Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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. 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 Right now, we have a situation in which this tribe funds itself in a cumbersome situation with an outdated document that puts on limitations and uncertainty in the tribe business when they don't have to, because they are dealing instead with the business activities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, 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. 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, 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. 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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 979) to designate a mountain in the John Muir Wilderness of the Sierra National Forest as ``Sky Point''.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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. 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, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice), another great worker and a member of our committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1335 makes a decent Federal law a better Federal law, and I commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership and his dedication to strengthening and updating our Federal fisheries laws. The bill that we have before us today on the floor represents years of hard work on a comprehensive reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. That is why this bill was given such a high priority by our committee and was such a major effort of trying to make this one of the first bills we brought out. This bill was originally passed in 1976, was updated in 1996 and again in 2006, and illustrates the same principle: that all bills age. And though principles of government may be eternal, specific administrative laws are in need of constant review by a legislative body. That is our job. This bill does that. It is a good bill for our economy. It is a good bill for our jobs. In 2012, the seafood industry had a sales impact of $141 billion, $59 billion in value-added impacts, and supported 1.3 million jobs earning $39 billion in income. The U.S. commercial fishermen directly contributed with 9.6 billion pounds of fish and shellfish harvested, earning another $5.1 billion in revenue from their catches. There are 11 million recreational saltwater anglers, spending $25 billion on trips and gear in 2012, generating $58 billion in sales impacts and supporting 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. jobs. Commercial and recreational fishermen and the seafood industry that manages how the fish get from the boat to our table, they support this legislation. I want to reemphasize that that is perhaps unique. For the first time, all three elements--commercial, seafood industry, recreational fishermen--are all in support of updating this law in this particular fashion. This bill provides flexibility, and it is a bill for the entire Nation. So it provides the flexibility that is essential for the fishing community in New England. It provides and incorporates State and local data on making fish population assessments, which is significant for the fish community in the Gulf of Mexico. It provides greater transparency as to how management decisions are made in a very open way, which is what it is supposed to be doing in the first place. The proposed changes were not developed overnight. The Natural Resources Committee held 10 hearings, heard more than 80 witnesses over the last 4 years in deliberating over the changes that are needed to this particular law. That is why I am very pleased with the positive statements that have been made by both sides of the aisle on this legislation. During the last Congress, the ranking member at that time said ``the changes that were negotiated on a number of provisions of the bill'' were something for which he thanked the majority. Another one of the minority members was quoted also as saying: ``I do appreciate the fact that you reached out to us on the Democratic side of the aisle and many of the provisions, as you mentioned, that are in the bill did come from input from the Democratic side.'' Those words speak for themselves. This bill is the product of years of work, having reached out to Members on both sides of the aisle, having reached out to Members in different regions of our country, reached out to stakeholders of varying perspectives, and we reached out to the agency to craft a reauthorization that improves the process. We have done that. It is unfortunate in my mind the administration recently announced opposition to this bill. Rather than giving you my thoughts on that--or maybe that is a reason why you would support it in the first place--let me simply quote the New Bedford Standard-Times. They did an editorial in their paper in that bastion of conservatism, Massachusetts. They disagreed with the White House's opposition to the bill, and they ended by saying: ``Looking at the bill and its accomplishment of making management more responsive to science, and contrasting it with the empty arguments of the White House policy statement, it seems very clear where politics fits into this.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill is a win for consumers. It is a win for the industry that puts food on our tables. It is a win for the restaurants. It is a win for the recreational fishermen. It is a win for better and more transparent science. It is a win for our environment. It is a win for the American taxpayers. There is no significant increase in the cost, but there is a significant increase in the solutions in this area, which is, once again, why all the major players who were involved in this--both the commercial side, recreational side--are in common agreement that this is the way we need to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I oppose this amendment as wrong policy. Why would we rush headlong into unilateral disarmament at the same time Russia has not lived up to its treaty obligations with the INF treaty? Section 3121 wisely prohibits the disarmament of nuclear warheads for 5 years, enough time to see if actually Russia will live up to its agreement. If you are actually going to get rid of a weapons system, for heaven's sakes, get something for it. Unilateral disarmament gets us nothing. That is why this is the wrong policy with the wrong message that would go to our potential adversaries but, more importantly, the wrong message that would go to our allies, who are waiting to see if the United States will retreat from a position of leadership.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, whether one is talking about the sage grouse, which is yet to be listed, or the prairie chicken, which has been listed, it is true that each of those does have an impact on the readiness of our military. It does have an impact, and each branch of the military has actually said so. On one Army base alone, they are spending $1.5 million a year to manage 250 birds. That is the cost that goes to that, as well as to the readiness of this Nation. It would be nice--and one would presume--that each department would be talking to each other about the impacts of their decisions. As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I am going to say that did not happen. It should. I urge adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), whose bill we are discussing, to introduce the bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 373) to direct the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to expedite access to certain Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of each Secretary for good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 984) to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As was just mentioned before, this bill authorizes the study, which is the appropriate first step in all these types of procedures. Any designation of a trail would require additional action from this committee and this Congress. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is a very good bill. I appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska bringing it to our attention. I also appreciate him saying I am distinguished. It is obviously the new shirt that I am wearing. I urge adoption of this particular bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1324 would adjust the boundaries of the Arapaho National Forest in the State of Colorado to incorporate 93 acres. This land may be acquired only with the written permission of the landowners, and this bill preserves motorized access for the landowners within the new boundary. An identical bill, H.R. 4846, passed this Congress by a voice vote last year. It is appropriate that it is with us again. I am here to make sure that everyone mentions the fact that this is found in Colorado, not Colorado. With that, 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 to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1324) to adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado, and for other purposes.