Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for his work on forestry issues and understand the importance this bill has to forestry management in his state. It is my intent, and I believe the intent of my colleagues, that all provisions of H.R. 2936, including title I and title II, unless explicitly excluded, apply to national monuments and all other lands managed by the United States Forest Service. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at how critical people have been about the experts of the Forest Service, as if people don't realize that these provisions in Mr. Westerman's bill weren't coming out of thin air. Somebody told us the tools they need to deal with this. Mr. Chair, may I also add, there are still other issues which we will work out when we get to the Senate on these, some that Mr. Gohmert presented. We will still work on those issues. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill, the only Member on the floor who has a degree in forestry.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chair, I voted for last Congress' version of this bill, one of 19 Democrats to do so. It wasn't perfect, but the bill was step in the right direction. I hoped the Senate would improve it and we would finally make needed changes forest management and fix ``fire borrowing.'' But the Senate never acted on it, or on any other forest management bill. In the 113th Congress, I worked with Reps. Schrader and Walden and crafted a bipartisan bill to create a long-term solution to properly manage statutorily unique forestlands in Western Oregon. It would have devoted nearly 1.3 million acres for sustainable timber production for local mills, created thousands of private sector jobs, and provided much-needed revenue for our rural counties. The legislation was included in a larger bill which passed the House in September 2014. Again, the Senate failed to act. Like last Congress, there are provisions in this bill I support. However, there are provisions that I cannot support. For example, the bill doubles the amount of acres exempt from nearly all environmental analysis for projects up to 10,000 acres, and in some cases 30,000 acres, nearly 47 square miles. I agree there is a need to need to increase the pace and size of forest restoration projects. But the Forest Service and BLM already have many tools to accomplish more management objectives. What they need is funding to complete projects. In fact, Forest Service NEPA experts have initiated a comprehensive review to determine opportunities, already allowed under law, to increase efficiencies and management tools to expedite environmental review, including proposing new categorical exclusions. It's true that in some cases the Forest Service and BLM don't use authority they have because of legitimate concerns about the threat of litigation and the accompanying expenses it incurs. But it is disingenuous for us to claim that this bill, or any forest management bill, is a miraculous fix to harvest more timber, improve forest restoration, or reduce fuels to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires, without Congress providing funding to do so. In fact, according to the Forest Service, in Oregon there are over 1.8 million acres of treatment projects that are ``shovel ready,'' meaning all environmental analysis has been completed. But they stay on the shelf, because the Forest Service doesn't have the funds to complete them. We've all seen the destruction from this year's severe fire season. Homes and businesses were destroyed, and dozens of lives were lost in Northern California. In my district, over 300,000 acres burned. The Forest Service says that nationally there are now more than 44 million homes are within the Wildland Urban Interface, at high risk of burning in a wildfire. In 2004, Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which if properly implemented would go a long way to reduce the threat of wildfires in our communities. It authorized up to 20 million acres to be treated to remove hazard fuels in the Wildland and Urban Interface, as well as protect municipal water supplies from catastrophic wildfires. We authorized $760 million annually to perform the work. So far, thirteen years later, only 2.5 million acres have been treated. Why is that? We have never come close to appropriating enough funding to get the job done. In Fiscal Year 2017, Congress appropriated $390 million for hazardous fuels reduction. As always, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve forest management and help our rural communities get back on their feet. But it must be balanced approach. Unfortunately, this bill is not a balanced approach.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who has sat through 2 years of discussions of the ideas from the Forest Service in creating this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and a letter sent from 40 forestry coalitions that are in support of this particular bill. National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Washington, DC, October 24, 2017. Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we make this transition, let me try and sum up where we are at this particular time. This particular bill was done in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service under both the Obama administration and the Trump administration. This has the approval of local governments, Tribes, sportsmen's groups, and labor unions. The last time we had this bill, it had a good bipartisan vote on it, but these are issues that the Forest Service needs and they can use on day one of their issue. What the Forest Service needs are resources, obviously. We know that. But they also need the tools that they need to actually do their work. Now, there are some on the fringe who are going to say that everything is wrong here, but I would encourage them to get rid of the usual rhetoric and to pocket the dogma for a minute and realize that what we need to do is come up with a system that affects the planning process. The Forest Service admits they have 50 to 60 million acres of forestland today that is ready to be a catastrophic catastrophe. They want to treat 25 percent of what they own a year. They are only treating 2 to 3 percent. That means, of the 50 to 60 million acres they have that are in dire situations right now, they can only treat 3 a year. That would take them 20 years to try and get through what needs to be treated unless we give them new tools to reform the system to make that process going in, and that is exactly what this bill does: it rewards collaboration; it tries to stop unnecessary litigation; it comes up with arbitration concepts that are in there; it expands the ability of streamlining the process so they can get to work. Our people need the resources to do their job. They need the tools. We should make it very clear that money alone is not going to solve the problem of wildfire catastrophe. What we have to do is solve the conditions that create the catastrophic wildfires in the first place, and that means that we need to make sure that we are doing things so we can prohibit what has happened, which has been devastating to people and their property; which has destroyed habitat for species, endangered and unendangered; and which has created conditions of pollution in our atmosphere. All that has to take place. Everything in this bill is what the experts in the Forest Service said they can do on day one after it is passed. It needs to take place. It needs to be in addition to the financial solving of the wildfire situation. You need to have these reforms, and that is what we are pushing in this bill. It is why it is so desperately needed and why it was worked out with the experts in the field. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not totally opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I rise to share my concern regarding potential budget reconciliation instructions to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. These instructions could potentially result in significant harm to federal employees and federal retirees, many of whom I represent. The national debt is a serious challenge that Congress must address, but I urge members of this body to maintain the promises made to federal employees at the time of their hiring. At a minimum, any changes to federal employee retirement or benefits should only be made on prospective employees, not current or former employees.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), also a member of our committee and who has helped shepherd this bill through our committee and here on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2611) to modify the boundary of the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, to me, is an extremely important bill. Sixty years ago, during this month, nine extraordinary students attended Little Rock, Arkansas' Central High School. They were kids picked for their academic ability and their maturity level because they were going to go through a year that no one had seen before and, hopefully, will ever see again. Mr. Speaker, perhaps because I taught high school for almost 30 years, I understand the environment that took place here, and I have a great deal of empathy for these nine kids who went there. They could have easily been my students. This becomes a significant concept that on September 4, 60 years ago, the Governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to bar these nine kids from entrance into Central High School in Little Rock; then, after some pressure, he withdrew the protection so the kids were subject to the mobs and the violence that took place there at that time. On September 25, 60 years ago, Dwight Eisenhower had the courage and leadership--one of the reasons I respect him so much as a President--to order the Army 101st Airborne Division to go down to Little Rock to Central High School and to escort these nine kids through that first year and lead them to a school year like no other has ever been. This situation was, in my estimation, a pivotal moment in our Nation's civil rights history as well as our education history. We have often talked about how buildings and monuments are used to interpret history. That is exactly what Mr. Hill is attempting to do here with a significant site in America's history, to make sure that it is preserved--and not just the high school itself, but the seven residences that are across the street on South Park Street. Those residences there are part of the historical landmark which was made and designated in the Reagan administration. They are part of the designation on the National Register of Historic Places. Finally, in 1998, the high school and some surrounding areas were established as a National Historic Site. Those buildings still have significant historical integrity. They add to the definition and the story of history which must--which must--be remembered at all times. This bill expands the boundaries of this National Historic Site to include those residences so the National Park Service can, in cooperative agreements with the residents who still live there, make sure that that area will always be preserved as a place to interpret, improve, and provide the technical assistance to make sure this story of American history is not forgotten. It is part of the milieu. As the gentlewoman from Hawaii said, when you see pictures of these kids giving press conferences, you see these homes in the background. It is part and parcel to this story. The residents who live across the street are connected to the landmark events in September of 1957 and provide the backdrop for this particular element. I am appreciative of Mr. Hill of Arkansas for leading forth with this particular bill, realizing the significance, and I am happy that today, on the very month this was happening 60 years ago, we actually are talking about this particular event and desiring to secure these areas so that the history of this country will be remembered to its fullest extent. One of our staffers in the committee who helped in the drafting of this bill had the opportunity of having lunch with one of those Little Rock Nine. His essay won, and his reward was to have a chance to actually meet one of these heroic young women who went to Little Rock's Central High School 60-plus years ago. This is significant, and I cannot think of this story without in some way feeling choked up inside because I know what it must have been like for those kids to go there, and I know what it must have been like to be part of that milieu. This was historic. They were true heroes. They were truly brave kids who took this event on and did it with such aplomb. They need to be remembered. That is why I am happy that this bill is coming forward, so that we can expand the horizon and we can expand the area of this historic site so that we can make sure that this will be a protected area, so that the history will not be forgotten and so what these kids did in that very historic year of 1957 and 1958 in Little Rock will not be forgotten, and so the significance and the conviction those kids had and the experience they had to go through can be remembered and that we can never again go back there. We could never again replicate that area, and we will move forward in the area of civil rights as well as education. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here to support this bill. I am going to ask my colleagues to support this bill because it says so much about us, about our commitments, about our priorities, and about what we want to do, and it says so much about what is good in this country. This is the primary example of what we are attempting to do. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate all those who have spoken on behalf of this particular bill, those who have worked on this bill, and those who have sponsored this bill. This bill is something I think is really significant. It says something that is very positive about this country and helps us to remember that which is positive about this country. Mr. Speaker, I am urging all my colleagues to support this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the sponsor of this excellent piece of legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California. I would remind him, when he was in the Clinton administration and the Clinton administration forced the community to buy a hovercraft instead of building this road, that was made in Canada. However, I want you to know that I am actually livid for the people of King Cove, Alaska, because they lack a lifesaving lane on the land to link this lonesome locality that has been left alone while lofty litigious liberals lamely lament losing a little landscape. Mr. Speaker, the arguments are limited and they lack love for the Aleuts who are there. This amendment is a loser. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``yes'' on passage, and let's get out of here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an issue that people have, for three decades, been trying calmly discuss and find an alternative. Unfortunately, the people of Alaska, who have been engaged in this effort for the last three-plus decades, have been rebuffed at every turn in which the only answer they got was the Federal Government here in Washington giving them an alternative, and forcing upon them an alternative that flat out didn't work, and it hasn't worked in the last 7 years. One of the things we should realize is that this idea of building this road is not new. The House has voted to build this road. The Senate has voted to build this road. Unfortunately, they didn't vote it on the same bill, except, in 2009, when there was a piece of legislation that went through both the House and the Senate, which was very clear at the time that it was the intent of both the House and the Senate to build the road, but it did require the Interior Department to do the NEPA process. They took 4 years. Now think of that. It was in 2009 when the bill was passed and the intent of Congress was very clear. Four years later, the Interior Department finally got around to doing the study, a study which, I might add, had five options that were added to it, one of which was to do nothing, and the Interior Department chose, after 4 years of study as their preferred option, to do nothing. Therefore, all of the efforts and anguish of these people in Alaska went to naught because a bureaucracy here decided, despite what the House had said and despite what the Senate had said, that they knew best, despite what the people of Alaska needed, they knew best and their option simply was to do nothing. This bill, let me remind you, all of the masses of people who are here, is not about a road. It is about a land transfer for a road. The State of Alaska is putting up 43,096 acres for new wilderness in exchange for 200-plus acres--240, I think, acres to be a road, a road that already exists. There is a 30-mile road that exists. The only problem is, only 19 of the 30 miles are constructed. They exist. They are there now. What Alaska is asking is: Simply give us the last 11, so the road that does exist can be used. It can be used for them, for their medical needs, for their recreation, if they want to. I mean, it has been brought up that, heaven forbid, this might be used for economic advantage. I don't know why this community of around 1,000 people, about 80 percent are Native Alaskans, would ever have the audacity to think that they ought to have a job, or the audacity to think that maybe they should try and use something that is there to further their economic ability to actually earn a living. How uppity can you get, when we realize that those of us sitting here 6,000 miles away really have the superior wisdom to tell those people living in King Cove how they actually should live their life, and we did it. We did it in the 1990s. We said: No, you can't have a road because we have a philosophical opposition to it. Instead, we will spend a heck of a lot of money to come up with a hovercraft that doesn't work, and is too expensive, and is useless, and it no longer exists. And now you are saying, ``No, no, no, you can't have access to the mainland. You can't have access to an all-weather airport. You can't have access for medical care; you can't have access for jobs. You can't have access for anything. Instead, let's work together to come up with another really stupid idea that won't work as well,'' when the solution is simply to build a road, 11 miles to connect an existing road so people who live in King Cove can do it. You have already heard the data that has been presented. In the last 30 years, 19 people have died. Nineteen people have died, and it can be traced specifically to the fact that they didn't have access to healthcare. In the last 3 years, they have had over 50 cases when medevac had to be used, very expensively, by the Coast Guard to try and help people out there. You wouldn't have to do that if you simply had the silly road; the 70-year-old woman who had to wait 7 hours, suffering a heart attack before she could get medical care; the woman in labor who had to go 6 hours before she could get someplace to have medical care; the man who had the saw accident, who had to wait 12 hours before he was able to get any kind of medical care, simply because there is not an 11-mile single-lane gravel road to connect to the rest of the 30-mile road that already exists. And we sit here and try and tell these people in Alaska what is best for them, what is good for them? And that is emotional? And that is irrational? No. What is irrational is that we are going through this again, the same thing we did last decade, the same thing that happened in the 1990s. And it is going to continue until we finally say: People should have a right to decide for themselves what is best for them. The people who live in this community want a road. It is not going to hurt anything. It is 200 acres, and this is a land exchange. Actually, I have to admit, I don't like that. Alaska is giving up 40,000 acres-- 40,000 acres--so they can do 200 acres of a road. I think that is an exorbitant fee that is being extracted from the State of Alaska just so they can give these people, the overwhelming majority of whom are Native Alaskans, the opportunity of having access to their community so they can get medical care or whatever else they need so they can have it. And we are sitting here because we don't want to do a precedent. This is the right thing to do. We should do this. We should have been done it back in the Clinton administration when it first came up. We should have gone through with it in 2009 when they finally passed it in both the House and the Senate, and then had to wait 4 years for the Interior Department to study the issue, and their conclusion was: let's not do anything. That doesn't exist. It is time for us to do something to help people, to put people above ideology, to pass the bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the ranking member if he has any germane speakers left on this issue.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a subcommittee chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee.