Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Herrera Beutler), who lives in this area and knows firsthand what is taking place there.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here to present this particular bill, or at least sum up on this, especially as our good friend Mr. Todd Ungerecht has done so much for this particular bill and it is going to be his last time on the floor with us. So I appreciate all of his help on this. He is returning back to his native State of Washington where he clearly realizes how important this bill is. Mr. Speaker, this bill has support via policy from Washington, total support for the bill from Idaho and Montana, as well as eight other Tribes that live in this area, as well as the National Association of Counties, the American Farm Bureau Federation, United Power Trades Organization, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, Public Power Council, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, and scores of other individuals. I include in the Record a complete list of organizations that support this bill as well as letters that support this legislation. Support for H.R. 3144 National Water Resources Association, National Associations of Counties, United Power Trades Organization, National Association of Wheat Growers, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Public Power Association, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association, Americans for Limited Government, Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Liberty, Arizona Pork Council, Asotin County Public Utility District, Association of Washington Business, Benton Public Utility District, Blachly- Lane Electric Co-op, Clatskanie People's Utility District. Clearwater Power, Concerned Citizens for America (Sedona), Cowlitz Public Utility District, Douglas County Public Utility District, Franklin Public Utility District, Grant County Public Utility District, Idaho Water Users Association, Inland Ports and Navigation Group, Kittitas County Public Utility District, Lewis County Public Utility District, Mason County Public Utility District, New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New Mexico Wool Growers Inc., Northern Lights, Northwest River Partners, Pend Oreille Public Utility District, Port Clarkston, Port of Morrow. Port of Pasco, Port of Whitman County, Public Power Council, Salmon River Electric CoOp, Stevens County Commissioners, Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Tidewater Transportation & Terminals, Tri-City Development Council, United Electric, Wahkiakum County Public Utility District, Washington Association of Wheat Growers, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Public Utility Districts Association, Washington State Potato Commission, Yuvapai County Supervisor Thomas Thurman, Your Touchstone Energy Cooperative.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3144.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the commitment of the gentlewoman from Washington, the effort to solve some problems, and many of the issues that were brought up. Unfortunately, many of the issues that were addressed simply are not covered in the motion to recommit at the same time--great speeches, but not necessarily really relating directly to the motion. If you actually look at what the motion will do, ultimately, it is very clear that it will ensure that rates actually do go up; carbon emissions will go up; and farmers, families, union members, and small businesses will all have to eventually pay for it. The underlying bipartisan legislation, though, and not some poorly worded gimmick that cedes more authority to courts and lawyers will protect ratepayers and endangered salmon and the whales and the taxpayers at the same time. In all due respect, I actually feel happy that I was here when we saw a display of the Senate actually passing something. So I would suggest, in all humility to the other side, if they actually want to do something which would encourage my commitment and my approval of an MTR, it would be to realize and recognize something that happened 107 years ago this Friday, in which the socialist Member from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 107 years ago, Friday, introduced a resolution to dissolve the Senate. Now, if that were a motion to recommit, that I would firmly endorse. That would actually help us move forward. Unfortunately, that is not the motion to recommit in front of us. The motion to recommit does not help us move forward. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the sponsor, to introduce this piece of legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line for this particular piece of legislation: States agree to it. There are nine Tribes in this area. Eight of them totally support this particular bill. The Obama administration created a biological opinion which endorsed the ESA and was legal with the ESA. A judge decided to change all of that and ordered a spill with no apparent rationale to it. Mr. Speaker, there is no one over here who hates salmon. We are not trying to kill them all. Heaven knows, the only way I would like to kill salmon is if I am consuming them myself. However, in 2011, another spill took place on this particular river which had the process of actually killing this endangered species that was there. This judge's order, without any kind of rationale to it, could indeed be one of the situations that actually sterilizes this river and the species rather than protecting the river and the species. Let's allow river operators to operate the river. Let's allow scientists to conduct the science and let judges go back to granting divorces. Allowing a judge with no background in these issues to dictate river operations and subvert the science is totally irresponsible on our part. This is a piece of legislation that clearly is a win for the ratepayers to a tune of $40 million that they would have to do if this decision by the judge stands. It is also a win for taxpayers to the tune of about $16 million. It is a win for the fish by preventing a potentially deadly environmental decision that has no basis in actual science. And, once again, it was the last administration that created the pattern in which we are going. Let's go back to that and do it. Now, if another science or biological opinion needs to be done, let it happen, but don't allow the judge to change what the river operators are saying is the wisest policy until you do that. That is the basis of this particular bill. It helps the power. It helps the fish. It helps all of us. And let's face it, if you are not using that hydropower, you are going to have to pick up fossil fuel power to make up the difference--see which one actually is healthier for the environment. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for doing this, and I urge all in the House to support this legislation which is a bipartisan bill that has bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to help expedite consideration of this bill today. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, April 12, 2018. Hon. Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding H.R. 3144, to provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified period of time, and for other purposes. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I ask that you allow the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources to memorialize our understanding. Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further opportunities to work with you this Congress. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this bill involves 80 acres of land controlled by the Forest Service but not in the actual national forest. Over the past 50 years, this land has been used by the Space Dynamics Laboratory, by NASA, by the Naval Research Laboratory, and they have a great deal of infrastructure on this land. Unfortunately, the Forest Service decided to list this as disposable lands without contacting anybody, and now they don't have the ability of going back and delisting it so these groups can actually use this land for what they have been doing for the last 50 years. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the cleanest and simplest way of simply transferring control of this land back to the entity which is using it now so they can continue their research, much of which is done in support of our military. It is a simple and easy and correct way to solve an administrative lapse, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4300) to authorize Pacific Historic Parks to establish a commemorative display to honor members of the United States Armed Forces who served in the Pacific Theater of World War II, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I hope you realize you just swore in another vote for sage grouse. Utah, for too long, has been at 75 percent. We are now united at a full 100 percent, which means, Mr. Amodei, be careful: we are going to reannex eastern Nevada. Mr. Curtis comes here with a background of being mayor of Provo City, so he understands local government. He is going to be a fine addition to our body. I look forward to it. As he has taken the place of Jason Chaffetz, he is going to be in Mr. Chaffetz's office. I just want you to know, as you are getting settled in and before you find your proper bed, I think I can get you a good deal on a used cot. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), our new Representative.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I will say once again, the tools the Forest Service needs to do their job are harmed if these sections do not remain in the bill. It is not talking about public input. It is talking about redundant, unnecessary public review that goes through there that creates unnecessary and redundant litigation. There is a NEPA process that needs to go forward. You just don't have to do it four and five and six times just because. We have an analysis paralysis. I remind you once again, we have 50 to 70 million acres that are in a desperate, dire situation, ready to explode in catastrophic wildfire. The Forest Service can only get to 3 million acres a year, and part of it is the problems they have that we are trying to remove with these specific provisions. They need these tools. If we don't give them these tools, we exacerbate our wildfire problems. We don't need to do that. We shouldn't do that. Mr. Chairman, we need to defeat this amendment. It is essential to defeat this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the amendments that basically guts the whole purpose of this entire bill. There is nobody who is cut out of the process. None of the public is cut out of the process. What is cut out is redundant, duplicative NEPA analysis, all of which can result in litigation. It simply says you do the process the first time. You don't have to redo it again and again and again and admit the Forest Service to litigation again and again. In fact, they admit 71 percent of all their lawsuits mention these types of provisions in there. As we said before, these provisions were not coming out of thin air. They are coming from what the Forest Service tells us they need to do their job, the tools they need so they can take the resources they have and do it once the first time and get it over with and do it right and not have to spend it on frivolous litigation. NEPA is not taken away. The analysis is not taken away. The public is not taken out of the system. All you are simply doing is saying you don't have to do it repetitively, in other words, don't have to do it redundantly. This is one to streamline it. This is what they need desperately. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the author of this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, once again, I would ask our Members to reject this particular amendment. It is a core provision, one of the few creative efforts, and only a pilot project to try and find a solution. It has received bipartisan support. It has received support from a broad coalition of outside groups. Admittedly, some of those who actively litigate and raise money and profit by it don't like this provision, but most of the other people recognize this is something the Forest Service can use on day one. They need this tool. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the amendment that has been presented by the gentleman from Oregon. I think it is a well- thought-out amendment. I also appreciate the comments he made, as he is trying to get us past the rhetoric and the dogma, and to try and come up with a truly bipartisan effort to solve the problems that the Forest Service has clearly delineated, giving them the tools that they want to try and solve these problems in the future. I think the gentleman is also correct when he said that if you go through the list of those that are going to use categorical exclusion, you can't actually do those functions without producing timber. So, at worst, the language that was put in here is redundant. We are still after the same goal. We are still after the same game. That is why I actually will accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon and urge its adoption. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I have to strenuously oppose this particular amendment because it strikes one of the core provisions of this bill. From 1989 to 2008, there were 1,125 lawsuits filed against the Forest Service, and hundreds have been filed since that time. Half of the active management lawsuits of the Federal Forest Service account are spent, and 40 percent of all Forest Service lawsuits are brought on this specific point. In addition to that, the Forest Service, in an effort to try and mitigate against that, simply tries to delay the processes, which creates a culture of analysis paralysis going through there, and at the end they get sued anyway. This provision is one of few creative efforts we have had that does not impact people's access to justice, but having a binding arbitration pilot program allows us to try and give you the merits of a lawsuit and move forward quickly. This is creative. This is what they need. If we need to end endless litigation, frivolous lawsuits that impede the work of our land managers and cost taxpayers millions of dollars, this is the kind of thing that we need to start doing. The Forest Service recognizes they need this. It is about time we recognize they need this, too. Mr. Chairman, keep this creative approach in the bill. 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 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. 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 gentleman from Arizona presenting this issue about Secure Rural Schools. I am an old school teacher. I understand how significant and important it is. The issue, though, for Secure Rural Schools is not the reauthorization, it is finding a funding stream to keep it going. Unfortunately, this amendment doesn't solve the problem. It is not reauthorization, it is the funding, and this provides no funding whatsoever. It doesn't do what we need to do. It simply is another delay tactic. And let's face it, we are dealing with more significant issues in this Nation, like who is going to win game seven tonight. That is important stuff. That is what we should be talking about. And if you don't pass this forest resiliency act today, there won't be enough trees to make bats for next year's season. Please vote ``no'' on this amendment, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and let's go home. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.