Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, we are here to repeal a rule issued by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service to restrict hunting on the national wildlife refuges in Alaska. This rule is a solution. The only problem is no one knows for what it is a solution because there is no problem. And the sad part is that means that this rule is basically a useless rule. It has no efficacy to it. Despite the assertions that had been made repeatedly and a cacophony of all sorts of practices that are seeming to be wrong and bad, this rule doesn't do that. This rule does not abandon any of the practices you are talking about on subsistence hunting, only on nonsubsistence hunting, which simply means that, if you are classified as a subsistence hunter, anything that the other side talked about and raled about is actually allowed by the silly rule. That is why the rule makes no sense. The State of Alaska had it under control, and there is no real problem that is solved by this rule that is totally inefficient, but did make something nice about it. Now, it makes things worse because it is talking about predator control only on nonsubsistence hunting. Unfortunately, the predators don't know, when they go after their prey, whether that prey is designed for a subsistence hunter or a recreation hunter. They haven't learned to distinguish that yet. Ergo, how you administer this law is totally ineffective. It is impossible to do so, and what you do is simply make a blanket approach so that everyone gets harmed in the same equal fashion. That is what Fish and Wildlife has decided to do. In addition to that, yes, it is illegal. It usurps State authority, and it usurps it very clearly. You know, it is amazing to me. I cannot believe that in the first Congress that we had, the Founding Fathers were there coming up with the Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment, they thought the 10th Amendment would eventually some day be imagined by a bureaucrat in Washington to overrule Congress on matters that were clearly intended for State discretion, but that is precisely what we have done here. This rule violates three congressionally passed statutes that have precedence on this particular issue. And this rule violates Federal law passed by Congress on three separate occasions. What was supposed to be envisioned with this system was a cooperative relationship between the State and the Federal Government. What this rule simply does is allow for Fish and Wildlife on the Federal level to have supremacy, to destroy that cooperation and coordination and take over control totally. That is wrong. It should never be there. There are 16 different refuges up there. That is 76 million acres of land now going to be controlled by the Fish and Wildlife system here in Washington. That is more acreage than 46 of the 50 States that we have. And, once again, for many of those people, this hunting is a source of subsistence up there. Here is the bottom line: Mr. Blumenauer came up here and said, why don't we let the professionals make their decisions. They do. Those professionals are the Alaska Department of Fish and Game who know exactly what they are doing, they know the area, and they know the animals. The so-called helicopter hunting that was raled against up here is not done by any recreational hunter. Alaska doesn't allow that. The Alaska Fish and Game will do that for management control based on scientific purposes and reasons and that only. This rule doesn't change any of that. No. I'm sorry, this rule actually doesn't change any of the recreational hunting, which is already outlawed by the State of Alaska. It only stops the Fish and Wildlife system of Alaska from simply doing their job as they know how to do it. I include in the Record a letter supported by 27 different organizations all dealing with outdoor life in support of this particular resolution. February 6, 2017. Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader McCarthy: We write representing organizations that collectively include millions of wildlife conservationists, hunter conservationists, wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong support of H.J. Res. 49 from Cong. Young (AK), which would nullify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) final rule ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'' (81 Fed. Reg. 52248 (August 5, 2016)). Our community exhausted all Executive Branch appeals and remedies urging the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to nullify this final rule. This final rule boldly preempts the authority of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority of the state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS final rule was premised on meeting as a priority the FWS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health; which would inadvisably set a precedent nationally. Many members of our organizations enjoy Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for unrivaled hunting, fishing and outdoor experiences. The sustainable management of these natural resources needs to be led by the State working in cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably consider H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state- federal relationship as Congress has previously directed. Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns about this harmful and illegal rule which if left un- remedied, significantly affects the use and appreciation of the magnificent natural resources found in Alaska. Sincerely, Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari Club, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Houston Safari Club, Masters of Foxhounds Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Trappers Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, Orion the Hunter's Institute. Pheasants Forever, Professional Outfitters and Guides, Quail Forever, Quality Deer Management Association, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Sportsmen's Alliance, Whitetails Unlimited, Wild Sheep Foundation, Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management Institute.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 99, I call up the bill (H.R. 428) to survey the gradient boundary along the Red River in the States of Oklahoma and Texas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 428.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Federal Lands that deals with this area.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who understands this, who is coming from that State, and who also serves as the vice chairman of the entire Resources Committee.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now, in summary of what we have heard today, this situation is a result of a silly and suspect survey that has slapped the citizens with uncertainty and soured them for the security because seizing citizen sites has taken place. The question was asked: Where is BLM? That is a good question. Where is BLM? They started this problem 8 years ago and have yet to do anything to try and solve the problem. That is why this bill is here before us because BLM has not done their job. Using a poor survey process, they have simply put people who have done nothing wrong in doubt of their ownership of their property which they have had for generations and have been paying taxes on for years. Yet, in 8 long years, BLM has done nothing to solve the situation to give them the certainty so they know where they stand. That is why the private citizens went to court. The only reason it is in court is because these private citizens were so frustrated with BLM taking so long to do something that could have been done within a matter of weeks, and yet it is now 8 years into a process simply because BLM used a flawed survey. Instead of using the gradient boundary survey method that the Supreme Court suggests, they did something else which brought them to the unusual conclusion that BLM actually owned 90,000 acres of land on this riverbank that they have never had in their history. Later, they realized that was an unusual claim, so they lowered it down to: I own 30,000 acres of land--but 30,000 acres of land that has been in private property for years, for generations, they have been paying taxes on it, and now their land is in limbo. They can't do anything simply because BLM has refused to do its job. It is not just here in Texas. Go across the State boundary to Louisiana where Lake Bistineau has the exact same problem with the exact same survey problems from the same agency, BLM. Go all the way to Colorado with Elkhorn Ranch. Once again, survey problems done by BLM which placed claims on private property that are exorbitant and yet moves at a snail's pace to try and solve the problem. One of the first issues I dealt with when I came to Congress was Hyde Park, and, once again, the Federal Government--this time it was the Forest Service--taking claim on lands that had been, for generations, in private property and refusing to try and work with the property owners to solve the problem. That is what has been going on for 8 long years with the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma. Why are we coming here with a bill? Simply because you have got to solve the problem. You have got to fix the problem for people. I have to also say something. The misrepresentation of the BLM planning rule that was presented is a total misrepresentation. In fact, when we removed that rule, the 2.0 planning rule, we did it because people want to have their voices heard and are eliminated if that planning rule goes into effect. That is why it has to stop, so this type of situation does not happen again. Some people have said this may be an unprecedented concept. Actually, our realization that somebody has to handle the situation by actually allowing Oklahoma and Texas to pick qualified surveyors, do the survey--and do the survey--and then coordinate with the tribes so they come up with a process, that is exactly what should have happened in 2009. Because BLM didn't do it, we are going to bring a bill to make sure they actually get something done. This has been supported by the Texas and Oklahoma Farm Bureaus, the Texas General Land Office, Texas Southwest Cattle Raisers Association, and the people who live in this area who want to have some kind of conclusion so they can have their property rights respected. Now, it has been said what we are doing is unprecedented--perhaps. What we are doing is trying to solve the problem to help people; and if it takes an unprecedented action by Congress to solve people's problem and let them move on with their lives, then that is the responsibility of Congress. We are the ones who establish what the policies should be, not some executive branch agency of government. It is our responsibility. We are doing exactly what the people expect us to do by saying 8 years of unexpected and unanswered questions is far too long. Solve the problem and help people so they know what is their private property and what is not their private property and they can move on with their lives. If that is unprecedented, then it is about time we did something that is unprecedented. That is important. That is why this bill is here, and that is why this bill is here now. It is coming at the beginning of the session because we cannot wait longer for the BLM to actually do what they should have done in 2009. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to realize we are here on Valentine's Day. There is nothing special about that, but this is an issue where there has been no love lost. In fact, the landowners along this river have been simply soaked. But deep in the heart of Texas--all right, I know it is a boundary line, but I have got to get the heart in there some way. Deep in the heart of Texas, we are coming forth with a bill that is showing that the love for people who have paid their taxes and lived on this land for generations is not forgotten and that BLM has committed a crime of the heart with this land grab. Indeed, Chairman Thornberry has passionately defended the interests of his constituents who just want to know the government loves them. That is why this bill is here. That is why it needs to be supported, and that is why I urge you to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this different kind of rule. It is basically a rule defining a rule that defines future activity. So it is somewhat convoluted. But this is a regulation--one more of those broad, midnight regulations--that affects 250 million acres of land, almost all of which is found in the West. Even in my own district, it will affect 3 million acres of land; that means something that is bigger than the State of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. It affects us with disastrous consequences. As has been said, this dilutes local and State voices and centralizes power here in Washington, D.C. By law already, the agencies have got to meet with local and State leaders and coordinate, which they are not doing well. This undermines that specifically, and it stacks the deck from the very beginning against counties and State voices and against multiple use. This puts special interest groups above elected local officials, which is not the way it was ever intended to be. There are 60 different organizations that are begging us to repeal this bad rule. In my district, the Duchesne County Commissioners wrote us to say: ``Our constituents are good stewards of the land, dedicated to meeting environmental requirements, while developing and supplying affordable energy to consumers. We believe Planning 2.0 presents multiple challenges that will prejudice multiple use interests with a bias. . . . '' That bias is clearly there. That bias is shown in the mitigation factor within this. Within the bowels of the Department of the Interior, they have shown us how they are going to implement this rule, which means if there is any kind of economic or recreational opportunity and you want to develop, say, like 50 acres to do that, they will insist that you go out and buy either State or private land as a mitigation for those 50 acres. And if you can't find additional private or State lands, you hold up the entire process. Either way, you expand the amount of acreage the Federal Government will do, and that is part of this Planning 2.0 process. That is why it is so ludicrous. Duchesne County participated in the rulemaking process for Planning 2.0, but like all the other counties, States, and local governments, their concerns were ignored and their opinions were excluded in the final rule. We had two separate hearings on this issue, but all the testimony that was heard was also ignored and no input was given to them at that time. Look, counties like Duchesne are in dire situations, especially in the West. They need to be consulted. That is their role and responsibility. That is what a democracy in the republican form of government does. This rule bypasses them. It cuts out their voice, and it puts in programs like that mitigation, which is definitely scary and has absolutely negative connotations for the future. This is a perfect rule that needs to be rolled back because it goes too far, it was done at the last minute, and it undermines the kind of input we need to make proper decisions. I compliment the gentlewoman from Wyoming for presenting this rule. This is one that has got to go. I urge Members' support of her resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Much has been said about what Colorado has been able to do as a State on this particular issue, and that's good because Colorado, as a State, has the legal responsibility and legal authorization to work with the EPA on this particular issue. Naturally, industry would be liking that because the States are far more effective in dealing with industry than the BLM ever is, which still does not have statutory authority in this particular area. In fact, even Colorado has its limits. When they were cut out of the process on the stream buffer rule that we talked about earlier, they also joined the lawsuit against the EPA and against the Federal Government for that particular issue. It is simply hypocritical for BLM to pretend that this is about waste when they refuse to actually solve the problem by pipeline approval and rights-of-way approval, which is the total solution. So what we come down to is that simply this is a rule that violates all three of the criteria set forth in the Congressional Review Act. It is a rule that is terribly expensive; it is a rule that is redundant; and it is a rule that exceeds the statutory authority of the entity that is making that particular rule, a prime candidate for use of the Congressional Review Act, which is our responsibility. It's a congressional responsibility to establish these standards, not the executive branch agencies. If someone has decided not to vote for this resolution, to actually support this rule, I could ask: What is the deciding factor that pushed them over into accepting that position? Was it simply because this rule is redundant and unnecessary? That without this rule, emissions were being lowered and they were lowered before this rule was implemented and they will be lowered after this rule is decimated at the same time? Is it because of the redundancy? Did they decide to vote against this particular rule because, well, of the cost increase that it will bring? The idea that affordable energy is being harmed by this particular rule is real, and that means that any person is going to feel an increased cost in their energy consumption. Whether it is trying to heat his or her home or every time they turn on a lightbulb, this rule raises that cost. Once again, it hurts the people who are at the bottom of our economic level who are the most vulnerable to these kinds of increases. Is that what decided you to vote against this resolution or tipped you in the balance of trying to support the rule? Or is it simply the fact that it is an illegal rule? Is that the defining issue, that it simply is an illegal rule where they have no statutory authority to do what they did? If those criteria are not good enough, then I ask you and urge you to do something that actually helps people and helps reduce the cost of energy and make sure that we have affordable energy so this economic and energy renaissance that we have had in the last decade can continue not just on State and private lands, but it can continue on Federal lands as well, which it has not done. We need to do this to support people. We need to do this so that States can fund their infrastructure and States can actually fund their education system and people can turn on the lightbulb without having to take out a loan at the local bank to do so. This rule repeal is the right thing to do. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution because it helps people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who lives in an area where he clearly understands what this issue is about.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the last decade, there has been an ongoing renaissance in the United States in energy production. It has changed our geopolitics; our economy has been strengthened; our security has been enhanced; and there have been thousands of new, good-paying jobs that have been created from it. This energy boom, according to a 2015 survey, has saved the American family around $1,000 a year, and this growth of the last decade has come in spite of consistent anti-energy policies of the previous administration's. It has especially hit those of us in the West very hard--those who are public land States in the West--who use our resources to fund our infrastructure and to pay for our schools and our essential government services. This rule, which is allegedly to help the environment, actually is designed to stop production; therefore, it becomes a prime candidate for a repeal under the Congressional Review Act, which was passed into law in 1996 and signed by President Clinton. At that time, Clinton said that this was a great way for Congress to be held accountable, and it truly is in that any rule is subject to this rule if it has one of three criteria: one, excessive costs; two, it was done beyond the particular agency's statutory authority; or, three, it is duplicative or unnecessary or redundant. With this particular rule, we have the trifecta because it is not just one of those criteria--it offends all of those criteria. The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency, in its working with States, the authority to develop issues and regulations that address air quality. The Bureau of Land Management does not, and they are the ones who instituted this particular rule. In fact, the contortions the BLM went through to say they have the legal authority is almost embarrassing. The contortions they went through would qualify for an opening act on the Las Vegas Strip. Instead, it reminds us of when the BLM came up with the hydraulic fracturing rule only for them to be rebuked by the courts for simply doing what they did outside their delegated authority. This is the same thing. This is an illegal rule, and it is a costly one. Our effort to educate our children, to build infrastructure, to provide essential government services--in other words, to make people's lives better--depends on our ability to deal with our resources. This is a costly rule. On Friday, it was estimated by one source that it could cost the industry up to $20 billion; it was estimated to cost States up to $6 billion; and it was estimated to cost the Federal Government in lost royalties up to $600 million a year. It is a costly rule and is a totally unnecessary rule. Without this rule, the American energy industry will continue to do what they have done for well over a decade--reduce methane emissions on their own by investing in technology that not only helps the environment, but that helps them grow their business, which will lead to more jobs for Americans and more funding for State education programs and infrastructure. Since 2005, methane emissions have actually decreased even as production has increased, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that this progress will suddenly stop because we strike this unnecessary rule, this illegal rule, this totally redundant rule. There are some who will say: Well, we need this rule to protect the taxpayers because we are burning up the royalty payments. Oh, really? If one looks at the BLM's actions--their management on sage-grouse, their lease cancellations, pulling acreage out of lease sales at the last minute, their constant barrage of revenue-reducing agency actions--you will realize that saving taxpayers money is not the real goal here. Look, there are only three things you can do with the methane. You can build pipelines to capture it and take it away where it can be used for the benefit of mankind. Unfortunately, the agencies in the last administration refused to do that. Even though, legally, they had to make decisions on pipelines within 60 days, there is not a single BLM office anywhere in the Nation that was meeting that legal deadline. Instead, it was open for months afterwards when nothing was happening. If you can't have the pipelines to move it away, you have to burn it. So, if they won't give the pipelines and if now they are trying to stop the burning of it, the only other option is not to drill at all. Our policy should be to fund and make sure those pipelines and those rights of ways are approved so that we can actually capture the methane and use it for productive purposes. Unfortunately, this rule's real goal is to do the third element--simply stop the production. That is counterproductive. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution because it will help people and it will support people. This rule's repeal is a vote for people and making sure that their lives are better, not worse. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who knows exactly what this means to his State and his State's economy.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), who also understands this issue because it is part of the livelihood of his constituency.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 36.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 74, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 36) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), part of our committee who has heard the 13 hearings, understands this issue, and was part of the House when we voted four different times to be opposed to this particular rule.