Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, all I will say in response is that this is a subspecies--actually, it is not even a species or subspecies. It should have never been listed in the first place. The science shows that it is actually part of the Bear Lodge jumping mouse population. For that reason, it shouldn't even be on the list in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It simply ensures that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has to follow section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act by conducting a review of all threatened and endangered plants and wildlife at least once every 5 years. It prohibits any funds in the bill from being used to implement or enforce the listing of any plant or wildlife that has not undergone the review as required by law. 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. The reviews assess each threatened and endangered species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review and whether it should be removed from the list, delisted; reclassified from endangered to threatened, downlisted; reclassified from threatened to endangered, uplisted; or maintain its current classification. You can find all this on the Web site of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Because the Endangered Species Act grants extensive protection to a species, including harsh penalties for landowners and other citizens, it makes sense to verify if a plant or animal should be on the list in the first place. Despite this commonsense requirement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged that it has neglected its responsibility to conduct the required reviews for hundreds of listed species. For example, in Florida alone, it was found that 77 species out of a total of 124 protected species in that State were overdue for a 5-year review. In other words, the government had not followed the law for a staggering 62 percent of species in that State. In California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged that it had failed to follow the law for roughly two-thirds of the State's species listed under the Endangered Species Act and was forced by the courts to conduct the required reviews of 194 species. By enforcing the 5-year review, which is in current law, 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 Endangered Species Act, including incorporating new information through public comment and assessing ongoing conservation efforts. These are things we should all be in agreement with. I encourage my colleagues to join me in ensuring that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follows the Endangered Species Act, that we do not provide money in this bill that would violate current law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of Lester L. Stroup, a veteran, a former prisoner of war and a treasured member of the Colorado Springs community. Throughout his life, Lester proudly served and sacrificed for his country, then devoted the remainder of this life to veterans' organizations in the Pikes Peak Region. Lester joined the Army in 1949, during the Second World War, and was assigned to the artillery outfit of the 2nd Infantry Division. Shortly thereafter, he was deployed in defense of the Busan Perimeter following North Korea's invasion of South Korea in 1950. Lester would be on the front lines only one month when his artillery battery was overrun and suffered a defeat. Wounded and surrounded by Chinese forces, Lester and his unit were captured on December 1, 1950. A brutal 400-mile march to the Puchkin Mining Camp initiated Lester's time as a prisoner of war, which lasted for exactly 1,000 days. While imprisoned at the Puchkin Mining Camp, Lester and 750 of his fellow American servicemen were compelled to act as their own burial detail. Every day, on the brink of starvation, these gallant soldiers went out in groups of 12 or 14 to dig shallow graves for prisoners who had died. In less than one years' time, five hundred American prisoners of war perished in this camp, also known as the Death Valley Camp. When Lester was finally released, he was denied the Purple Heart Medal for lack of medical records maintained by the Chinese forces. Lester first retired in 1969 with 20 years of service in the Army, re-enlisting in 1970 and serving a voluntary combat tour in Vietnam. After retiring for good as a First Sergeant in 1975, he dedicated his time and energy to the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Ex-Prisoners of War, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Retired Enlisted Association, Disabled American Veterans, and American Legion Post 5. In 2006, Lester vigorously led the effort to erect a beautiful memorial that now stands in Colorado Springs in memory of our POWs. Until he passed away on August 17, 2014 at the age of 84, Lester unsparingly gave of himself to his fellow ex-prisoners of war and other veterans. His legacy will now be carried on by Doris, his wife of 58 years, his children, his friends, and those with whom he associated as a volunteer. I am greatly honored to celebrate the life and service of Lester Stroup, a patriot whose uncommon and tireless devotion to his country will never be forgotten by his fellow citizens.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most distinguished citizens in the history of Colorado Springs, Mr. William Hybl. Bill has not only served Colorado Springs with his successful business and non-profit careers, he has served our nation and globally represented us as well. From his service in the United States Air Force, to his term as the President of the United States Olympic Committee, to his time representing us in the United Nations, and, particularly, to his distinguished tenure as the Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Public Diplomacy, Bill exemplifies the notion of selfless service for the betterment of our nation. That's why I am delighted that Bill is being honored by the Japanese Government with the Imperial Decoration of the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon. This distinguished award is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed by the Japanese government and Bill has earned this distinction by cultivating a deep and meaningful bond with the Japanese people. During his time as USOC President, Bill led Team USA in the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. He also nurtures many diplomatic and cultural exchanges between Japan and Colorado. Among the greatest of these is the thriving Sister City relationship between Colorado Springs and Fujiyoshida. For these reasons, among many others, I am honored to recognize Bill Hybl and join my fellow citizens in Colorado's Fifth Congressional District in congratulating him on this tremendous honor.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Steve Israel and Congresswoman Gwen Graham for working together with me on this bipartisan effort in the defense bills, as well as now in the Intelligence Authorization Act. I would also like to thank Chairman Nunes and his staff for working together with me on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, as Representative Israel just described, there is a real and growing tunnel threat to American bases and embassies around the world, to our southern border, as well as to our ally Israel, both in Gaza, as well as Israel's northern border. Language I offered in the base intelligence bill, combined with this amendment, will ensure that our intelligence community stays focused on this threat. There will be a dedicated person watching on this issue. Going forward, partnership with Israel is the best way to address this growing threat. As we have seen with Iron Dome and other missile defense efforts, partnering with a vital ally like Israel enables both countries to learn quickly, while sharing costs and new technologies. It is a win-win situation for Israel and the U.S. and, hopefully, a loss situation for the bad guys. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the subcommittee chairman's words, and I will certainly work with him on that effort. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be offering and then withdrawing this amendment because of a point of order on the timing of the budget outlays that we are not able to reconcile at this point in time. But I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Visclosky, for their leadership. Now, this is an important amendment though. My amendment would protect from possible cancellation an innovative program that promises to provide a breakthrough capability for a very small amount of money. Right now, if Iran or North Korea launches a ballistic missile attack on our homeland, we, unfortunately, have no enhanced way of knowing whether or not our defensive missiles actually hit the target or not. That is why the Missile Defense Agency is executing a promising and groundbreaking space sensor system called Space-Based Kill Assessment. The U.S. desperately needs improved sensors in space to provide tracking, discrimination, and more. A robust, multimission space sensor network will be vital to ensuring a strong missile defense program. Without this, we might otherwise waste extremely expensive ground-based interceptors, costing the taxpayer more money, and depleting our limited number of interceptors. The Space-based Kill Assessment program cannot survive a 50 percent cut. Program cancellation may result, and it would waste taxpayer dollars already invested and would also fail to meet congressional intent to have an initial operating kill assessment capability by 2019. This experiment, up until today, has had zero scheduling delays since it was conceived in fiscal year 2014. Finally, this program is a great example of the cost savings and other benefits the government can leverage through commercially-hosted satellite payloads. This program, and other similar efforts, are critical to ensuring that the United States stays ahead of future ballistic missile threats. I would hope that this amendment would have been adopted because it would take money from a lower priority fund and put it into critical ballistic missile defense against our homeland.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I was unavoidably detained on account of a flight delay. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 309, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 310, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 311, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 312, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 313, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 314, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 315, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 316, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 317, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 318.

Mr. LAMBORN

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

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, an email uncovered by the ACLU revealed that the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, collaborated on a plan to use automatic license plate readers to monitor and collect information about law-abiding citizens attending gun shows. Under this program, mere attendance at a gun show would have been enough to have one's attendance recorded in a massive DEA database. As if that weren't bad enough, the primary purpose of this database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists' possessions if police suspect they are criminal proceeds. In response to inquiries about the uncovered document, the DEA has said that the proposal was rejected by superiors and never implemented. Keep in mind that this was taking place in Phoenix in 2009 at about the time of Fast and Furious, and there were, I believe, rogue projects going on in that part of the country at the time. We have litigated that as a House against the Department of Justice, and they have not supplied the documents that they were supposed to have supplied to Congress. We also held former Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not providing those documents. This was at a time when, perhaps, rogue projects were actually going on in Phoenix. I believe that they were, and I believe that this is one of those. However, the DEA never supplied any documents saying that they rejected this project. They blamed it on an underling, and they said it was never implemented. While this assurance is welcome, the fact that such a proposal was even considered raises very serious privacy concerns. My amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to collect or retain information about individuals attending gun shows by means of an automatic license plate reader. This amendment is supported by the NRA, the National Rifle Association; the Gun Owners of America; and the ACLU. Automatic license plate readers should not be used to target law- abiding citizens who are engaged in their constitutionally protected rights. Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology would only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment in order to rein in the illegal surveillance of Americans and to send a clear message to agencies like the DEA and the ATF that automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information during constitutionally protected activities. This includes Second Amendment activities, like attending gun shows. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to that by saying that The Wall Street Journal published an article on January 27 of this year which quotes what the ACLU uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Justice. In pertinent part, this revelation that was obtained by the ACLU reads: The DEA Phoenix Division Office is working closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on attacking the guns going to ``blank''--that is redacted--and the gun shows to include programs-operations with license plate readers at the gun shows. At least some agent or agents within the DEA's Phoenix region believed that they had the authority to go to gun shows and use automatic license plate recognition technology to, basically, throw out a dragnet and take in the identities of everyone who was attending a constitutionally protected activity. That is what this amendment attacks. At least some elements within the DEA thought that they had this authority. They thought they had this power. I don't think this is creating any new legislation, because it is going after a power they believed they already had and believed that they had the ability to exercise. So the withdrawal of funding to something they thought they had the power to do is not creating a new oversight or provision. I forget the word the gentleman used. It is not legislating in the sense of giving them a power they didn't already have. They thought they had this power. This amendment would withdraw the funding for that. I would urge the Chair to reject the point of order raised by the opposition.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on account of a flight delay. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on roll call vote 240, roll call vote 241, and roll call vote 242.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, No. 108, which is included in this en bloc package. My amendment adds a sense of Congress provision regarding our support for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Jordan is one of our most important allies in the region, and I believe that the United States should support Jordan's military efforts to the greatest extent possible. The Jordanians are on the front lines in the fight against ISIS and have suffered the consequences of the President's policy failures regarding Syria. Jordan is under fire from those who wish to do it harm, and we must stand by a country that has been a force for good in the region. In Colorado, we have a unique interest in this relationship, as the Colorado National Guard is partnered with the Jordanian military through the State Partnership Program. Colorado guardsmen are helping train Jordanian servicemembers. This is just one of the ways that we can help stand with our friends in Jordan. I thank the chairman for including this amendment in the en bloc package, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. We should not implement a treaty--the New START treaty in this case--unless we believe the other party to the treaty is trustworthy and will uphold their end of the bargain. Now, if you don't trust Vladimir Putin, then you should vote for this amendment, and let me explain why. Right now, I don't believe the Russians are trustworthy. We know that they are already violating three major agreements: the INF Treaty, the CFE Treaty, and the Budapest Memorandum. Mr. Putin also continues to deny that Russian forces are engaged in combat in Ukraine. Because this amendment deals with treaties, let me expand on the details of these three treaties. First, in 1994, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum. This agreement included a commitment to ``respect''--and I have got a copy right here--``respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'' and a commitment to ``refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.'' Clearly, the recent invasions of Crimea and eastern Ukraine show that the Russian Federation is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. Second, in 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty. Last year, the State Department released its annual compliance report which states--and I have a copy of it right here--``the United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty.'' Third, in 2007 President Putin announced that he was suspending Russian participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, or the CFE Treaty. This came after years of Russian violations of that treaty. Today, as we speak, the Russian military continues to occupy Ukrainian territory. Russian noncompliance with treaties cannot be disputed. My amendment would prevent the continued reduction of our nuclear weapons as required by the New START treaty unless the President can certify to Congress that the Russian Federation is no longer occupying Ukrainian territory and also certifies that the Russian Federation is abiding by their obligations under these three treaties. So if you think that the Russian Federation might not be trustworthy, then please support this amendment. We should not unilaterally disarm and blindly assume that the Russians will do their part. If the President can certify that the Russians are doing their part on these treaties, then the funding to implement the New START treaty will be released. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 27.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude by saying that we are being taken for suckers if we are expected to keep up one end of a bargain and we are dealing with a country that, in so many cases, is not keeping their end of the bargain. That is why this amendment is proposed, not to get back at them, but to protect ourselves. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. President Obama is doing something that much of the country, including myself and many of us on this side of the aisle, are really disturbed about, and that is using his pen and his phone to go around Congress and do things by executive order, or unilaterally, if you might agree with that. To take that same approach with our nuclear stockpile, our strategic defense, is not a good idea. I totally want to resist this amendment. I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on it. Secondly, as has been pointed out earlier this evening, the New START treaty is, I believe, flawed; but what it does is require us to reduce our stockpile and Russia to increase its stockpile. Countries like China are not even included in that treaty. When we are already on a path to seriously reduce the number of our warheads and then to consider unilaterally even cutting them further, that is the height of folly, Mr. Chairman. We should resist this amendment and vote ``no.''

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say it is not the right time to continue to unilaterally disarm under the terms that we would be facing in the face of these violations. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, Representative Mike Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. LAMBORN. I didn't want it to be 18\1/2\ hours.

Mr. LAMBORN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thought that it was better timing to do it in this particular venue because we had other things going on in committee.

Mr. LAMBORN. No.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his leadership on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, amendment No. 26. This amendment would add two important components to the underlying language on Iran contained in the bill. First, it highlights our concerns about the negative consequences of the Russians' selling the S-300 antiaircraft system to Iran. This will only encourage Iran's bad behavior. Second, it adds language that makes it clear that no terrorism- related sanctions should be lifted as part of a nuclear deal with Iran. We should not turn a blind eye to Iran's continued sponsorship of terrorism around the world. In a later en bloc, I will have amendment No. 101, prohibiting military exchanges with Iran. President Obama, unfortunately, treats our adversaries, many times, better than our friends. That is wrong and dangerous. My amendment will prevent the administration from forcing our military to be too friendly with the Iranian regime.