Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to one of the senior members of our committee, a senior member of his delegation, and someone who happens to be celebrating today not only his anniversary, but also his birthday; and what better way of giving a birthday present to the Representative from Alaska than to allow him to speak on the floor on the subject of Puerto Rico. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 5278.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that to date, this is one of the most significant bills that has come to the floor in a long time, and it is going to be an excellent solution to a very, very difficult problem. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of the bill, for its introduction.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is the proverbial manager's amendment. It does have four significant elements that I think people ought to be aware of in this particular amendment. Thanks to a lot of work from Mr. MacArthur and some others, we have an opt-in provision in this piece of legislation for the other territories. However, if a court finding removes the opt-in provision and finds it to be unconstitutional, it then does have a reverse severability clause that would reinstate the opt-in for other territories so there would not be a constitutional issue. We do have a funding mechanism in this bill to make sure that the oversight board is up and running properly as we begin. It also has the ability for the oversight board to give them the authority to review and rescind any laws passed by the territory between May 4 and the date of its full appointment of membership if those actions alter the priorities of repayment and move things around in a controversial way. Finally, and probably most important, the amendment also includes a moving up of the timetable for appointment to the board. This simply says the President will have the appointment of the board up and running by September 15 of this year, and no later than that. This, I think, has some other technical amendments that truly are technical, but those are four substantive amendments in the manager's amendment that help make this what we intend it to be and get us up and running very quickly. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. I appreciate the comments that have been made so far on a bill that I want to think actually has a lot of good in it. Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution provides Congress not only the power, but also the responsibility to do what is needful dealing with the territories. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, just this morning, the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning the territory and a question of double jeopardy. By a 6-2 decision, the Court held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereignty because the ultimate source of its power and its constitution is the United States Congress. So, indeed, this reminds us all here today of our duty to assist in the territorial issues. Now, there are seven titles to this particular piece of legislation. The first two deal with the oversight board that will bring fiscal plans and a budget to the island. Titles III and VI deal with restructuring of the debt if certain criteria are met in the oversight board's discretion that it include good-faith debt negotiations with its creditors. Title V is something I think we sometimes overlook because it gives fast-track authority for vital infrastructure projects to be moved by the government of Puerto Rico, especially in the area of energy generation and distribution systems. One of the problems of Puerto Rico is the high energy costs that have caused them to lose jobs. What we are attempting to do is trying to find a way of changing that problem and reducing Puerto Rico's reliance on diesel fuel to generate their electricity. That is one of the parts of this bill that is extremely important and I think is overlooked sometimes. The final title I am happy about because that has pro-growth portions and reforms in it. But let it be very clear: this is a conservative bill that is rooted in the Constitution that does not cost the American taxpayers a dime. It is not a bailout. It does not expand the size or scope of the Federal Government, and it does not encroach on State authority. In fact, I think we have done a pretty good job in trying to solve some problems in a way that can move everyone forward. At this point, I also want to thank the chairmen of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on the Judiciary and Small Business Committee for their help with this particular bill, so especially Chairman Kline, Chairman Goodlatte, and Chairman Chabot. I do appreciate their help on this particular bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, May 25, 2016. Hon. Steve Chabot, Chairman, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 25, 2016, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered favorably reported as amended H.R. 5278, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on Small Business, among other committees. I ask that you allow the Committee on Small Business 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 Small Business 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, as well as in the Congressional Record. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and I look forward to further opportunities to work with you this Congress. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). He also has the title of Speaker of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Six months ago, our committee began the effort to try to solve this problem. We had four hearings, countless stakeholder meetings, and got input from expert testimony. Interested parties from all over the place were able to get their input in various drafts of this bill. It was an exhaustive effort, but what happened is at the end of this time we had a good bill. That is the way this process is supposed to work. It is a bill that is rooted in the Constitution, it doesn't cost the taxpayers, it provides Puerto Rico with the tools to impose discipline over its finances, and led towards an element of prosperity. In Spanish, I am told that the phrase promesa means promise. This bill is a promise for Puerto Rico for a better life. It is the way we go forward. I urge everyone's adoption of a great piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to express my appreciation and sincere gratitude to the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico for his hard work. I may be known as the historian of this body, but the gentleman from Oklahoma will give a historical perspective. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), one of the cosponsors of this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), my good friend, who has done a whole lot of work on this particular bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), another member of our committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), one of the premier members of our committee.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I also want to support this amendment. Everything is fine with me too.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), who is another Member who has worked hard on this particular bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis). She is the vice-chair of the committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 5278, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the motion. I appreciate that this is a nonbinding resolution, so I have to appreciate the fact that-- hopefully, I think I will be one of the conferees--the instructions tell me to do what I already can do. At this time, we are looking at a program that does not necessarily fit with the goal of the rest of the bill. Look, everything that we are doing in this entire bill that we just passed was to support House- endorsed programs. This now asks us to do something that has never been endorsed by the House. In fact, it is quite the opposite. So, when the Land and Water Conservation Fund was first established back in 1965, the goal was that 60 percent of all the revenue that is generated would go to local governments to build what they call the state assistance grant program. That program is widely popular. In fact, unfortunately, most people think that that 60 percent, as originally intended, is the entire Land and Water Conservation Fund. The sad part is that, over the years, that 60 percent has dwindled away and is no longer a statutory mandate. It dwindled down to like 16 percent of all that money was going to those stateside widely popular programs to help local governments come up with recreation opportunities for their citizens. That part that everyone supports had dwindled from 60 down to 16 percent. The rest of the money went for the Federal Government to acquire more property. Now, if you think about this rationally for a second, we are putting more money into the Federal Government to acquire more property when the Federal Government already has a $20 billion backlog in the maintenance of what we already have. Park Service alone has a $12 billion backlog in the maintenance of the programs we already have. So what we are basically trying to do in this motion to instruct is to tell us to go in there and fight for money to go to a program to get more land when we can't actually manage what we want. If the program was to go and say it would be mandatory for local governments to be able to pick and choose their recreation opportunity, then you have got something that makes sense, but that is not what the Senate has tried to do in their appropriations. Now, last December, the House did vote on this issue when it reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 3 more years. But what they did in that process is do, at least, the first step of the reform by saying, if you are going to do it for 3 more years, at least, at least as a minimum 50 percent has to go to the States, and then you can spend the other 50 percent for this quixotic effort to control all the land in America. But at least do that. Now, unfortunately, that, at least, is a reform to make the process better. But this motion to instruct would tell us to even go back from that and would not even put that modest type of reform into the program. At the minimum, that should be the way. It should not be a process where we try and walk back from what we have already done. It should not be a process where we forget what the original intent of this program is. It should not be a process in which we add to the Federal estate when we can't manage what we already have. It should not be a process that basically has been abused from the intent of 1965. So, with that, I appreciate the offer to instruct me to do what I can already do. I appreciate that this is still nonbinding. It is a nice concept, nice spirit. There is a better way. We did a better way before. We can come up with a better way now. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. Let's move this stuff along as quickly as we can. I already said what we are supposed to do. If we are really serious about these instructions, let's do an instruction that actually moves us forward. I know that they are still just simply nonbinding issues. It is kind of cute, but it doesn't move the body forward and it certainly does not support House-backed positions. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I rise to note my reservations about the characterization of civilian employees in the Calvert amendment to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Although I believe it is important that we have a good assessment of the number and location of our civilian and contractor personnel who work at the Department of Defense, I believe it is also important that we accurately reflect the critical role that our federal civilians play in ensuring the military readiness of our nation. I have the distinct privilege of representing Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah and serving on the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Readiness. As such, I have had a front row seat reviewing our nation's combat power and the role played by the civilian workforce in generating and supporting combat power. I can tell you that our civilian workforce does not detract from combat power, but serves as a force multiplier and as part of the backbone of military readiness. Without the men and women who serve at the Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base, as well as the other Air Logistics Complexes and military depots around the country in all of the services, we would have mission failure in any number of military aircraft on a daily basis, failing our warfighters, and costing lives. It is time that we stand up and salute our nation's federal civilians who work at the Department of Defense. Their work is valuable and their contributions are numerous. I think we need to tread very carefully in asserting Congressional findings that would cast a wide-net of negative aspersions on thousands of defense civilians who directly support the war fighter, and often make substantial sacrifices to do so. I am concerned that they are not unfairly pegged as being wasteful or superfluous to readiness. Yes, let's conduct oversight and study the defense civilian workforce, but let's hold off making such findings until after the facts are in and the defense committees have had adequate time to review and analyze the results. To do otherwise puts the cart before the horse, and is frankly unfair to thousands of my constituents who have suffered under this Administration's illegal decision to direct furloughs of working capital fund employees without pay. We cannot continue to treat our depot civilians in this manner without profound negative consequences to hard working families and ultimately to the warfighter.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a small town in Utah where I remember a Sinclair gas station that was situated where Route 39 intersects Route 134. It is a place where parents would stop to fill up their cars while taking their kids to school, and airmen would stop on the way to serve at Hill Air Force Base; where fathers would fill up the RV on the way to the family vacation, and I may have actually stopped to get a few Dr Pepper's as well. County Corner store is part of the Sinclair family, which is today celebrating their 100-year anniversary. Today, there are 1,300 Sinclair-branded stations in 24 States. They operate the largest refinery in the Rocky Mountain West, they have their offices located in Utah, and they have 1,200 employees. You may actually recognize the green dinosaur that is the logo. It is an apatosaurus, and its name is Dino. It debuted at the World's Fair in Chicago in 1933, has been a part of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, and is actually an honorary member of the Museum of Natural History. In an era where it is sometimes en vogue to condemn the gas-powered engine, we have to realize that people drive to work, families drive to church, schoolbuses drive kids back and forth, as well as the fact that firefighters rush to help businesses that are threatened. The Sinclair Oil Corporation has a hand in making all that possible. Happy birthday.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Wittman and Mr. Walz for working with our committee to bring this bipartisan bill together to protect hunting and shooting heritages. One of the things that I, as well as many of my colleagues, hear repeatedly from our constituents is the complaint that land management agencies have blocked access to Federal lands. That especially goes for hunters and anglers and target shooters. Our national monuments alone have already closed 928,000 acres to hunting and recreational shooting. Most of those areas are, unfortunately, easily accessible. You don't have to walk miles to try and get to them. There are some who condemn this by saying that the vast majority of public lands is still open for hunting and shooting. The problem is the proximity. The ones that are being closed are those that are easily accessible to especially those people who live in urban areas who don't have to go miles and miles to do it. In addition to that, the problem is that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service make no assessment on the impact of closing lands to shooters or to anglers. They don't identify where the displaced recreationalists are being able to go, how far they have to travel, or what kind of access would be available to them. At a minimum, this bill forces them to take that into consideration. I wish it were tougher language that would force them to make some kind of accommodations. But at least for the first time they are actually going to consider those issues, because hunting and fishing and shooting are part of the multiple-use mandate for our public lands. There is no question about it. I also want to make a couple of points very clear in that the language in title IV that deals with this bill, that deals with the Army Corps lands, allows law-abiding American citizens to carry firearms on Army Corps recreational lands. The Army Corps is not the Army. There is a difference between the two. We are not talking about military lands, but recreational lands. What this does is make these recreational lands that are owned by the Army Corps of Engineers compliant and parallel to the laws we have for the Forest Service as well as for the BLM and the Park Service, as it deals with carrying weapons as long as they are in compliance with State and Federal law. Many Members think this is, basically, a hunting issue. It is not. The primary reason for this language has to do with the fundamental right of self-defense, and it does make it consistent. I want to make two final points here. The Natural Resources Committee strongly encourages the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to develop agency-wide policies, in consultation with the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council and the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, that reflect the intent of this act. These policies should ensure that there is more access to America's Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. These councils represent the interests and needs of sportsmen and - women who depend on having access to Federal lands for outdoor sporting activities. I will also be reaching out to the Bureau of Land Management and to the Forest Service for regular updates on the progress being made in developing these policies within 30 days of each respective council meeting. I appreciate the gentleman's compliance and understanding. Vote for what is good about this bill, not for what is not there.