Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the opportunity to present this bill. I also thank all the many people who have worked from three different committees on this: Chairman Shuster of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Conaway of the Agriculture Committee, as well as those who work on the Natural Resources Committee. I am very grateful for the Democrats, Mr. Schrader and Mr. DeFazio, who have spoken here already in defense of this bill, and for their help and assistance in this. As the former Chief of the Forest Service said, we don't have a fire problem in our Nation's forests. We have a land management problem, and it needs to be addressed quickly. That is exactly what the Westerman bill does. It addresses that problem. The status quo, flat out, is not working. The Forest Service has recommended or recognized that we have at least 58 million acres that are in dire need of assistance right now but can easily be burned in this next fire season. That is bigger than my home State of Utah, which is still the 11th largest State in the Nation. If you add the higher-end estimates, then you add more acreage into that, which means you would add the State of Utah and Michigan. One- third of the entire forests we have are in danger of being destroyed if we do not do something immediately. The Forest Service right now can only address the problem in 3 million acres; 58 is the minimum. That simply means it would take them over 20 years to address the problem. That is more than my lifetime is left here to try and solve this problem. I realize that I was probably born at a greater distance from the apocalypse than most of the people here; but at the same time, in my lifetime, you can't solve the problem if we keep on with the status quo. That is why this bill is essential, and that is why I appreciate all the speakers who have gone on today saying why this is the perfect first step. What is so good about it is, as soon as the President signs this thing, the Forest Service can immediately implement everything. These are practices and processes that they have at their disposal. They are ready to move forward with it. All we have to do is give them the tools to immediately do that. Now, we realize some of the issues that are there. Funding is a significant issue. Funding alone will not solve our problem, but we have addressed that; and I appreciate, once again, Chairman Shuster and subcommittee Chairman Barletta, who have come up with--from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--come up with a good funding mechanism so that we can address that issue and move us forward. That, by itself, does not solve our problems. We have a land management issue at the same time. We have a problem with litigation, which basically stops the efforts of the Forest Service to do their job in their tracks. As soon as they become sued, they have to stop moving forward on their program; they have to spend money to defend themselves in a lawsuit, or they have to try and go through efforts to try and cover themselves so they don't get sued in the first place. It does not work. We have heard a lot of comments about the inability of being able to sue, as a poor private citizen doesn't have the right to sue if we pass our bill. That is ridiculous. This only deals with areas that have been collaboratively worked on-- that means where citizens actually got together and came up with a plan of action on their forest and, as they move forward to that, some special interests groups with a whole lot of deep pockets on their side stops them in their tracks by a lawsuit. Those are the kinds of groups that are going to have to put up the bond. Those are the kind of groups who can no longer say: We are going to sue you on 25 different issues. We realize only three of them are going to be realistic, but we want you to take the time and effort to spend your Federal moneys to try and defend all those 25. What we are saying is: Look, if you are going to sue on something, sue on something that is realistic. Don't put the entire world on there, and make sure that you are willing to cede on those particular issues, in those particular areas. We also have in title I in there that simply says: You can still sue, but you can't get an injunction to stop our work while we go through frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit. In the last two administrations, not counting this one, but two prior administrations, we have over 11,000 lawsuits that took place simply to stop the Forest Service from going forward. That has to be addressed. It has to be addressed. The Forest Service recognizes that, and that is why former Forest Service employees--as well as the current ones-- realize, if we don't have some kind of litigation reform, we will not solve our problems with forest health. We also have to give them the tools so they can move quickly on what they need to do. Categorical exclusion is not something that is evil; it is actually something that is essential to move forward. They recognize that they need that tool. That is why I said, as soon as this bill is signed by the President, they can implement what they already know to do. What we are asking them is to do an environmental review, but you don't have to do review after review after review. If you have done the review the first time, it is sufficient, and they have the wisdom and the ability to do that. Will that destroy our forests? Heavens, no. What this will do is have the potential of actually saving our forests, being able to allow the Federal forest land to be as resilient, to be as well managed as the State and tribal forest lands are because, in State and tribal forest lands, they don't have to deal with a lot of the issues that stop them from actually solving their problems, but we do on the Federal forest system, unless we move forward. That is why I appreciate all those who have spoken so far on the need of moving forward on this particular bill. We are in the beginning of a fire season that could be catastrophic. We have witnessed the results of wildfires in the past. We need to do something now, and we have to move forward. This is a bill that is common sense. It was wonderful to have our hearings, listening to the group of people who are experts in this area, being excited about the opportunity of having the tools the Forest Service needs to do their job, having the funding the Forest Service needs to do their job, and also have the protection from frivolous lawsuits the Forest Service needs to do their job. We must give our Forest Service personnel the tools they need to be successful. If we don't pass this bill because we want something perfect from on high to come down--first, if we don't pass this bill, we are going to have a devastating situation coming in our forest lands and in our Nation this coming year. This is an essential step forward. Is it perfect? No. There is a whole lot more that we need to do, and we will still look forward to those issues; we will move forward on these issues, but what this does is move us forward in a significant way. Does this bill destroy our bedrock environmental laws? Of course not--the last time I heard people talking about bedrock was talking about Wilma and Fred and Barney. I am sorry; those laws didn't save their pet dinosaurs back in those days, either. We are not going to change anything; we are not going to move forward; we are not going to destroy what we have gained in the past, but what we are going to do is allow the Forest Service to do their job, something they are stopped from doing now because of procedural practices, because of litigation, because of lack of funding. All three of those are addressed in this particular piece of legislation. It is a great piece of legislation, and it needs to go forward. I urge everyone in here to realize how we must make steps to move forward and pass this bill and get it over to the Senate and onto the President's desk so our Forest Service can do their jobs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of being here, talking about this significant bill that is going to increase and improve our status quo. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), to begin our portion of this debate, who is the chief sponsor of this particular bill, who has a personal background, actually, having earned a degree in forestry even from the State of Arkansas.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this Antiquities Act was passed over a century ago in 1906, when four States weren't even in the Union at that time. They were still territories. There are absolutely no environmental laws that we had at that particular time protecting anything. Yet, this act was not used by every President. In fact, most Presidents never used it. Ronald Reagan never used it. Most Presidents only used it one time. It was changed, starting with the Jimmy Carter administration, so that no longer is this act that was supposed to protect antiquities-- thus, the name the Antiquities Act--used to protect antiquities. It was used as a political weapon and abused as a political weapon. The saddest part is there is absolutely no input that has to be guaranteed by this act. In fact, the vast majority of monuments that were created through this Antiquities Act, there was no public input whatsoever. Any public input that took place was purely by accident, purely by coincidence. The people in the counties that are designated in this amendment need to have the right to have some input in how land decisions are used that area. That is what this amendment does. Give them the chance to be heard because, under the present Antiquities Act, they are not heard.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Cache Valley Transit District in Logan, Utah, has received an Excellence in Motion award by the national Community Transportation Association and has been named as the ``Urban Community Transportation System of the Year.'' Among other criteria, this award is given to a transportation system that demonstrates creative and innovative services that are responsive to community needs and serves an urban area of more than 50,000 people. The Cache Valley Transit District has a 19-year legacy of fare-free riding, a precedent for the Nation. They have cultivated close relationships in the community through traditional and nontraditional partnerships, such as support for a community art program, a new medical voucher program, and Call-A-Ride buses which provide curbside service for the elderly and disabled. For these and other reasons, they certainly merit the Excellence in Motion award.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of going through all these amendments. This is one amendment that does not necessarily move us forward in the process. I wish it did. It did not. Sometimes there are even little tiny bits and pieces that happen to be in there that are one of the reasons why, if we were starting from scratch again, I would ask to be removed. For example, Mr. Huffman does name one of the funds in here--the fisheries conservation and management fund--after a gentleman whose association's members have been party to more than 20 Federal cases brought against the Federal agency since 2007. Much of that litigation has been aimed at the Bureau of Reclamation water projects and farmers and ranchers who serve by them. Congress should not be rewarding such serial litigation. That is one of the things I would have asked to have been removed had we started from scratch in this process. But above all, the amendment simply erases the flexibility, erases the transparency, and erases the science improvements that are part of the underlying bill that are so essential; that the elements of those people who live in these communities, who recreate in these areas, who use the commercial side, the fishing side, have all said we are not doing what we need to do; that the present system does have flaws in it and needs to be changed, and we need to move forward on that bill. The underlying bill does that. This amendment does not do that. I urge a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment and urge us to move forward with the bill as written. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in the same way Federal lands must be accessible to sportsmen and -women, so must our Federal waters as well. I concur with the gentleman that there is an access problem with the red snapper. The underlying bill extends the Gulf State coastal waters to 9 miles, requires fish to be counted around reefs, and requires the incorporation of State and local data on red snapper management so that the red snapper population will be counted. Almost everyone agrees that the population is undercounted, but counting more fish does not guarantee that recreational fishermen will have more days in Federal waters. I want to work with the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Miller of Florida, and any other coastal States Representatives to have hearings and move along other bills that may come about.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) on this particular amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude the debate, if I may. Last year, in Congress, we had a hearing where we saw a huge number of red snappers who were killed by the removal of a decommissioned oil platform that had been authorized by the Department of the Interior. This amendment does not really change that. What this amendment would do is an attempt--hopefully, futile attempt--to basically give validity to the administration's National Ocean Policy, a policy that was done without transparency, almost in the cover of darkness, and implemented by executive order. What we are talking about is not something that is an executive action, but, as properly said by the last two speakers from our side, it is a legislative action, and this bill takes that legislative responsibility and does it the right way. We do not need a nontransparent executive order to be enforced here. What we need to do is allow the agencies of jurisdiction to actually do their job, defend their rules, and allow the legislative branch to work its will. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in response to the amendment, I simply have to say no, it does not assume the system. We do have a problem with transparency in the process that we have. The underlying bill changes that by requiring these decisions to be made public and made openly, but the specific issue that dealing with NEPA misses a step, misses an important point here. Current law requires fishery management plans contain a fishery impact statement. That is required by law now, required by the bill as well. That is in line with everything you go through to do an environmental impact statement under NEPA. What this amendment would do is simply require the process to do everything twice. You do a fishery impact statement first, and then you restate and redo the same business with the same cost attached to it for the NEPA analysis. That is simply red tape. It is an unnecessary delay. It makes some of the scientific information obsolete before they are done. It burdens the management and the resource council, which is why those, once again, who work in this system have said this is an unnecessary part and one of the reasons they like the efficiency that has been added by the basic, underlying bill. The most important reason, though, why you don't want to accept this amendment is, if you add two different approaches, two different statements that have to be made, you give attorneys two different opportunities to litigate. You give more opportunities to litigate, more opportunities to delay, and that is ridiculous. It lacks common sense because you are doing the same thing in both processes. Cut the red tape, cut the litigation opportunity, cut the delays, and help us move forward. I reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In 2010, the Department of Commerce inspector general reported that NOAA was misusing these funds for all sorts of purposes not actually helping the fishing community. That is one of the reasons why we are clearly saying the status quo has problems, and this bill needs to go forward. This bill recognized that these funds should not be used to add to the bureaucracy, and therefore in the base bill we actually put in provisions to allow up to 80 percent of these enforcement funds to be used for collection and data and science. What Mr. Keating and others have done, though, is take the process one step further in something I think is a very commonsense solution to a problem that we do have in the status quo. I appreciate what you are doing, and I support this amendment. I urge everyone to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we begin the debate on this particular bill, I am pleased that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) is here with us to introduce this very effective and important bill. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) to explain his legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is an excellent piece of legislation that solves a problem that should never have existed in the first place. It is curious that in many cases throughout the West, the current Federal law does not allow a landowner to make an early repayment on Federal irrigation projects. It is an outdated law and a hurdle that is silly. It is similar to a bank prohibiting a homeowner from paying off his or her mortgage early. Congressman Smith's bill removes the Federal Bureau of Reclamation repayment prohibition for individual landowners within the Northport Irrigation District. In return for those payments, though, these farmers will no longer be subject to the acreage limitation and the paperwork requirements imposed by the Reclamation Reform Act. This bill will accelerate revenue coming into the Treasury. It is based on two recent precedents that passed in both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Houses. Today, we are trying to continue those efforts by adopting this particular bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1335, 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, including in section 15 (page 35, beginning on line 10), striking ``The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)'' and inserting ``The Act''.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.