Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am going to insist on my point of order. This motion to recommit involves subject matter that is different from the bill. The fundamental purpose of the motion is unrelated to the bill. I insist on my point of order.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that our colleagues, Mr. McClintock and Don Young, were put on this watch list-- actually, for Don Young maybe it fits. Point of Order

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, and I continue to reserve a point of order.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is one of those situations where this is an issue that has been festering for 6 years now. If the Bureau of Land Management truly wanted to solve this issue, if they truly wanted to make amends, if they truly wanted to give certainty to these people, it could have happened by now. But up the food chain they have refused to do it. That is why it is incumbent upon us to do the right thing. We are talking about people whose property, whose homes, their future, their livelihoods, are being threatened by a government bureaucracy that simply says they don't care. They would rather have control than solve a problem. The bill before you actually sets out a way of doing the survey in the right way, the way the Supreme Court said it should be done, doing it the right way the first time and ensuring that everyone will be part of the table. It sets out a process to actually solve this problem in a minimum amount of time. This is the right thing to do. We should go forward with that. I appreciate those who have spoken on this particular issue because there are people whose lives are being threatened right now because of the uncertainty about what their property rights are and where they will not be, and that is wrong. That is simply wrong. What has happened to these people is wrong. If we allow it to go forward by our inability of trying to make decisions here, we are wrong, too. It is time to quit hurting people and do things that actually help them. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have some other speakers who are on their way, so I will reserve in the hopes that I can hear some other speeches that care about people who are about to lose their homes by the actions of this government, that we actually care about those people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the sponsor of this bill. He is someone who has been working for at least 6 long years to try to make sure that the Federal Government stops its harming of individuals in taking away their property and their homes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield, once again, such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the sponsor of this bill, to explain how this actually did take place and what the issue is here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, when you can't do a survey in 6 years, maybe somebody should insist the Federal Government's agencies do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important bill to the people who live in this particular area of Texas and Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the subcommittee chair who heard this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts how many more speeches she has. There is one person coming down, but I don't know if he will make it. I think, in light of the time, I am ready to close if she is ready to close.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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

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 include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 2130.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For people whose homes and lives are being threatened by inaction or an improper action of the Federal Government, that is a critical issue to them. This bill is significantly important to people who are being harmed by the Federal Government. So this is what happened: In 2009, the Bureau of Land Management, they did a survey on 6,000 acres, out of a potential of about 90,000 acre piece of property. They used poor surveying methods, methods that were outlawed by the Supreme Court back in the 1920s because of the inaccuracy of the method they used. Four years later, this Bureau then decided, based on the inaccurate surveying done in an improper way, that they would lay claim to 90,000 acres. They later reduced that number somewhat, even though people lived on the land they were claiming. Their homes were there. Their future was there. They had a valid title to that land. They had been paying taxes on that land for years. Nonetheless, the government decided it was theirs. The government had no use for this land. They had no plan. They had no need for it. All it was was about control. Even the BLM workers who were on the field that understood, they didn't want this. It was made up here in the higher levels of people who want to control. And even though they own a third of the land mass of the United States, that simply was not enough. They wanted to go after the homes of these people as well. If people were in the way of that control, they didn't care. If property rights were in the way of that control, they didn't care. We have seen this issue played over and over on this floor recently. We had a bill the other day in the State of Virginia, where 1 acre, 1 acre of a park that was not being used was needed for a daycare center, and the Park Service was opposed to it because it took their control away from that 1 acre of land. Fortunately, we passed that bill on a voice vote. There is a school, a middle school in Reno, Nevada, that was stopped by the BLM because it was going to be put on land that was 12 miles away from a potential sage grouse lek. That was stopped. There is a lake in Louisiana where the exact same thing is happening on 200 acres around that particular lake, a bad survey in which the Federal Government says, oh, give us time to fix this problem. The bottom line is, we are seeing, time after time after time, in which actions by the Federal Government, specifically, the Department of the Interior, are actually hurting people, and that is wrong. We must stop that. We are here in the people's House. It is incumbent upon us, if an agency of government, an administration, or a bureaucracy does something to harm people, it is our responsibility to change that, to challenge it, and to set it right. If the bureaucracy decides to become heartless thugs and tries to take away property rights, tries to take away homes, then we, the Representatives of the people, need to have this time to stand up there and say, no, it is wrong; we need to do it the right way. That is exactly what the bill before us does. It says: Stop this inaccuracy. Stop this offense. Stop hurting people. Redo the survey, but redo it in a proper way, and put in a source of process where those who have actual rights on this land can go about and get their rights. If that undermines the Federal Government, which has had 6 years to redo the survey, and do it the right way, then it is incumbent upon us. If they have done something wrong, we need to fix it. This bill in no way, shape, or form has any negative impact on anybody's mineral rights. Whether it is the government, tribes, or individuals, it does not harm them. But it is our job to make sure we do something. We, in this body, set the standards and the boundaries of what government should do, not a faceless bureaucracy. And when that faceless bureaucracy, after a great deal of time, fails to do their job, that is when we, as a body, need to stand up and set things right to protect the people whom we represent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of a brilliantly written manager's amendment to H.R. 2130. In short, this bill, introduced by my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry of Texas, prevents the Federal Government from claiming thousands of acres of private land legally owned by American citizens and tribes along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma. My manager's amendment will do the following: It will ensure that nothing in this bill will create or reinstate a tribal reservation. It ensures that nothing in this bill alters the valid existing mineral rights of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Nations. It allows affected federally recognized Indian tribes to be part of the survey process in addition to the States of Oklahoma and Texas. It allows landowners access to judicial review beyond the Bureau of Land Management's administrative appeals process. This manager's amendment reflects concerns that have been brought to us by Chairman Thornberry, by Congressman Cole of Oklahoma, by Oklahoma Governor Fallin, by private landowners, and by the other stakeholders who have an interest in this particular area. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the manager's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for Congressman Cole and his efforts. I want to also offer that, as this bill continues to be processed, I will be more than happy to work on these and other issues, as we have in the past on certain issues that are in the manager's amendment. But I have to oppose this particular amendment. It does certain things that are problematic. First, the amendment alters the bill's rights of first refusal procedure to give precedence to some above others, whether or not they have a reasonable claim to the land or hold an adjacent allotment. That is the key point right there: is the claim and the allotment adjacent. The bill, as is already written, already gives the right of first refusal to those landowners who are there as long as they own the adjacent land parcel. That should not be changed. Secondly, the medial line is an important issue in allocating where the location of the river actually is. If you are going to solve the problem unequivocally to demonstrate the true ownership of the land, this has to be solved. Otherwise, the clouded title to private lands will continue on, as they have been by BLM's action so far. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that the medial is supposed to change as the movements of the river change. BLM's recent survey ignored the movement of the river, which is causing the very issue that we are facing today. This amendment would put it back into the failed process. This amendment then runs contrary to what the Supreme Court's decision said is the fair surveying practices that ought to have been done 6 years ago by the BLM in the first place. Congressman Thornberry has worked extensively with Congressman Cole to address some of the concerns--many of the concerns--that are there. I would point out just a few that have been added. We are preventing the alternation of sovereign right States under the Red River Boundary Compact. We are ensuring the State of Oklahoma and affected tribes are involved in picking surveyors and approving the survey. We are preventing the creation or reinstatement of the tribal reservation. We are ensuring that the bill does not impact the valid rights of the affected tribes to the mineral interest fund created in 1926. Overall, the bill, as written and amended with the manager's amendment, proposes a fair solution to the issue at hand, incorporates the ideas and views of those interested in a wide range of the stakeholders. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I actually have?

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the past year, Major Jeff Shulman has served as an Air Force Congressional Fellow in my personal office, and today marks his graduation from that program. Major Shulman has been selected for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel as he will be accepting a new assignment abroad serving our country in the coming year. Major Shulman's Air Force career began when he was first commissioned as a Distinguished Graduate from Saint Louis University in 2003. He has served with distinction as an F-16 Instructor Pilot, Mission Commander, and a Flight Examiner in the AT-38C. Additionally he has served as an Aide-de-Camp to two Four-Star General officers as well as a fellow at RAND Corporation. Major Shulman has flown the F-16 operationally during Operation NOBLE EAGLE and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and has 170 combat hours in the F-16 and over 1,500 hours in fighter aircraft. Major Shulman quickly became a valued and respected member of my staff, and was responsible for making invaluable contributions to several major legislative projects, including preserving and protecting military test and training ranges in the Western United States against various types of encroachments and undue restrictions. Major Shulman is truly representative of some of the finest of his generation serving in the United States military, and I believe that his actions and conduct so far in his career have demonstrated a commitment to the Air Force's core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all he does. Our nation is well-served to have individuals of Major Shulman's caliber and integrity serving to defend our freedoms. As he leaves his Capitol Hill fellowship, we can all join in saying to him, job well done. As he and his loving and dedicated family move on to the next assignment, we send with them our best wishes for a happy and successful future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, the United States has become a leader in the area of energy production. But if we are going to maintain that leadership and be a true support for our allies, it requires certain actions that Chairman Upton and his committee have recognized and have presented to us in this North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act. This bill actually contains two provisions that were bipartisan provisions that passed in my Natural Resources Committee, both of which will ensure that the flow of energy to our Nation will be facilitated and will continue on in the future. One, by Mr. MacArthur of New Jersey, illustrates the archaic provisions that will never be used to prohibit and use Federal land as a hindrance to pipeline production even if those pipelines are underground and if they are already in established corridors for energy production, especially those going into the northeast of this country. It is an extremely important position and point of view. Mr. Zinke of Montana and Mr. Schrader of Oregon also have a bipartisan bill that deals with the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, which would minimize the potential of wildfire risk in the over 100,000 miles of power lines we have going through national forest and Bureau of Land Management properties. The provisions would require the agencies to actually work to come up with constructive policies and to make timely decisions so that the utilities have the ability to take out hazardous elements, like trees, and so that ratepayers are not going to be on the hook for the liability of a freak forest fire that would come because of Federal inaction. American energy production has literally changed in less than a decade. There is no reason Federal lands should blockade any kind of pragmatic approach from having these resources moved from the places they are developed to where people can actually benefit from them. This bill helps people, and it will move our country forward. I appreciate Chairman Upton's and his committee's leadership. This is an essential one if we are actually going to forge a better future for the United States. I am proud to be down here to support it, and I appreciate adding these two important, bipartisan provisions as part of the overall package.