Scott Tipton

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment before us. Apparently, the bill that is before us today didn't include enough wilderness in my district. As we see in this amendment, we are now trying to be able to add more. The amendment adds an additional 60,000 acres of wilderness in Colorado. One proposed addition that is particularly concerning, because it has local opposition, is the Papoose Canyon. Montezuma and Dolores Counties oppose the wilderness designation of Papoose Canyon. The wilderness study area falls within the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, which I have worked to preserve. The land already has strict Federal protections so wilderness designation is not necessary. Mr. Chairman, again, the BLM has studied these lands and found them to be unsuitable for wilderness. Montezuma and Dolores Counties have requested the Papoose Canyon Wilderness Study Area be released because the canyon is surrounded by private land, which has created challenges when it comes to wildfire prevention. Papoose Canyon Wilderness was not originally in my colleague's bill. Instead of consulting the counties that would be impacted by the addition and considering their objections, we are here debating a last- minute amendment. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues who believe that local voices must be a part of any land management decision to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today to be able to highlight the importance of modernizing the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states that it implements the Endangered Species Act by working with others to conserve the ecosystems upon which the Endangered Species Act and threatened species depend upon and by developing and maintaining conservation programs for these species to improve their status to the point that the protection of the ESA is no longer necessary. I wholeheartedly agree with that mission, and we should do everything possible to be able to grant the Fish and Wildlife Service the ability to be able to better protect at-risk or endangered species. I believe this can be done by utilizing local and State officials in a greater capacity. Much of that legwork doesn't have to be done at the Federal level and can instead be taken over by landowners who are out on the ground every day, working their land for farming, ranching, and for other purposes. They know the challenges that the threatened and endangered species face. They are in a unique position to be able to provide input on the best conservation strategies. That is why, with this concept in mind, I have introduced the LOCAL Act, to be able to incorporate that hands-on local experience, to make sure that we are achieving what the ultimate goal is: to actually rehabilitate the species, to be able to take it off the endangered species list, and to be able to protect others from being added. In the past 46 years of the law's existence, there is one glaring statistic that points to reforms being necessary. Since the ESA was first signed into law, there have been over 1,660 species listed. Of those, only 54 species have fully recovered, or an underwhelming 3 percent. These numbers speak volumes that a one-size-fits-all mentality does not always result in the way that it is intended to. Not only that, but the red tape, timeframe, and expense to be able to recover a species is astronomical. It is important to note that the goal of the ESA is to be able to keep species off the list in the first place, not keep them on for undetermined lengths of time. Madam Speaker, I am glad to join my colleagues in the Congressional Western Caucus to be able to highlight the necessity of ESA reform. In Colorado, we are proud to be able to have an abundance of wildlife, wildlife that resides on our public lands and, in many cases, in our own backyards. As residents of the State, we self-promote taking extra caution in our lands so that they may be preserved for future generations to enjoy. After almost 50 years of lackluster results of recovering endangered species, I believe it is time that we rethink our strategy and place more trust in the local stewards of the land, not just bureaucrats in Washington. If the goal is truly to recover species and to be able to protect species, let's make sure that we have programs in place that are going to achieve those results that we can all embrace.

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this partisan impeachment process. Make no mistake, this process did not begin with the whistleblower report. In fact, impeachment efforts began shortly after the President was elected. The theatrics and political posturing that have ensued are not part of an effort that this body is actually pursuing to preserve checks and balances, rather, this process echoes the calls by some who refuse to accept the 2016 election results. Neither of the articles receiving a vote justify the removal of the President from office. The first article suggests that the President pressured a foreign government to be able to assist in an upcoming election. Ukraine received its aid without a prearranged agreement, proving this article to be an unsubstantiated allegation. The second article is premised that obstruction occurred when the White House ignored subpoenas issued by the House. Our Federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of these decisions. In fact, previous administrations, Republican and Democrat both, have dealt with these issues and claimed executive privilege. Madam Speaker, the articles that are before this House are unsubstantiated. I intend to vote ``no'' on these articles, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Master Sgt. James Chamberlain of La Veta, Colorado who is retiring from the U.S. Air Force after nearly 30 years of service.

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, we hear the President is for the extension, the Senate is for the extension. The problem is, they are not for this piece of legislation. I think it is important to be able to note that the ranking member, once again, on the Committee on Financial Services had a deal in principle with the chair to be able to reauthorize the Bank, to be able to add strong protections against China's global interest. Unfortunately, that deal was pulled, and we are left with the bill that does not address these issues head-on. In the committee's process, I offered an amendment to be able to combat China's Belt and Road Initiative that would prohibit Ex-Im's assistance to the Government of China unless otherwise authorized by the President of the United States. China's envisioned the Belt and Road as an economic tool to be able to expand their influence and, in some cases, force countries to become overly reliant on financing from China. The Belt and Road projects also raise a specter of infrastructure that could be used by China's military, even as China promotes international reach with the yuan and the potential displacement of the dollar. With more than 60 countries potentially hosting Belt and Road projects and estimated total financing exceeding $1 trillion, the Chinese Government's ambitions are massive and serious--and should be taken so. The Obama administration actively attempted to be able to keep foreign countries from joining China in their Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank over concerns that the resources would support Beijing's geopolitical ambitions. The bill on the floor today does nothing to be able to address these issues. If anything, the Belt and Road Initiative is even more worrying, and we ought to take a strong stance against it. Further, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, China's Belt and Road Initiative is one of the main planks of China's statecraft under the current regime, and it is a key component of the Made in China 2025 economic development strategy. And yet, my amendment, in process, was rejected in committee, and there is no trace of proactive restraint against the Belt and Road investments in the bill on the floor today. It is completely nonsensical to have the Export-Import Bank offer U.S. taxpayer-backed subsidies to companies implementing projects that further Beijing's geopolitical ambitions.

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, my district is home to the High-Altitude Army National Guard Aviation Training Site, or HAATS. It is both a privilege and an honor representing the U.S. Department of Defense's lone training site where special aviators in the Nation's Armed Forces and the militaries of our foreign allies learn how to fly safely in mountainous, high-altitude environments. HAATS is a vital asset to our national security. Proposed wilderness expansions in this bill around HAATS are creating concerns about the future of the site's ability to be able to ensure military readiness for the men and women who may be deployed in combat zones in the Middle East. The sponsors of the CORE Act have indicated that their goal is to protect HAATS. The DOD looks to the Colorado-specific language of DOD's flight guidance, as published in the DOD AP/1 handbook, with regard to how to operate under the CORE Act. While I appreciate the DOD's guidance, I know all too well that regulatory changes do not provide certainty. We cannot risk the guidance being overturned by future administrations. So, in conversations with DOD, I asked if they had any objections to the Colorado language that is laid out in the AP/1 handbook being codified. Subsequently, in direct correspondence with my office on both May 13 and June 4 of this year, DOD both times stated no objection to the codification. The only way to be able to provide certainty for HAATS is to ensure the implementation of the Colorado guidance by codifying that in this bill. So, what is that guidance? Current law requires DOD aircraft to be able to fly at a minimum of 2,000 feet above designated wilderness areas. However, in Colorado, the terrain conditions make maintaining the 2,000-foot minimum altitude challenging and dangerous. The Colorado guidance indicates that if oxygen requirements, icing levels, engine power limitations, cloud clearance, or turbulence prevent the DOD aircrews from meeting the 2,000-foot requirement, the aircraft are authorized to be able to deviate from the requirement to safely transit the wilderness areas. You can see, clearly, why it is important that the CORE Act includes provisions to be able to codify the Colorado guidance. I do not understand the resistance of the majority to make this commonsense change to the bill. Perhaps it is because some of my colleagues remain supportive of other pending wilderness legislation that, as drafted, would, among other things, have a direct and negative impact on HAATS, affecting aviators utilizing 71 landing zones amounting to 40 percent of the HAATS training area. Perhaps the rejection of this commonsense idea thus far is yet another example of the need to be able to reach out to all stakeholders and hear the concerns and ideas from the district most impacted by it, not allowing important amendments even to be considered by this House. We let eight amendments, Mr. Speaker, sit in the Rules Committee, not allowing Members to be able to vote on them. These are voices from our communities in the Third District directly impacted by the bill. It is important to be able to seek broad community support outreach. This is needed to be able to build true consensus for a successful public lands effort. I will also note that calling up the ghosts of past failed public lands proposals that never had broad community consensus or got off the ground to begin with is not an adequate substitute for direct community outreach and consensus building, and also the compromise needed for a bipartisan success story. It is an unfortunate missed opportunity in the House to be able to get it right. My good friend from Colorado's sense-of-Congress amendment that was just adopted is a good message on HAATS, but, after all, that is what a sense of Congress is: just a message with no legislative teeth. Given wilderness legislation being considered by the House today concerning federally designated wilderness in Colorado, HAATS needs more than just a good message. It deserves something codified in law. This MTR will do just that, at least in H.R. 823. We will be able to codify this and ensure that nothing in this bill will override the important Colorado guidance critical to the mission and operation of HAATS and the safety of our men and women in the United States military. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to recommit that promotes our national security, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. TIPTON

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I genuinely appreciate my colleague's position on this. In fact, he will probably recall, and I believe he voted for-- and our colleague from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) did as well--my amendment, to be able to recognize the importance of this issue to the national defense of the United States. We passed that through. 417-6, as I recall, was the vote total that was on there. So I applaud the recognition of the importance of high-altitude training facilities. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Crow, for his service to this country. That is the importance of people being able and willing to put their lives on the line for this Nation, but we do need, I think, ultimately, to be able to go one step further. While this recognizes the importance of it, it does not codify it. That is something that I think is really essential to making sure that the men and women in the United States military have the safest opportunities to be able to do the training that they need to be able to carry out the missions of this country. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to this amendment.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, we often hear the comment on this floor on public lands bills: These lands belong to all Americans. I appreciate and I do respect the support for the CORE Act in terms of the individual communities, but I think it belies the lifestyle on the western slope of Colorado, in particular. The people that traverse, work within different counties, feel the impacts on their businesses, have the impact of water flowing through those communities coming from another county, those are the issues that I think, unfortunately, are not taken into consideration by this bill. I urge support of this amendment. It is a good piece of work to be able to make sure that we are dealing with good forest management. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate my colleague's comments, his passion. I am glad he has been to Montrose to be able to be there. I hope he spent a lot of money while he was there. We would appreciate that. But it is interesting, going back to a comment that the gentleman made earlier, that just saying it doesn't make it so. We are hearing comments that there is broad-based support, there is no opposition. However, Montrose County, which the gentleman just cited, they may support a provision, but they oppose the CORE Act. So to be able to say there is broad, unanimous support is probably something that I think is not taking into consideration some of the concerns that we have heard. I have just held round tables throughout our district, and there were concerns. And as I noted in my floor speech earlier, to be able to see some support, there is--because there is a lot of common ground in Colorado. It is just that we have not gone through all of the elements to be able to get this bill to the point where we will have what I think we would all like to be able to have, and that is unanimous consent to be able to move forward. When we are looking at this specific amendment--again, this is something that is being recommended, not by me but by the Forest Service, when we are talking about those management provisions to be able to maintain that current memorandum of understanding. This is, I think, something that is probably important for our area, an area where I travel, happen to live, and something that I hope that you will consider, and you will support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, when it comes to public lands management, Colorado has a long history of balancing the interests of a broad range of stakeholders, including the needs and interests of citizens who may not be the most vocal on the issues. This is accomplished through proactive outreach to communities and engagement with citizens and local leaders who know their areas best. This type of local engagement has proven to be effective on previous public lands efforts, such as Hermosa Creek and Chimney Rock in southwest Colorado. In both cases, there was an extensive and inclusive community outreach process with many months of bipartisan support, negotiations, and conversations with stakeholders from all sides of the debate. The result was the House passing bipartisan measures to be able to protect these individual and valuable open spaces, both of which have become law. Behind these efforts was a recognition of historic multiple uses of the land as well as for the communities who live there. For many decades, Colorado has responsibly developed natural resources on public lands, which has provided critical funding for emergency services, education, and infrastructure for rural communities that would otherwise be unable to have these services. While doing this, Colorado has also embraced a thriving outdoor economy and protected access to the public lands for historical uses, as well as for sportsmen and other recreational access. We have prioritized conservation of delicate ecosystems and habitats, protected cultural and historic sites, and defended private property and water rights. There are certainly disagreements on the most effective ways to be able to carry out these ideas, but most of us agree that the most effective approach to be able to work through these disagreements is by being able to listen to the local communities and those most affected by Federal decisions and finding a way to be able to incorporate those ideas into balanced legislation. Unfortunately, we have not seen this same type of outreach negotiation and local engagement with the CORE Act as a whole. Some stakeholders and communities in the Third Congressional District were not included. It is important that we do not discount the Third District voices who feel like they were excluded or that their concerns were disregarded. Madam Chair, I have heard from numerous county commissioners who have not been involved in the legislative process for the CORE Act and have simply asked to have their concerns addressed by the House before a vote takes place. This is the same feedback I have repeatedly heard from stakeholders and local elected officials in the Third District following public meetings on these issues over the past few months. I am not saying that there is not support for the CORE Act in the Third District, because there is. Many of our resort and mountain communities are strongly behind the bill, and it is just as important to listen to their input as those in the rest of western Colorado. I am optimistic that we can find a balanced public lands bill that reflects all of these communities, but it can't happen if one side is left out of the conversation from the beginning. More outreach needs to happen, negotiations need to take place, and compromise needs to be made. The commissioners, other local elected officials, and stakeholders in the counties that have not yet been included in the experiences have knowledge and opinions that should be given due consideration when crafting public policy land bills that directly impact many of them and indirectly impacts all of them. We firmly are committed to giving all counties in the Third District the opportunity to be able to have their voices heard and their ideas included in any public lands legislation that impacts their region. During a House Natural Resources Committee on the CORE Act and before the House Rules Committee this week, I introduced amendments that included reasonable and necessary additions to the bill based on direct feedback from Third District stakeholders and officials. I provided my colleagues from Colorado who sponsored this legislation in both the House and the Senate with a similar list of items for inclusion beforehand. These suggestions include protections for existing water and grazing rights; codification of the U.S. Army High-Altitude Aviation Training Site's flight guidelines over wilderness areas; allowing for current public land management activities to continue in recreation areas, and language to ensure that leaseholders in the Thompson Divide are fairly compensated for the value of their leases. These amendments are not controversial. They are not partisan. They do not disrupt or alter the outcomes of the bill. What these amendments do is ensure that there is no ambiguity in the intent of the legislation, as stated by the bill's sponsors and supporters. There is great harm in ambiguity, which is what will result if these amendments are not accepted. I have also offered two amendments to release wilderness study areas, at the request of counties in which they are located. Most of these areas have been deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation. That does not mean that they will not be protected public lands because they all have some measure of protection. Madam Chairwoman, responsible management is not always the result of more restrictive designations. Instead, it can also mean giving local communities greater flexibility to be able to address local land challenges. In recent testimony given before the House Natural Resources Committee, Montezuma County Commissioner Keenan Ertel made the argument for releasing wilderness study areas when they have been deemed unsuitable by the Federal land management agencies for wilderness protections. Seven years ago, the Menefee Mountain Wilderness Study Area was ravaged by fire. Years after the fire, noxious weeds consumed much of the landscape due to the stringent protections given in the area. The weed concerns continue to progress, as projected in this photo. Local agencies are limited in their ability to be able to proactively manage these invasive species because of the stringent wilderness protections that remain in place. If the Colorado delegation is truly vested in passing a statewide public lands bill that has broad local consensus, why aren't we including the removal of these areas that rely on Federal action to be able to allow for better management of these lands? I have suggested to my bicameral Colorado colleagues, and even submitted an amendment, but it was not adopted. I continue to hear that local concerns have been addressed, yet we cannot assure Montezuma County residents that theirs have even been considered. Along with allowing local communities greater access to be able to protect their cherished open spaces from potential wildfires, it also includes buffer zones between wilderness and nonwilderness areas. A look at the devastating wildfires in Colorado over the years shows us just how important this is. In 2013, the West Fork Complex fire, which burned over 100,000 acres in southwest Colorado, is a prime example of how forest fires have no regard for arbitrary lines, as shown on the map. We have, unfortunately, seen the aftermath of this fire and other fires, and they threaten the stability of roads and water quality and are greater erosion threats for many years to come. I raised this concern with the sponsors of the bill, suggesting that we increase the offsets for the trails running on the borders of the wilderness area from 50 to 150 feet. With this reasonable ask, I believe we can eliminate unnecessary risks to our forests and protect them from future forest fires that have the potential to jump across boundary lines onto other public and private lands. Yet, this amendment was not allowed to move to the floor for consideration, nor were 8 out of the 10 amendments that I introduced. Had there been greater outreach across the Third District, the CORE Act's sponsors could have heard more examples just like these that need to be addressed. This week alone, we received letters from Montezuma County, Dolores County, Rio Blanco County, Montrose County, Mesa County, all of which have various concerns about the CORE Act today. That is also accompanied by letters from individuals. Madam Chairwoman, I applaud the CORE Act sponsor, my Colorado colleague, Mr. Neguse. He has a passion for being able to protect public lands in Colorado. It happens to be a passion we share. However, Colorado's Third District, where most of this bill will have an impact, not Mr. Neguse's district--I would be remiss if I did not speak out on behalf of my constituents--have yet to have their voices heard in this process or their issues addressed. I am optimistic that we could eventually get broad community consensus through the Third District on the CORE Act, but first, there is outreach that needs to be done, issues to be worked out, and compromises to be made. There is no doubt that the CORE Act will pass the House tomorrow, that the bill will head to the Senate. However, in good conscience, given the concerns that we have heard out of the district that have not been addressed, I will have to reluctantly vote ``no'' on this current version of the bill. It is my hope that the Senate will consider my amendments, that they will be included, that continued outreach occurs, and that we include the ideas of all western Colorado. I stand willing and ready to be able to work with them. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chair, I think the gentleman mentioned Montrose County. Is it going to be impacted by Curecanti?

Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chair, I have all the other issues that I have outlined, and I need those amendments to be able to do that. That does not make the bill bad, but it does make it an imperfect bill.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of my amendment addressing water rights in the Curecanti National Recreation Area. For years, my staff and I have engaged in numerous conversations regarding the Curecanti National Recreation Area, and there has been bipartisan agreement in these discussions that water rights in the region should remain intact. This area brings in millions of visitors each year and provides recreation opportunities that include fishing, hiking, camping, and more. While it might be an outdoor enthusiast's paradise, it is also a source of Colorado's most precious resource: water. This amendment ensures that there are no unintended consequences in this legislation for longstanding water rights in the impacted area. Mr. Chair, I would like to encourage my colleagues to be able to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his support for the amendment. One of the important points of it, as with some of the subsequent amendments that we have, is to make sure that we are codifying the language so that it is understood. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support my amendment to be able to protect longstanding grazing rights in the Thompson Divide. Since the days of Colorado's pioneers, grazing rights have always played an essential role in the economy and the way of life. Generations of Coloradans have followed suit and continued to build a robust ranching community, including around the Thompson Divide. In my roundtable discussions with local communities affected by Federal public lands, I routinely hear how important ranching is and the importance of protecting grazing rights, and this is true of the Thompson Divide. The permanent withdrawal of mineral and energy development in the region should not suppress any existing grazing rights. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think what is actually important is precisely the words that the gentleman used: unintended consequences that can come. This is a perfecting amendment to be able to make sure that we are codifying the importance of those grazing rights within those communities, something that is important to not only the Thompson Divide area but many of our ranchers who happen to have some grazing leases on public lands throughout the western slope of Colorado, something that is going to be important, but specifically to this bill, to make sure that we are codifying the right to have grazing within the Thompson Divide area with the mineral rights withdrawal that the gentleman is proposing. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.