Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a former member of our committee and one of the original cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), another former member of our committee and a long-time worker on water issues in Congress.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like the Record to reflect that, although they are not noted as original cosponsors, Congressmen Amodei, Buck, and Tipton were, in fact, with us supporting this bill since the very beginning, and it should be reflected as such. Due to an error in the introduction of the bill, they were initially left off H.R. 2030, but they should be original cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who is one of the great members of this committee and this House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everyone who has spoken on behalf of this particular bill. It is a significant piece of legislation. As Mr. Schweikert said, hopefully, we will never have to use it. Even in April of this year, the flow into Lake Powell is 133 percent of average. The snowpack is 138 percent of the 30-year average. Hopefully, we will never have to implement it, but at some time, it may, indeed, happen. Having this in place now provides for the future necessity, if and when that negative time has to take place. I am proud the States came together. They have come up with a plan that is going to be successful, a solution to it, because if this thing does not pass, Utah is going to keep all the water and the rest of you can suck under. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) taking the lead this evening and talking about this important issue. Look, one of the things we always need to do is learn the lessons of history, so we simply do not repeat them. In the late 1800-1900s, communism was the new government concept that excited the elites of that particular era to the point that it was such an expansive idea, that part of the reason that Woodrow Wilson wrote his 14 points was to intellectually challenge communism and restate the significance of democracy and republican forms of government. When communism did obviously take root in the Soviet Union and China, it was not a philosophical statement, it was simply an excuse for the good, old-fashioned dictators to tell people how to live their lives. So as Lenin called it, it was important to have the vanguard of the proletariat, so the government would tell people how to think until people realized that the government was right in the first place. Those are some of the parts of history that we never want to repeat again. Now, if the Green New Deal, this toothless wish, was merely a one- and-done manifesto, then maybe that would be one thing, but my fear is, it becomes an opening salvo into the dangers that are stated when we decide that the government must find the solutions, the government must tell people what to think and what to do, that elites are the ones who have all the ideas; when in reality, history has shown us that solutions always come from people who were empowered to find and make decisions for themselves, and find solutions for themselves. People need to be given options. People need to be given choices, people need to be able to chart their own destiny. My fear is elitism enriches and empowers would-be autocrats, denigrates the roles of individuals, and those are dangerous attitudes that must be discussed and must be understood in some way. And let's face it, some of the people--the cheerleaders for the Green New Deal--they simply don't get it. When they live in areas where commutes, family errands are measured in blocks and subway stops, that is different from other people in America who, when they take a drive into town to buy school clothes that is going to take the entire afternoon. It is different than people who realize that they have to make a choice between healthcare and heating their home; and that is a real responsibility for them, and a real problem. The burdens imposed by the Green New Deal, which have been outlined by several speakers already, are those that land squarely on the shoulders of humble, hardworking Americans while the elites pat themselves on the back. For the rural west, my State of Utah, it is not really a Green New Deal; it is, rather, a green raw deal for them to live. Now, recently in my committee where I am the ranking member, we had an amendment that Mr. Graves made to one of the rules that would request an analysis of economics before any bill was considered. Now, one of the freshmen Democrats spoke to that issue, and I want to just restate what he said. I thought what he said was profound. He stated, I think we have to be very mindful of the people, their jobs, their ability to pay their bills, because of the changes that we make. And this is a discussion that should always be had. We shouldn't just be speaking in the theoretical. Now, ironically, even though I thought his words were spot on, that motion to have that policy was defeated. Nonetheless, I recently joined other ranking members in asking Speaker Pelosi that if there was serious discussion, that unlike H.R. 1, this is going to be heard by many committees, many voices will have a chance at talking about what will actually happen. These hearings ought to ask how this Green New Deal might impact energy prices and home prices and jobs and healthcare. So far, those who have done the series of studies--so far they're from the outside--the outlook looks pretty bleak on what the potential could indeed be. There are already many complex examples of negative impacts that would happen if this was actually to become a reality. So as stated in our plea to Speaker Pelosi, I do fear that this Green New Deal would hurt Americans struggling to make ends meet, the very people it purports to help. And worst of all, it could permanently put the American Dream out of reach for millions of people. We need to really look very carefully at this and not just assume statements that are being made taking place. We need to learn from history and not repeat those same mistakes. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of having the opportunity of being here as part of this Special Order to try and talk about some of the realities of this purported deal.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking one more time here especially because this is such a significant issue that you are addressing to the people and because, as leader of the Congressional Western Caucus, you have held a whole lot of forums to discuss the implications of what could be there. So in one of the last forums, we had policy think tanks and industry and conservation groups that were there testifying. I was struck by the comments of Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, when he said: ``For nearly a decade now, the United States, long blessed with vast natural resources, has benefited from the greatest energy expansion in the history of the world. Our energy producers have delivered the low-cost, affordable, and reliable energy that has fueled economic growth and opportunity for all Americans, no matter their race, sex, creed, or color.'' Now, it is interesting, as we talk about this concept, that, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, by 2020 the United States will become a net exporter of energy for the first time since 1953. That means no longer are we going to be reliant upon questionable foreign powers like Russia or Saudi Arabia for our energy. Even the concepts that we have developed, the fracking and horizontal drilling, those concepts have allowed us not only to expand what we are doing, but also have allowed us to have a carbon emission reduction at the same time. We were the world leader in carbon reduction in 2015, 2016, and 2017, and we are still on that same track again. In fact, one of the things I find unique about the Green New Deal is it fails to realize that, because of what we have been able to do in oil and natural gas, energy prices are down for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We can afford to cook our food and heat our homes better than ever before. And while this production has risen significantly, methane emissions have decreased at the same time. In fact, the EPA reported that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are already down 10 percent in the last 10 years. So while the Green New Deal has every potential of destroying jobs for millions of people, it still also ignores other alternatives for green energy. For example, it says absolutely nothing about nuclear or hydropower. Let's face it, 10 percent of our energy today stills comes from hydropower, and hydropower is clean. It leaves behind no waste. It is considered one of the most effective ways of producing electricity. And yet it is absurd to believe that we can achieve zero net carbon emissions without dealing with nuclear or without dealing with hydropower as part of the mix. That is part of the reality that needs to be brought out here. We have grown our economics. We have cleaned our environment. We have lowered the cost of living for so many people. We should not denigrate everything that the current system is already doing that for some people, for some elitists, they simply want to try to ignore that and ignore the fact that, if we want to continue on this path, what we need to do is empower people to be able to come up with solutions on their own. It is not going to happen by the government telling people how to live and what to think. We need to empower people, not empower the government. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity of expressing that idea again.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that Baltic countries have--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--is they are right next- door to the monolith Russia, that has used its energy potential to blackmail and intimidate these other countries. Even today, they have finally broken away from their oil and gas dependency on Russia. Their electrical grid is still tied to Russia. What Lithuania was able to do is import a natural gas mobile station. They were able to get off of the Russian dependency so they could, once again, have their own resources coming in there. Estonia does the same thing with their oil shale. They have been able to produce their own energy, which allows them to have independence and not be bullied by large countries, in this case, by Russia. That is one of the things we are doing in what we are already doing. That is one of the futures that we are having. In fact, it is interesting that some of the countries we visited that were very proud of what they were doing with alternative energy, they always have to have a backup system.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And that backup system is based on coal. Without that, they could not guarantee baseloads that they have to have just to keep their countries going.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I guess what the gentleman is saying is, if you want the economy to grow, if you want people to be empowered, if you want to find solutions not only to environmental issues but also energy issues, empower people to come up with that. We are actually doing that. America's history is a history that is positive. Empower that to go forward. Don't try and stop it with some other elitist idea from the top-down theories.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, that is true.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, my apologies for my absence. During the roll call numbers listed below, I was at the Utah State Capitol addressing the state legislature. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 104, and ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 105.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I became chairman of this committee, I vowed never to do this kind of a package. I thought that each bill deserved to be debated and to be moved as a standalone. Basically, we in the House did that. Unfortunately, the Senate did not, which is why there are at least 63 House-passed bills in this package, 62 of which were passed on suspension, that have been sitting in the Senate, languishing for up to a year and a half. If somebody says they don't have time to look at all the stuff that is in here, there have been months that they have been able to look at this stuff as it has been sitting over in the Senate. Much of it is of parochial significance, which means it solves local challenges. The very basis of all the bills that are in here is to put people above government. If indeed we are going to have public lands, there should be access to those lands. That is one of the reasons why, for the first time in years, we have had some sportsmen's activities that are put into this particular bill. So the sportsmen can assume if they are on public land, it is going to be open for recreational hunting and fishing and shooting and all kinds of outdoor recreation, unless it is specifically closed. And a land manager cannot be arbitrary with that. If they are going to close it, there has to be a public process they go through that mandates consultation with local officials. It is extremely important that bow hunters get some protection. Even duck hunters get some certainty in here. For the first time, we are going to have special days for duck hunting, for youth and veterans, as well as those who are on Active Duty. For the first time, there are real reforms of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. When that program was established a half century ago, 60 percent of all the land was supposed to go into the State and local funds. Those are the programs that your constituents are calling you and saying: These are the good things on why this program should be reauthorized. But when that cap was taken off, the amount of money going to State and local programs was reduced. In the time of the Obama administration, it was down to 12 percent. Everything else was for land acquisition. This bill reforms that permanently by saying no less than 40 percent has to go to those State and local funds that your constituents like. No less than 3 percent has to go to fulfilling facility recreation access. That means that we are, for the first time now, really empowering people and communities, State and local governments, as well as sportsmen. I have always said that I want to shrink the Federal estate. This bill finally does shrink the Federal estate, in my State as well as nationwide. We create four new monuments in this bill, but the right way; not expecting the President to make a declaration but, actually, for the Congress to pass a bill, to debate the bill, and then to pass the bill at the same time. This administration actually did use the Antiquities Act on one of these monuments--nice and cute--but we are going to do it the right way in this particular bill. We are going to do wilderness the right way. No longer should an agency simply create wilderness by dicta or fiat. Congress will make those decisions of what is wilderness and what is not going to be wilderness. Let me talk for just a second about wilderness, because it has some controversy in here. Over half the wilderness that is established in this section of bills is in my home State of Utah, but, as Mr. Curtis will tell you, the county commissioners, the local officials, endorse this action. They are happy with it because they gain access to other areas that can promote recreation and economic development, which they have been trying to get for several decades. A quarter of this is also in California, in one district. So we create wilderness in the national park, but, at the same time, we are taking wilderness study areas and releasing those at the same time. We are making exchanges so that some of the lands go into trust funds for education purposes, to fund the education of our kids--something that the East doesn't need, but those of us who live in the Federally controlled West, we desperately need to do that. For the first time we are taking EAJA, and we will actually have some transparency so we will really know what it costs for environmental litigation. These are all issues we have been talking about for years in the House. These are issues that we repeatedly passed in the House. But, for now, we have a chance of actually making it happen. Is this bill perfect? No. It is too big to be perfect. Is the process for creating this perfect? Hell, no. But I am perfectly satisfied and willing to vote for this, because without this there will be no progress. The status quo will be maintained, and that is bad. Senator Graham used to say: If I am going from Washington back to Houston and I get as far as Memphis, that is not bad. If I end up in Boston, it is bad, but for Memphis, that is not necessarily bad. We have been complaining for years about elements that are in this package of bills, and now we have a chance to actually be positive, to get to Memphis and beyond, and to actually get something done. And if someone says: ``It is not good enough; I am holding out for something better,'' we are holding out for something that never has been and never will be. And it puts to the lie the complaints that we have exaggerated in the past. Congress is finally ready to act. We should not refuse the solutions that are in front of us right now. This is a step forward, and this, obviously, is better than the alternatives. I urge adoption of this package of compromise bills that have been worked out in advance, and I appreciate my colleagues on the Democratic side who have worked so hard to try and come up with a package of bills that we can all support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of the House, someone who has forgotten more about public lands than the rest of us will ever know. (Mr. YOUNG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), my colleague.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), one of the senior members from Kentucky who can talk about how you do a monument the right way.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), someone who used to be on our committee but went over to the dark side and is now former chairman somewhere else.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), one of the hardworking members of our committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a gentleman who has never been on our committee, but we have appreciated his friendship and helping to move this package.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse). We are sending out our members all over the place. He used to be a member of our committee. He has moved on to lesser roles now.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), who worked very hard, especially in December, for the passage of this package.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), a former member of our committee, but also a leader in the sportsmen's community.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Yes, I have a couple speakers.