Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey joining us here. I have to admit in somewhat chagrin, I quoted you earlier in my speech when you were saying something very positive about this bill last time around. But I would also like to state for the record the concept of the Garden State Seafood Association, which is from your home State of New Jersey and which also supports this bill, as they had said simply that it adjusts ``certain specific problematic regulations that have not proven to function as intended since they were added or amended in the last reauthorization a decade ago.'' There are problems with the status quo this bill fixes. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), also a farm worker of our committee, and with appreciation for an amendment that he added in committee that made a significant impact, especially for the recreational fisheries of America.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), another hard-working member of our committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are some agencies of government that, if a bird were to fly over the Capitol, they would claim credit for it. That, perhaps, is one of the situations in which we find ourselves today. The problem is the status quo is not effective; it is not working. Those who work and live in this area deal with this industry. They recognize that there is something that needs to be changed. That is why, as I stated earlier, the Garden State Seafood Association said there are problematic regulations that have not proven to function as intended--that is, in the status quo--while the National Fisheries Institute, another group that actually supports this bill, wants to do so because it would more effectively coordinate with the councils who are currently there. We have a situation right now in which Southerners have spoken here-- the gentleman from Texas, the gentlewoman from Florida--about problems that exist within the status quo. We are presenting, now, a bill that is supported by those who are working in the industry, supported by those who are commercial fishermen, and it is also supported by all the groups that represent the recreational fishers. They realize that this bill needs more flexibility. To have a standard 10-year plan for every species when some of those species don't last 10 years is silly; it lacks common sense. We need to do that. There needs to be transparency, as some decisions are made behind closed doors. This bill mandates that that would not be the case. It needs to make sure that scientific data from all sources is used and recognized. That is not happening in the status quo. There needs to be the ability of cutting red tape. Some people have talked about the change of NEPA without recognizing first that the law already mandates a similar process to NEPA, which has the exact same information. Requiring all these agencies to go through their process and then go through NEPA does not add to effectiveness or efficiency but does add to the opportunity of greater litigation costs. All those issues are addressed in this particular bill. It needs to be reauthorized. We need to move forward. This is one of the bills that has taken a long time. It is 4 years in the process, with lots of discussion, lots of amendments. We are now moving this bill forward so it can go to the Senate. They can work their will. We can come back to a conference if necessary, but we must move forward in this for the benefit of the communities that use this area as their livelihood as well as this area as their recreation. The present system has flaws that need to be fixed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy you gave to the gentlewoman from Florida in allowing her to finish her statement. She illustrates very clearly how the problems that exist are structural problems that can't simply be solved if we just add more money to the situation. To further that issue, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment that has been presented by the gentleman from California. It is a much better amendment than was presented in the committee in which there were elements that were in there that dealt with the California drought, that dealt with NGOs being able to contribute that should never have been a part of it, and I appreciate his not putting those in this particular amendment that is on the floor. But at the same time, it does roll back all the flexibility that was significant and important here. It rolls back the transparency that needs to be in effect. The underlying bill specifically requires the scientific and statistical committees to develop the scientific advice provided to the councils in a transparent manner and allows them to allow for public involvement in the process. It requires councils to provide Webcasts or audio of each council meeting and posting such recordings on their Web site within 30 days of that particular meeting, and it requires an opportunity for public comment or proposals that are relating to the use of electronic monitoring technology. Those would also not be included if this amendment were to take place. Some of the ``bedrock'' laws that are referred to here are indeed not taken out of the process. That was handled in one of the other debates we had on a different amendment, which simply says what we are trying to do is avoid just going through the motions a second time, to try and cut the red tape for more efficiency so that a NEPA law or fish management act, they are the same thing, why do it twice when once is sufficient? Why waste the time, energy, and effort of public bodies to do that? And all those, once again, would be reinstated, that double effort would be reinstated at the same time. With that, Mr. Chairman, this bill, as a 4-year process, not a recent process, goes back to several other times. And in my opening statement, I did quote from the leadership of the minority party at the time 2 years ago, in that committee, how much they were grateful for the input they had on this bill and for taking ideas from the Democrat side that were incorporated, and those ideas are still in the base bill. It is one of the concepts here that I would love to have a bipartisan bill. But more importantly, I want to have a good bill, a bill that solves the problems. You have heard speeches from both sides of the aisle that simply the status quo is not working. There are too many problems that need to be solved. That is one of the reasons why the underlying bill is still being supported by all the people who are involved in the industry--by the commercial side, by the charter fishing side, and by the recreation people--and the first time that has ever happened. So I commend the gentleman from Alaska for having done a good process, and I would say go with the underlying bill. It has a better chance of moving us forward to provide better progress and better significance in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to further speak about a position or an issue that has the support of the recreation community and the industry at the same time, which is unique. He is one of the senior members of our committee.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the sponsor of this piece of legislation. He is the senior member of our committee, as well as someone who knows more about this issue than probably anyone else on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

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, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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, 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

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 H.R. 1335.

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. There are some times when we can do nothing to repay the sacrifice that our fellow men have done for us; but, in some small way, we can try to show our gratitude. This is one bill that does that. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the sponsor of this piece of legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, we can name this unnamed peak as a small measure of our Nation's gratitude to this noble soldier, noble warrior, Staff Sergeant Sky Mote, for all he has done for us on our behalf. It is a fitting tribute, and it is the least that we can do for him and his family. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Bless you. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say just a few words about this particular piece legislation by myself. It is a one-page piece of legislation that should be easy to read--and those are always dangerous because they are easy to read-- that grants the request from the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to revoke a charter of incorporation which was issued back in the New Deal era--a 1936 law that was implemented in 1940. And as we know, any of those pieces of legislation that age that well have got to be reviewed at a specific period of time. Right now, we have a situation in which this tribe funds itself in a cumbersome situation with an outdated document that puts on limitations and uncertainty in the tribe business when they don't have to, because they are dealing instead with the business activities that come through their tribal constitution. They are doing it the right way. And unfortunately, it requires an act of Congress to allow them to do what they ought to be doing and are doing in the first place and just clean up this act. So only we can do that. It is in accordance with the tribal wishes, and it is in accordance with Congressman Mullin, who represents this particular tribe in the House. He has sponsored this. This is a good bill. The Department of the Interior does not object to this piece of legislation. An identical version passed in the House in the 113th Congress by a voice vote. I would hope we would do it again, and this time make sure we go all the way through the system and do what is right for this particular tribe. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't want to break any protocols we may have. So, therefore, I want to echo what the gentleman from Oklahoma so brilliantly and so fluently and obviously not slowly enough said. With that, Mr. Speaker, once again, we will go through this concept that hopefully--does the gentleman from Virginia, even though I realize he has yielded back, would the gentleman like some of my time?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, with great appreciation to my good friends from Oklahoma and Virginia and Alaska, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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''.