[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 117 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6154-H6160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1515
       RECLAMATION TITLE TRANSFER AND NON-FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE 
                          INCENTIVIZATION ACT

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 985, I call up

[[Page H6155]]

the bill (H.R. 3281) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
facilitate the transfer to non-Federal ownership of appropriate 
reclamation projects or facilities, and for other purposes, and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 985, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3281

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reclamation Title Transfer 
     and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Eligible facility.--The term ``eligible facility''--
       (A) means a reclamation project or facility, or a portion 
     of such a project or facility (which may include dams and 
     appurtenant works, infrastructure, recreational facilities, 
     buildings, distribution and drainage works, and associated 
     lands or interests in lands or water) that meets the criteria 
     for potential transfer established pursuant to section 4; and
       (B) does not include a reclamation facility or separately 
     functioning portion of such facility that generates 
     hydropower marketed by a power marketing administration.
       (3) Qualifying entity.--The term ``qualifying entity'' 
     means an agency of a State political subdivision, joint 
     action or powers agency, water users association, Indian 
     Tribe or Tribal utility authority, that--
       (A) held or holds a water service contract, repayment 
     contract, operation and maintenance contract, water rights 
     settlement contract or exchange contract providing for water 
     service from the eligible facility to be transferred; and
       (B) as determined by the Secretary, has the capacity to 
     continue to manage the conveyed property for the same 
     purposes by which the property has been managed under 
     reclamation law.
       (4) Conveyed property.--The term ``conveyed property'' 
     means an eligible facility that has been transferred out of 
     Federal ownership under this Act.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF TITLE TRANSFER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may convey to a qualifying 
     entity all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to any eligible facility, subject to subsections (b) and 
     (c), if--
       (1) the Secretary notifies Congress in writing of the 
     proposed conveyance, and the reasons for the conveyance, not 
     later than 90 days before the date on which the Secretary 
     makes the conveyance; and
       (2) Congress does not pass a joint resolution disapproving 
     the conveyance before such date.
       (b) Associated Water Rights and Uses.--Federal interests in 
     associated water rights and uses, if included, shall be 
     conveyed in accordance with applicable State law under this 
     Act by a written agreement between the Secretary and the 
     qualifying entity.
       (c) Consultation.--Interests in eligible facilities shall 
     be conveyed under this Act by a written agreement between the 
     Secretary and the qualifying entity, developed in 
     consultation with any existing water and power customers 
     affected by the eligible facility.
       (d) Right of First Refusal.--If the entity that operates 
     and maintains an eligible facility at the time that the 
     Secretary attempts to facilitate the conveyance under 
     subsection (c) is a qualifying entity, that entity shall have 
     the right of first refusal to receive the conveyance under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR TITLE TRANSFER UNDER THIS 
                   ACT.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall establish criteria for 
     determining whether facilities are eligible for title 
     transfer under this Act. The criteria shall include the 
     following minimum requirements:
       (1) The qualifying entity agrees to accept title to the 
     property proposed for transfer.
       (2) The proposed title transfer will not have an 
     unmitigated significant effect on the environment.
       (3) The qualifying entity intends to use the property for 
     substantially the same purposes the property is being used 
     for at the time the Secretary evaluates the potential 
     transfer.
       (4) The transfer is consistent with the Secretary's 
     responsibility to protect land and water resources held in 
     trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes.
       (5) The transfer is consistent with the Secretary's 
     responsibility to ensure compliance with international 
     treaties and interstate compacts.
       (6) The qualifying entity agrees to provide, as 
     consideration for the assets to be conveyed, compensation to 
     the United States worth the equivalent of the present value 
     of any repayment obligation to the United States or other 
     income stream the United States derives from the assets to be 
     transferred at the time of the transfer.

     SEC. 5. OTHER CONDITIONS FOR CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Power Rates.--No conveyance under this Act may 
     adversely impact power rates or repayment obligations.
       (b) NEPA.--The Secretary shall apply a categorical 
     exclusion process under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) on eligible facilities under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. LIABILITY.

       Effective upon the date of conveyance of any eligible 
     facility pursuant to this Act, the United States shall not be 
     liable for damages of any kind arising out of any act, 
     omission, or occurrence based on its prior ownership or 
     operation of the conveyed property, except for damages caused 
     by acts of negligence committed by the United States or by 
     its employees, agents, or contractors, prior to conveyance.

     SEC. 7. BENEFITS.

       After a conveyance under this Act--
       (1) the conveyed property shall not be considered to be a 
     part of a Federal reclamation project; and
       (2) in the event that a transfer of an entire project 
     occurs, the entity to which the property is conveyed shall 
     not be eligible to receive any benefits, including project 
     power, with respect to the conveyed property, except benefits 
     that would be available to a similarly situated entity with 
     respect to property that is not part of a Federal reclamation 
     project.

     SEC. 8. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS.

       After a conveyance under this Act, the entity to which the 
     property is conveyed shall comply with all applicable 
     Federal, State, and local laws and regulations in its 
     operation of the conveyed property.

     SEC. 9. NOTIFICATION.

       The Secretary shall submit, as part of the Secretary's 
     annual budget submission to Congress--
       (1) a description of the actions taken to implement this 
     Act; and
       (2) a list of conveyances made or initiated by the 
     Secretary or a qualifying entity under this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.


                             General Leave

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  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.

[[Page H6156]]

  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. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is an attempt by my 
Republican colleagues to approve one part of President Trump's so-
called infrastructure plan.
  H.R. 3281 would enact a proposal from the Trump infrastructure plan 
that approves the de facto privatization of some of the public's most 
important water infrastructure, without safeguards to protect the 
American taxpayer or our natural heritage.
  Now, you may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Trump infrastructure 
plan that was transmitted to Congress in February focuses much of its 
attention on giving away the public's infrastructure to private 
interests.
  For example, the Trump plan calls for privatizing Western electricity 
infrastructure, the Dulles International Airport, the Washington 
Aqueduct, the George Washington and Baltimore Washington Parkways, and 
much of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  This Trump yard sale of critical public infrastructure would raise 
consumer costs and would enrich private interests, all while providing 
no meaningful funding for much-needed public infrastructure 
development.
  Now, when it comes to the management of our public infrastructure, it 
is clear that this administration and this Republican Congress would 
simply rather sell it off than fix it. So today, we have before us the 
proposal to dole out much of the public water infrastructure owned by 
the United States, with virtually no strings attached.
  Mr. Speaker, this may be how Mr. Trump liquidates real estate during 
one of his infamous bankruptcies, but it is no way to manage public 
infrastructure.
  Now, the Bureau of Reclamation owns some of the most important public 
water infrastructure in America, including hundreds of dams, canals, 
and other associated infrastructure. Reclamation's infrastructure helps 
deliver water to tens of millions of people, and it serves numerous 
stakeholders, including municipal and industrial water users, farmers, 
Tribes, fishermen, and environmental and recreational interests.

  H.R. 3281 irresponsibly gives the Secretary of the Interior new 
authority to transfer title, which is another term for relinquishing 
ownership, to a broad range of reclamation water projects.
  Now, this bill's proponents have claimed that it only expedites the 
relinquishment of small and easy projects that the Federal Government 
should no longer own. I wish that were the case.
  Mr. Speaker, if that were actually the case, we would have a 
bipartisan bill, and I would be standing here in support of it, because 
I have supported title transfers for select, noncontroversial projects 
when it made sense for taxpayers and the public. In cases of canals and 
waterworks that don't affect water operations and diversions, and where 
there is no significant opposition from Tribes or downstream users, it 
does make sense, to me, for Congress to give the executive branch some 
leeway to dispose of these facilities, as long as appropriate 
safeguards are in place.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us allows this administration to 
unilaterally relinquish ownership of a very broad range of public water 
projects without appropriate safeguards that should be there to make 
sure taxpayers and other stakeholders are protected.
  In fact, this bill is written so broadly that it would allow the 
Secretary of the Interior to hand over multipurpose water projects that 
have no business being owned by one water user.
  Now, the fact is, many of Reclamation's water projects need to be 
operated in a manner that balances difficult, conflicting interests. 
Giving up ownership and control of that project, handing it over to a 
single water user will, in some cases, result in significant harm to 
the many other interests who have a stake in the operation of Federal 
water projects.
  I am also sorry to say that this bill is a bad deal for taxpayers. It 
allows the Secretary of the Interior to hand over publicly owned 
infrastructure and other Federal assets to private interests without 
appropriate taxpayer compensation.
  For example, it fails to require that taxpayers be compensated for 
the loss of publicly owned lands and mineral interests. And whenever 
the Federal Government gives away Federal assets, we should ensure that 
taxpayers who paid for these assets are properly compensated. This bill 
utterly fails on that score.
  I must also point out that H.R. 3281 unwisely removes longstanding 
and necessary congressional oversight for an overly broad range of 
projects. Under existing law, Congress has responsibility to oversee 
and approve the transfer of Federal water projects to ensure that 
transfers are in the public interest.
  This bill eliminates Congress' current oversight and approval 
authority for a host of projects that deserve scrutiny before they are 
given away--not after, but before they are given away. Congress should 
think twice before it surrenders power and lets this administration 
irresponsibly give away the public's infrastructure.
  Before closing, I should also note that this bill is rightfully 
opposed by numerous conservation organizations, including the Sierra 
Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and 
many others.
  Conservation-minded Americans oppose this bill because transferring 
ownership of Federal water projects to non-Federal operators will 
frequently mean less protection for the environment. That is because 
non-Federal water projects often don't have to be operated with the 
same environmental protections that apply to water projects operated, 
owned by Federal agencies.
  For example, projects operated by Federal agencies must comply with 
certain provisions in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Those 
same requirements would no longer apply if a water project was operated 
by a non-Federal entity.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I request a ``no'' vote on this 
bill, and 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

[[Page H6157]]

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. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember very clearly when President Clinton asked 
Vice President Gore to conduct an effort to reorganize government at 
the Federal level, to make it more efficient, to look for ways in which 
we could cut down on bureaucratic red tape and to try to find other 
efficiencies that exist. This was but one of many recommendations that 
Vice President Gore and his group came up with.
  Mr. Speaker, the success of the Bureau of Reclamation to convert 
portions of the arid West into the largest and most advanced 
agricultural economy in the world cannot be overstated.
  Nowhere is that more evident than in California's San Joaquin Valley, 
the most productive agriculture region in the world. We grow 60 percent 
of the Nation's fruits and vegetables, healthy diet, good nutritional 
food for America's dinner table, besides leading in so many other 
commodities that we grow.
  As a matter of fact, it helps the balance of payments. California's 
agricultural economy, 44 percent of it, is part of our international 
trade.
  It would not be possible, though, without the complex and well-
planned set of dams, canals, and other structures that have operated 
successfully for generations--generations.
  However, over time, the aging infrastructure needs to be repaired. It 
needs to be updated. Many of the reclamation projects, when they were 
originally authorized by Congress and the funds were appropriated, were 
intended to be turned over to local districts to operate once the 
projects were repaid, and that is an important caveat. Clearly, there 
was a requirement in the authorization that these projects be repaid, 
and many of these projects around the country are in various states of 
being repaid.

                              {time}  1530

  After the project's operation and maintenance responsibilities have 
been fully transferred, the actual ownership would then be transferred 
as well.
  The transfer of title to local operators, I think, has numerous 
benefits to water users and to the taxpayers. It can reduce paperwork, 
staff time--both at the Federal and local levels--reduce Federal 
backlog of infrastructure repair projects, and help improve the 
environment for public safety because, yes, the environmental laws 
would still be in place.
  I can tell you, in California, our environmental laws are stronger 
than at the Federal level, so I don't believe that is truly an issue.
  And, frankly, we know what the status of our debt in this country is, 
and we know that so many of our departments and agencies--and in the 
case of Federal reclamation projects, there is not sufficient funding 
to do the repair and maintenance that is necessary. It is just very 
simple: The money is not there, and yet these aging projects are 
continuing to try to operate as best they can.
  A transfer can also provide more flexibility to finance local 
upgrades and repairs because it provides an asset to be used as 
collateral.
  When we passed the settlement agreement from the Friant water users, 
as an example, with the NRDC, part of the caveat was that Friant water 
users would be able to repair the Friant-Kern Canal.
  Keeping water facilities in good condition, particularly those that 
recharge groundwater, is critical not only to the San Joaquin Valley 
that I represent that grows this abundant and incredible cornucopia of 
food that is on America's dinner table every night, but today there are 
large sections of the Friant-Kern Canal that stretch from the Friant 
Dam all the way down to Bakersfield that have less than 60 percent of 
their capacity to move water through.
  So last year, when we had an abundance of water, almost 200 percent 
above average, that water could have been used to recharge the 
groundwater in parts of Tulare and Kern Counties. But because we 
couldn't move the water through that portion that has subsided, that 
has cracked, and that is badly in need of repair, we were not able to 
move the water that the facility initially had capacity to move.
  That is one example. There are any other examples.
  Importantly, a title transfer does not ultimately change the way 
facilities are operated; it just doesn't.
  Since 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation, working with interested 
stakeholders, has worked to improve the title transfer process. But I 
believe it is very important to note that, however, specific 
congressional authorization--which this legislation attempts to provide 
some authorization--is still needed to transfer the title of any 
facility, no matter how small, unless a separate administrative process 
is established by law to allow the transfer of such ownership. That is 
what this legislation attempts to do.
  This legislation, therefore, creates an administrative process while 
maintaining the ability of Congress to have the final word, and that is 
to disapprove of any proposed transfer by passing a resolution of 
disapproval.
  So if the Secretary, in fact, worked such an agreement, moves forward 
with a transfer of the title, and Congress says, ``No, we want to 
determine these on a case-by-case basis,'' this legislation will allow 
that to happen. It gives Congress the final word.
  And a NEPA-like process must be a part of that administrative effort 
to, in fact, successfully transfer the title. So it has got to be 
repaid; you have to have a NEPA-like process; and--guess what--Congress 
has the final word.
  This legislation would significantly streamline the title transfer 
process, divest the Federal Government of unnecessary liability, and 
allow these projects to run, I think, more effectively and with better 
outcomes when local water districts that are publicly owned, that have 
their own elected boards, have their own fiduciary responsibility to 
provide water to the area they serve, to make good, cost-effective 
decisions on behalf of the water interests that they serve, whether 
they be farmers or whether they be communities. And it is all of the 
above.
  So this legislation is supported by many organizations, it is 
bipartisan, and I thank the author of the legislation for helping 
facilitate legislation that will allow reclamation to improve a title 
transfer process, which is not a new idea. It goes back to the Clinton 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I support this legislation, I urge my 
colleagues to do the same, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been brought up that Vice President Al Gore 
proposed, in certain instances, that title transfer might make sense. 
That is correct.
  But I have also acknowledged that I, myself, have proposed that, in 
appropriate circumstances, title transfers can make sense. They can be 
good for water users, for the taxpayers, and for other users as long as 
the right safeguards are in place.

[[Page H6158]]

  What we are really talking about here, though, is a bill that fails 
to work in that narrowly tailored space that Al Gore and myself and 
others have been willing to work. This bill does not include those 
safeguards. This bill would not be limited to small, noncontroversial 
projects. It could apply to very large multiuse projects, and it could 
apply to those projects in ways that do not include safeguards to 
protect other stakeholders and other interests. That is why we disagree 
on this point.
  Now, it has also been argued that because water districts have repaid 
the Federal Government through water rates, somehow, that effectively 
means they should have an entitlement to transfer of these facilities.
  A couple points need to be emphasized here.
  First, under reclamation law, water districts generally only pay a 
fraction of the total cost to construct reclamation water projects. The 
rest of these costs have been borne by taxpayers because the projects 
were deemed to have public benefits, such as fish and wildlife 
enhancement and recreation.

  Given the billions spent by taxpayers on reclamation projects, it is 
appropriate for the public to maintain ownership of projects, 
especially in cases where title transfer could result in operational 
changes that jeopardize those public benefits for which the public has 
borne the cost.
  Now, project construction costs that are borne by water districts are 
further reduced by various taxpayer subsidies that should be part of 
the equation, including federally subsidized, zero-interest financing, 
power subsidies, and write-offs of debt owed to taxpayers that are 
deemed beyond a water district's ``ability to pay'' under reclamation 
law.
  And then, finally, it is important to note that even water districts 
who pay for this water over time, they still don't pay for any land 
that might be appurtenant to these facilities. That land, under this 
bill, would go along with the title transfer, and so would the mineral 
rights underneath that land. These would be essentially bonus 
subsidies, potentially, to these water districts without proper 
compensation to the U.S. taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we need to insist on the 
safeguards that I and others, when we worked on this issue, have 
proposed and that are so lacking, unfortunately, in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would disagree that we have not put in 
safeguards. We put in a safeguard that my colleague who just spoke 
offered in committee.
  He offered an amendment, and we adopted it in the spirit of fair play 
and bipartisanship, that Congress be given a 90-day notice if there 
ever were to be a transfer that we objected to, and we could do a 
resolution of disapproval, stopping that transfer. If something was 
wrong in the transaction, it was too big, multiuse, or whatever, we 
have a way to stop that. That was the amendment that my colleague 
offered, and we adopted that. So we have built-in safeguards.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is an expert on many water issues 
in the West.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me some time this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3281, the Reclamation 
Title Transfer and Non-Federal Infrastructure Incentivization Act, 
which is offered by my friend from Colorado, Chairman Lamborn.
  This legislation brings commonsense streamlining efforts to the 
Bureau or Reclamation to transfer Federal water projects to local water 
entities like irrigation districts and local water user associations.
  Reclamation, or BOR, is the Nation's largest wholesale water 
supplier, providing one out of five Western farmers with irrigation 
water for over 10 million farmland acres that produce 60 percent of the 
Nation's vegetables and a quarter of its fresh fruit crops.
  These projects in water districts are vital to my district in central 
Washington, where we grow over 300 different crops, including the 
iconic Washington apple--hopefully, you have enjoyed some of those--or 
Washington cherries, potatoes, and three-quarters of the Nation's hops 
production.
  Reclamation's assets in Washington include 16 dams, three hydropower 
stations, four major water projects, and miles and miles of canals, 
which deliver water to the end users.
  There are currently two water districts in central Washington seeking 
title to sections of Federal water projects--the Kennewick Irrigation 
District, the KID, and the Greater Wenatchee Irrigation District--both 
of which, for many years, have managed and maintained these important 
water delivery systems.
  Now, this legislation would provide a streamlined process to transfer 
reclamation facilities to those local entities, which includes a number 
of benefits for the water users, but also a number of benefits to the 
Federal Government.
  This streamlined process can reduce regulatory burden at the local 
and the State and Federal levels by cutting unnecessary paperwork and 
reducing staff time at all levels of government.
  Additionally, through this process, local districts can take full 
control of these projects, which they already maintain and manage. By 
authorizing this streamlining process, local districts can leverage 
private financing through their ownership, which further reduces the 
Federal Government's spending and backlog of repairing and upgrading 
these projects.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a win-win solution for the 
Federal Government and for the water users. These projects have been in 
place for many years, but Reclamation has been inundated and 
overwhelmed by some of the needs for a growing population and for water 
users. Local communities need this support.
  Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with some of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle just yesterday about this legislation, and they 
shared with me that they were worried that this was simply the 
privatization of Federal water projects and properties within 
Reclamation, but this is just not the case. This legislation simply 
allows the Department of the Interior to convey certain projects or 
facilities to these local entities, like irrigation districts, Indian 
Tribes, or State and local municipalities. This has nothing to do with 
selling off water assets to corporations.
  Additionally, the entity receiving the assets must use them for the 
same purposes as intended by Reclamation. The transfer cannot have a 
significant effect on the environment, and the receiving entity must 
agree to provide the Federal Government with the equivalent present 
value of any repayment obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation streamlines water uses for local 
communities while reducing government waste and burdensome regulations. 
It is simply a win-win for the American people. I look forward to 
voting in support of this legislation, and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to do the same.

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on my friend's point about privatization, let me just 
clarify that, in many cases, water districts, certainly many of those 
in California and many of those that serve agricultural interests in 
the Central Valley, are comprised and governed by private agribusiness 
owners and private landowners. They elect the board. They set the 
agenda.
  Further, by the terms of this bill, it allows transfer to joint power 
entities which, under California law, at least--I would suspect, the 
laws of other States as well--can include nonpublic agency entities.
  So I believe the concern about privatization is certainly valid in 
this case.
  Now, the gentleman from California has mentioned the fact that one of 
the safeguards in legislation that I have proposed has been included in 
this bill. I am grateful for that. But the back end protection of the 
possibility of a joint resolution coming out of Congress within a 
certain period of time, while not insignificant, is pretty hard to 
actually achieve in a slow-moving Congress.
  Far more important are the other safeguards that were in my 
legislation on the front end of the process, including safeguards that 
were intended to ensure that bigger multiuse, more controversial, more 
public benefit-oriented

[[Page H6159]]

projects would not be subject to this type of authority by the 
executive branch.

                              {time}  1545

  Those front-end protections are important, and the most important of 
them, of course, is that for those type of projects, Congress would 
retain project-by-project approval authority, and not cede it to the 
executive branch.
  In effect, my bill included a belt and two suspenders. At best, the 
bill from my friend from Colorado includes one suspender and nothing 
else. So we disagree on the adequacy of these safeguards.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response, I would just point out that the amendment 
that we adopted in committee giving Congress the ability to, within 90 
days, do a resolution of disapproval on any one of these transfers that 
we have a problem with, was offered by my colleague. It was his 
language. So it is something that I think he should approve of.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 19 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is hard for many people to understand 
how important water is in the West, what a precious resource it is in 
the West, and how complicated the issues regarding water are.
  In the case of the Bureau of Reclamation, 140,000 Western farmers, 
one in five who get irrigation water, get it through 8,000 miles of 
canals through the Bureau of Reclamation. 500 dams run by the Bureau of 
Reclamation ensure flood control for tens of thousands of Westerners--
millions, actually--and it also provides water for residential, 
municipal, and industrial use, serving 31 million people.
  This is not something to be lightly tampered with with the 
privatization agenda of this administration. Now remember, we were 
going to have on the State of the Union day a $1.5 trillion 
infrastructure plan. Where is it? It doesn't exist. In fact, they 
haven't put forward one penny. In fact, they have proposed to cut 
funding for infrastructure in the President's budget.
  But they want to come up with little things so that they can say, oh, 
look, we are promoting infrastructure here. We are going to sell off 
Federal assets to who knows who--private entities, foreign entities, 
anybody who wants them.
  Remember Enron and energy deregulation? The next big thing was going 
to be water. That is what they were going to get into. They were going 
to control and manipulate water supplies to drive up the prices.
  Well, this bill offers the prospect of someone like an Enron to get 
hold of public assets today--Bureau of Reclamation, a Federal asset--
and its water resources. And then what happens? Well, that is an 
awfully big question mark. What would happen after a private entity 
takes over what was formerly being run in the public interest with 
allocation among competing users?
  We might just have a new competition. If anybody remembers that 
movie--I can't remember the name right now about Los Angeles and Owens 
Valley and all of the shenanigans they did--``Chinatown.'' That is it. 
We could have a 21st century version of ``Chinatown'' involving private 
interests, or municipal interests, or foreign interests getting control 
of our water.
  The gentleman from Colorado says, oh, no. Congress can act after this 
administration has arbitrarily entered into an agreement to sell off 
public assets, water assets, the Bureau of Reclamation, Congress can 
act to stop it. Anybody heard of the United States Senate?
  Tell me, what are you going to get them to do in 90 days? Could you 
wake them from their nap? I don't think so. I mean, yeah, maybe in the 
House--particularly if the Democrats were in charge--we could stop some 
really bad privatization proposals by the Trump administration of these 
precious water resources in the Western United States. We could do it 
within 90 days. Heck, we can do it in quick time. Not the Senate. It is 
subject to a filibuster, so any one person could block Congress from 
acting.
  So that is not a safeguard. That is about the flimsiest, phoniest, 
and most transparent of non-safeguard safeguard I have ever seen.
  So why would we trust this administration with the most precious 
asset that many of us have in the Western United States--particularly 
this year, it has been so dry--which is our water resources, and then 
when the winters come, our flood-control resources? Why would we want 
private entities to control those things? You want us to shut the 
floodgates and stop your house from--well, that is going to cost you if 
you want us to retain that water up here, because that wasn't in our 
plan. So if you want some flood control, that will cost you X.
  Oh, your fields have gone dry and you want us to do some release from 
the full reservoir that we control? It is our water. Well, that is 
going to cost you. It is going to cost you a lot, because it isn't 
going to rain for another 2 months, if you want to save your crops. 
This is a colossally bad idea and it should die here today.
  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. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Colorado.
  So let's talk about this Huffman safeguard that has been discussed 
most recently. It is a perfectly good piece of a safeguard framework, 
if it is accompanied by all of the other pieces that went with it and 
that are designed to go with it. And that included all of the front-end 
protections that were part of the legislation I had proposed, but which 
my Republican colleagues did not include in their bill, to make sure 
that only the right kind of projects--not the controversial ones--were 
subject to this new grant of authority to the executive branch. That is 
what this is all about.
  Simply tacking on one safeguard, which, frankly, was the flimsiest of 
them all to begin with, doesn't come anywhere close to addressing the 
problem. As I have said, instead of a belt and suspenders, it is a 
single suspender--a perfectly good suspender, but try walking around 
with one suspender all day long and you will find it not very adequate.
  This bill recklessly authorizes the de facto privatization of public 
infrastructure. It fails to protect interests of numerous stakeholders, 
including American taxpayers, Tribes, fishing groups, environmental and 
recreational interests, and, finally, it comes from the bankrupt Trump 
infrastructure plan that reflects this administration's failed 
privatization philosophy.
  The public deserves a real infrastructure plan, not a shell game that 
simply gives away and privatizes existing public infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that my bill was introduced 
way before any Trump infrastructure plan bill was introduced.

[[Page H6160]]

  And, secondly, the idea in this bill comes from the Clinton 
administration from 20-25 years ago. It was part of Al Gore's 
reinventing government initiative. So it has a bipartisan history that 
goes back decades. Emotional diatribes against the President, I think, 
are not germane to what this bill is really all about.
  I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by pointing out that this also 
has strong environmental protections. In no way is any environmental 
law eroded, and it does not allow those who wish to pursue title 
transfer to do so unless they adhere to Federal environmental statutes. 
Section 5 of the bill simply states that the Secretary develop a 
categorical exclusion process consistent with NEPA.
  This section is in no way a NEPA waiver, nor is it a congressionally 
mandated categorical exclusion. This provision simply requires the 
Secretary to develop a checklist so that the agency can quickly 
identify any possible conflicts with the Endangered Species Act or any 
other environmental factors that need to be addressed in the NEPA 
process.
  Section 8 of the bill specifically states that after conveyance into 
this act, the receiving entity must still comply with all applicable 
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
  Finally, I think it is worth noting two additional criteria set forth 
in this legislation. The transfer must not have an unmitigated, 
significant effect on the environment, and the receiving entity must 
operate the property consistent with current operations under the 
Bureau of Reclamation.
  So any thought that there is an evasion of environmental protections 
is simply false. At this point, I would urge my colleagues to support 
this commonsense legislation. There are plenty of good safeguards that 
are put into place on a bipartisan level. This is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation with decades of support from both parties. I would urge my 
colleagues to adopt H.R. 3281, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 985, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Huffman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3281 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 10. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

       The Secretary may not relinquish ownership of an eligible 
     facility to a qualifying entity if the entity employed the 
     Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the Interior as a federally 
     registered lobbyist within the past 3 years.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is the part where I give the usual 
stipulation that this is the final amendment to the bill which will not 
kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will 
immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  This amendment is simple. The underlying bill allows the Department 
of the Interior to dole out publicly owned infrastructure and other 
public assets to water districts.
  My amendment simply says, the Department of the Interior can't give 
away public assets to a water district if that district has employed 
the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Interior as a lobbyist in 
the previous 3 years.
  Put another way, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary can't give away 
public infrastructure to those who recently signed their lobbying 
paychecks. It should go without saying that this basic ethics 
requirement is needed, particularly in this administration, where 
conflicts of interest and corruption run so rampant.
  The Department of the Interior has been mired in scandals. The 
Interior Secretary's actions have triggered at least 10 government 
investigations. It was also recently revealed that the Secretary and/or 
his family, are currently in a business partnership to develop a former 
industrial site with the chairman of the energy company, Halliburton. 
Halliburton, of course, has a lot of business pending before the 
Department of the Interior. This is an outrageous conflict of interest, 
and demonstrates how hollow the President's pledge to drain the swamp 
has been.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, Interior Deputy Secretary Bernhardt, the number 
two official at the agency, was most recently employed as a Federal 
lobbyist and had a long list of clients with business before the 
Department, including clients who stand to gain with the passage of 
this bill by taking ownership of public infrastructure. We must not 
allow such blatant conflicts to stand.

                              {time}  1600

  It is time for Congress to exercise some oversight over this 
administration and install some basic rules of accountability and 
ethics.
  If my Republican colleagues are serious about exercising their 
oversight responsibilities, they will support my amendment. It simply 
makes sure that the public's assets cannot be given away to big 
business and narrow special interests if those same interests employed 
agency leadership in the past 3 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. This motion, Mr. Speaker, is just a procedural gimmick 
to delay passage of this important bipartisan legislation.
  If the amendment made by this motion was of critical importance to 
the minority, they could have offered this as an amendment when the 
Natural Resources Committee marked up the bill or filed this amendment 
with the Rules Committee. They did not in either case.
  This bill is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that supports local 
infrastructure and gives local communities the ability to seek private 
financing through equity to improve local, vital water infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________