On the recordJuly 12, 2018
I think I may have heard, and I think it could be a misstatement to say, that this could have been a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill. Now, it may not be unanimous, but it is a bipartisan bill. And for that, I am glad. I also thought I heard an emotional criticism of President Donald Trump. This was an idea first proposed by Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration in the 1990s, so it is not a new idea, by any means. This is an idea that has been around for a while; Congress just hasn't acted on it. We are using the same old, case-by-case basis of doing transfers, which is cumbersome and works a hardship on the local people and communities out in the West. Now, for the allegation that this in some way shortchanges the taxpayer, that is simply not true. I don't call it a giveaway when someone gets title to something they have already paid for. When my colleague goes to the car lot and buys a car and they give him a car, that is not a giveaway; he has paid for that. He should receive title. He should receive ownership. Facilities eligible for transfer under this process would be subject to an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation that would require these projects to be fully paid off, based on the fair market value of any outstanding obligation to the taxpayers. That is in the language of the bill.…
Source
govinfo.gov




