on their behalf during a June 10 hearing by the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations. During the hearing, two top-level VA officials stated that they would personally look into the case and ``make sure this family had been reached out to directly.'' However, a month after the hearing, no contact had been made, and my office had to once again engage the VA on behalf of this grieving family. The VA has since stated that Noah should have been seen within 2 weeks of his medical appointment and that they are modifying their procedures to, hopefully, make sure this doesn't happen in the future. It should not take the death of a marine to get procedures right in regards to suicide prevention. We owe it to our veterans to get it right the first time. Hopefully, this Special Order and the added awareness of veteran suicide will help prevent another tragedy like Noah's.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015. Recent videos released by brave whistleblowers have definitively shown that it is well past time to defund Planned Parenthood. For far too long and to the tune of one-half billion dollars a year, taxpayers have been forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood's abortion on demand. Thanks to these unsettling revelations, we now know that taxpayers have also been subsidizing the trafficking of aborted baby body parts. This is not health care, Madam Speaker. There are over 13,000 publicly supported health centers in our country that do provide excellent women's health care. In my home State of Colorado, there are 240 such healthcare alternatives versus 21 Planned Parenthood locations. This important legislation will not remove funds from women's health care, but shift it to responsible providers. Taxpayers won't have to fund Planned Parenthood's deplorable barbarism. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2223) to authorize, direct, expedite, and facilitate a land exchange in El Paso and Teller Counties, Colorado, and for other purposes.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2223, the Crags, Colorado Land Exchange Act of 2015, which I introduced, along with Mr. Polis, to facilitate a land exchange in El Paso and Teller Counties in Colorado. Specifically, this legislation would convey to the United States the 320-acre Crags property located on the west side of Pikes Peak that is currently owned by the Broadmoor Hotel and that is a perpetual public access easement for the lower portion of the popular Barr Trail. In exchange, an 83-acre Federal parcel located at Emerald Valley Ranch on the southeast side of Pikes Peak and that is a perpetual access easement along two Forest Service roads would be transferred to the Broadmoor. This exchange would eliminate the management and liability issues currently facing the United States because of the significant upgrades and improvements that Broadmoor has made to the Emerald Valley Ranch parcel. Mr. Speaker, this land exchange will also provide increased outdoor recreational opportunities for the public. The 320-acre Crags property is completely surrounded by the Pike National Forest and has been the top acquisition priority for the Pikes Peak Ranger District for several years. The property provides several opportunities to connect forest system trails emanating from The Crags Campground with trails in the Putney Gulch area. In addition, existing trails within the property could become key links in the proposed Ring the Peak Trail. I would like to thank Chairman Bishop and Chairman McClintock and the entire staff of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands for all of their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor tonight to help increase the economic and recreational opportunities around Colorado Springs. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appreciate the ranking member, Representative Grijalva, for his work on the committee. We have many spirited discussions. Sometimes we don't agree, but sometimes we do. This is one of those great occasions when, on a bipartisan basis, we do agree. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, this deal is a capitulation by the greatest nation in the world to the most rogue nation in the world. What makes the deal so bad is that Iran doesn't even have to cheat to emerge in 10 or 15 years with an industrial-sized nuclear program and with little or no breakout time to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities. By lifting the financial sanctions, we are literally financing the very weapons and terror that will be directed at us and our allies by the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. Amazingly, we are abandoning the arms embargo and the ballistic missile embargo against Iran for good measure. Not only is our national security threatened, but our close ally, Israel, fears for its very existence under this deal. We simply cannot abandon Israel. Let history record that I stand against this weak and dangerous deal with a regime that hates the U.S. and hates Israel.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1994, and I thank Chairman Miller for bringing this critical issue to light. Like the chairman, I am on the side of veterans, and we in this Nation have a sacred trust to take care of the men and women who have defended our freedom. Without accountability in the VA, we cannot properly care for our veterans. While I believe the great majority of VA employees are dedicated and hard-working Americans doing the right thing for our veterans, there are those in the VA who have not acted in the best interest of our veterans, and these individuals must be terminated. The fact that only three employees were successfully fired due to wait time manipulations is a disgrace. The current system is broken. Poor and mediocre performance that endangers our veterans should not be tolerated. H.R. 1994 will help remove bad actors more easily from the VA system, enabling the remaining dedicated employees to better serve our veterans. The bill will protect whistleblowers. Accountability in the VA needs to happen now, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1994.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his continued leadership on this critical matter of life. Mr. Speaker, I rise today sickened and angered by yet another report showing what Planned Parenthood's limitless disregard for the unborn child is. Watching senior Planned Parenthood executives discuss the sale of aborted babies' body parts while they casually dine is beyond revolting. This callous barbarism should have no place in civilized society. I am also troubled to have discovered that some of these abhorrent transactions may have taken place in my home State of Colorado. Reports surfaced last week revealing that Colorado State University appears to have violated State law by purchasing aborted baby body parts from a California affiliate of Planned Parenthood. If true, these actions would appear to violate a law that was created by a bill that I introduced and that became law during my time in the Colorado State Senate, a bill prohibiting the purchase of fetal tissue from an abortion. I have sent a letter to the university and have demanded an explanation. Further, I have provided a copy of the letter to Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, and I have urged her office to launch a full investigation. These troubling revelations exposing the monetization of fetal organs further demonstrate the need to fully defund Planned Parenthood. It is unacceptable that we continue to force taxpayers to subsidize this corrupt organization that disregards the dignity of human life while seeking to extract monetary gain from its destruction.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have one other amendment at the desk.

Mr. LAMBORN. I just want to point out that what you are talking about would be in the future. I am talking about the current status of them not following the law by doing the reviews.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that my colleague from Minnesota acknowledged that it is required under the law for Fish and Wildlife Service to do these 5-year reviews. I thank her for admitting that. Their budget is approximately $1.4 billion, and they are able to prioritize within that $1.4 billion where they spend their resources. It is not Congress' fault. They just haven't made it a priority. They should make it a priority to follow the law. They can do these few hundred reviews every year out of $1.4 billion, I am sure. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's require this agency to follow the laws that are on the books. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a tiny rodent with a body approximately 3 inches long, with a 4- to 6-inch tail and large hind feet adapted for jumping. This largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily in streamside ecosystems along the foothills of southeastern Wyoming south to Colorado Springs in my district, along the front range of Colorado. To evade predators, the mouse can jump like a miniature kangaroo, up to 18 inches high, using its 6-inch-long whiplike tail as a rudder to switch directions in midair. But the little acrobat's most famous feat was its leap onto the Endangered Species list in May 1998, a move that has hindered development in moist meadows and streamside areas from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Laramie, Wyoming. Among many projects that have been affected: the Jeffco Parkway southeast of Rocky Flats, an expansion of 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 the mouse. Protecting the mouse has even been placed ahead of protecting human life, and let me explain why that is the case. On September 11, 2013, Colorado experienced a major flood event which damaged or destroyed thousands of homes, important infrastructure, and public works projects. And while Colorado has come a long way in rebuilding, there remains a lot of work to be done. As a result of the Preble's mouse's listing as an endangered species, many restoration projects were delayed as Colorado sought a waiver. In fact, FEMA was so concerned that they sent out a notice that stated, ``legally required review may cause some delay in projects undertaken in the Preble's mouse habitat.'' It goes on to warn that ``local officials who proceed with projects without adhering to environmental laws risk fines and could lose Federal funding for their projects.'' While a waiver was eventually granted, the fact remains that the scientific evidence 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 recent scientific studies have concluded that the Preble's mouse does not warrant protection because it isn't a subspecies at all and is actually part of the Bear Lodge jumping mouse population. 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 the hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on protection efforts could have been better spent on other, more fragile species or other uses to accomplish good. The threats that development and transportation allegedly pose to the mouse have been greatly overstated. Ample regulations already in place minimize the impact of development on this species. My amendment would correct the injustice that has been caused by an inaccurate listing of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and refocus the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts on species that have been thoroughly scientifically vetted and that actually should come under the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Montana for yielding. Mr. Chairman, current Federal coal valuation rules have provided stable and significant royalty revenue to State, tribal, and Federal governments. Despite this tract record, the Department of the Interior has carelessly proposed to modify the valuation of Federal and Indian coal by granting the Office of Natural Resources Revenue new authority to deem sales, potentially disallow costs, and use the default rule to assert arbitrary values for royalty purposes. These broad new authorities come without clear or transparent guidelines for regulators and regulated parties alike, setting the stage for inconsistent valuation and protracted litigation. Furthermore, the arbitrary regulatory environment created by this rule could jeopardize affordable and reliable energy production, American jobs, and crucial revenue for State, Federal, and tribal governments. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and to stop funding for this new rule until the Department of the Interior can demonstrate the need, if there is any--and I am skeptical--to radically alter the way royalties are accessed on Federal coal.