Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration. In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair. The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member from the House Committee on Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act is failing in that effort. The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act. The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not taking place. The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be the goal. Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are going to be significant and important. The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act. So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures, and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1. In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time employees just to handling the issue of litigation. The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third- largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the money in the program where it should be. That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill. But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being done. Let me give you a couple of examples. First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard, Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s, determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was inaccurate. The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were actually working in that particular department. That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first, make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado, actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the States. We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on the private property. This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we were actually having a commonsense approach to it. The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different than another flower that was not endangered in that area. Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena. We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong. That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right to look at it. They have a right to question it. All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on-- and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first step. Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place. I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge the adoption of the rule that would do it. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I would like to yield 45 seconds to a Mariners fan--tough day down here--the chairman of the committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I assume the gentleman has no other speakers?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Good. I will finish this. And I appreciate knowing the gentleman from Oregon is a Red Sox fan. That explains so, so much here. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that this is probably a needless amendment. One would assume that if you write a law or you write a rule, that is what you do. This amendment basically says that you abide by the rules. Even though you have great and awesome power--never mind the man behind the curtain--you don't change the rules to pick winners and losers and one special interest group over another. You abide by the rule. In the first 77 lease issue, they had 7 years to go through the process of finding out what it is. This is one of the concepts in which it simply says we are going to obey the law. We are going to abide by the rules so everyone knows what is there and everyone knows with certainty what they can do and for what they should plan, and you don't change it at the last minute because you want to favor one group over another group. That is why we are doing this. It has happened in the past, it can happen in the future, and it should not. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, before I make a comment about the Red Sox, may I inquire about how much time I have remaining?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, so last night, I am watching the Cubs game. And the shortstop, who is on a tear right now as far as hitting, bounces off a foul tip that the replay clearly shows bounced onto the ground. The catcher trapped the ball, and then held it up as saying he had actually caught it. And the umpire, even though this violates the rules of the game, had the power to pick the catcher over the hitter, and he declared that the batter had struck out. Now even though the Cubs manager went out there, claiming how unfair this was--and I was yelling at the TV screen for hours afterwards-- history books will still say that Castro had a strikeout at this particular event. Now, of course, the unfortunate thing is that our administration and the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management plays this same game of picking catchers over hitters all the time, even though it violates some of the rules. So, 77 leases were put up for bid in Utah. It took the BLM on the ground 7 years to go through the process. They checked all the boxes. They did the environmental analysis. And the Secretary of the Interior simply canceled them. His reason was, 'cause. Recently, 56 leases were also set out there for auction. Once again, all the boxes were checked. They got through the process. They did the environmental analysis. The environment assessment was done. Public comment was done. The protest period was finished. And 5 days--5 days-- before the auction, a letter comes from a special interest group to the State director for the Bureau of Land Management, a group that had been silent through the entire process. They said nothing during the assessment. They said nothing during the public comment. During the protest period, they said nothing. Here, 2 months after the record was closed, 2 months after the decision had been done with no more access for public comments, the director of the BLM simply says, I am going to pick a special interest group over another interest group, and he canceled these leases. Schools, the chance of jobs in my State went out, the chance of actually getting royalty payments that would help the kids of my State pay for their education. It was simply done on a whim. The industry had spent $500,000. Half a million dollars from their recreation and development funds were spent getting ready for this auction. And all of a sudden, a special interest group is given special treatment, and it is taken away. Now, what government needs, especially out in the local areas, and what business needs is simply certainty. You tell us what the rules are, and they can play by those rules. It is a business necessity to have certainty and not have administrative officials simply change the rules on a whim at some particular time. It is kind of like, to paraphrase the old Tom Cruise movie: You screwed up. You trusted me. If we have a policy that is long and it is hard, it gives ample opportunity. But it is proven meaningless if, indeed, the Bureau of Land Management is able to fervently yield at the eleventh hour to the opinion of some special interest group. All we are asking them to do with this amendment is to simply follow the rules. Don't change things on a whim. Don't pick one group over the other. Don't pick the catcher or the hitter. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman has only from me yet to hear.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel An America That Works Act of 2014. It makes 10 amendments in order--four Republican and six Democrat--and the rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2015, under a modified open rule and provides for other technical and clerical purposes. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is a bipartisan measure that provides for the essential funding of several Federal agencies during the next fiscal year, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation. This measure would also fund important Federal science research in the fields of energy, high-performance computing systems, and next- generation energy sources. It is appropriate that this measure providing for the Nation's energy needs also be included with this rule. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today and speak in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014. American families, Mr. Speaker, are hurting. Every time you pull up to the gas pump, you have to wonder whether there will ever be any relief to the family budget for these ever-increasing gasoline prices. It means simply--whether you support or like the guy or not--that before President Obama took office in 2009, the average national price for a gallon of unleaded regular gas was under $2 a gallon. Today, it has nearly doubled to around $4 a gallon. And the prices keep rising almost every day. This administration touts its growth in energy production, not recognizing that that production increase has all come on private and State-owned property. If we are to have sustained growth of our economy, if we are not having peaks and valleys, if we are not having boom and bust, it is important that the resources that we have in great abundance that are on Federal lands also be included so there can be a sustained growth to our economy. Unfortunately, since President Obama took office, total Federal oil production has dropped 6 percent, total Federal national gas production has dropped an astounding 28 percent, and, at the same time, offshore oil production is down 15 percent and offshore gas production is down 47 percent. Unfortunately, 87 percent of all the area that is allowed offshore of acreage of potential development is currently off limits to oil and natural gas production. We have policies that are really harming our progress forward, and they need to be changed. This act that will be put before us, if we pass this rule, does indeed do that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am an old history teacher, and one of the things I have always claimed for my students is you should actually try to look to the past, to see how you can plan for the future. When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, this country was faced with the crisis of double-digit inflation, double- digit unemployment, and double-digit interest rates; and as President, after so many years of a Congress that tried to have the policy of spending ourselves into economic growth that failed, his issue was: Which of those do you attack first? I think it is interesting to realize--to grab hold of each of those issues, his first action was to increase the supply of affordable energy. That became the basis of growing an economy in which he could then attack each of those problems of unemployment and inflation and interest rates which were plaguing this country. We have to realize now that a strong foundation of affordable energy is extremely significant, from whatever source, but especially from what will be workable now. High gasoline prices--and the price that is increasing in every form of energy we have today--hurts the middle class, and it especially hurts the working poor, many of whom have to decide, every time they go to the pump, whether they are going to put food on the table or fill up the minivan. We have to deal with something. Now, in my area of the west where we live and the part of the country where the distances between communities are extremely large, as opposed to back here in the east, where everything is so lumped closely together, the increase in fuel costs hits home with a real inflicting pain. I am sorry. The policies of the past that we had that made the desert bloom are being reversed by the policies of the present. Whether you are at the pump realizing the pain that is inflicted or whether your concern is what kind of energy cost it will take when you go into the room and flip on the light or you decide to cook food, we have to realize these are real problems facing middle America, as well as the working poor of America. We can either come up with policies that move us forward, or we can implement policies that allow us to freeze in the dark, and so far, we have done a good job on the latter and not the first. Republicans in the House of Representatives have passed several bills over the past few years--and this year as well--aimed at increasing U.S. domestic fuel production, only to have those bills sidelined in the deliberative body on the other side of this building. It reminds me of a great quote, when Thomas Brackett Reed, the old Speaker of the House, went over to the Senate to watch them in debate and came back and announced to the body: Thank heavens we are not a deliberative body. There are problems that we have that can be solved. We have those places, too, and I appreciate the fact the gentleman from Florida did mention that China and others are putting money into alternative energy programs. They are also going around the world and gobbling up whatever kinds of oil and coal resources they can get their hands on, to support and sustain a growing economy over there, while our administration is taking the United States in the opposite direction by self-inflicted artificial limits, policies that have actually hurt our economy, killed high-paying jobs, and increased the cost of consumer goods for all, including the middle class. There are reasons why, Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 years, our economy is simply limping along, and we should learn the lessons of the past to recognize what we can do from that. Our economic malaise can be attributed to a lack of attention to a commonsense energy program on Federal lands. So what would this bill, H.R. 4899, actually do? It would establish and demand a new 5-year plan for the leases of those areas, with the concept of going after where the resources actually are. We can talk about all the lands that are leased, but it is totally unimportant if there are no resources there. Have a plan that focuses on where the resources are. Produce a revenue-sharing plan with the coastal States. Come up with three distinct agencies which would replace the new structure that has been put upon since the oil spill and make them actually functioning. That is the problem. I agree with some of the things you have said. We haven't done much in reform, but we have done a whole lot in regulatory reform on the administrative level, and I agree with you, that that hasn't worked as well. To establish a policy that the NPR-A is for the purpose of providing oil as a resource to the United States and to establish some kind of Internet-based auctions for these programs--look, we are not talking about taking over everything and drilling everywhere. This Federal Government owns somewhere around 400 to 450 million acres of land. Of that, 350, roughly, are already in a conservation status that can never be touched. There are 50 million acres, at the most, that have development potential, and those are the areas in which policies of this administration are strangling the ability to move them forward. I will--because I hadn't planned on it, so I don't have my wonderful charts here. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida talking about education because I want to finish off with that in just one second. I appreciate his sentiment that, some day, my position can prevail, but unless we change the overall Federal position, I can't get that moving forward, and that is why it becomes extremely important. We are not just talking about gas at the pump and the cost of electricity and the cost of cooking your food. There are also those tradeoff effects which specifically deal with education. If one looks at a map of the States, there is overwhelming control by the Federal Government of ownership of the land, the public land States of the Midwest and the west coast, and you look at the States which have the hardest time increasing their funding for public education. It is an amazing correlation between the two, which means that, over the past 20 years, those who do not live in public land States, those areas east of Denver, which average about 4 percent of their States being controlled by the Federal Government, have grown their educational funding by 68 percent. Those of us who average over 50 percent of our land controlled by the Federal Government in these public lands States have grown our education budget by 35 percent. It is simply a matter that my State cannot improve its education funding alone unless we are allowed to develop some of the resources we have in huge abundance but are tied up in the policies of the Federal Government. So, yes, it is true. We are growing petroleum activities in this country. We are growing our exploration. We are growing what we are developing, what we are exporting. But it is all coming from private lands and State lands that are not part of the West. And if you want to keep that growth on a continuous basis and not have spikes, then you have to go after the resources that we have on the public lands. And if you were allowed to do that, not only would we get royalties coming back in from those resources, but it would spin off all sorts of jobs that would then generate the income tax we need and the sales tax revenue and the royalties to replace the fact that we are not getting property tax from lands that are controlled by the Federal Government and were promised to us a long time ago when we became States. This bill provides a plan on how to do this. This bill is something that is desperately needed if we are going to move forward. If enacted into law, it would encourage greater oil and gas development on Federal onshore and offshore lands with a plan of how you actually accomplish it and how you do it. And it may actually give my kids a chance at a fairer shot for an education, because they desperately need it, and the status quo is not providing it. And that has to stop. Mr. Speaker, I would only urge Members to support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is a good rule. And then I would hope, afterwards, they would support the underlying bills which provide for our Nation's critical energy needs and would help promote jobs at the same time, as well as funding for my schools in Utah. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 641 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1426) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow the deduction for income attributable to domestic production activities with respect to oil and gas activities of major integrated oil companies. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1426. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 641 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on April 1 of this year, Georgetown University seniors, Andrew Arsht--who happens to be a Utahan in my district--and Andrew Markoff won the 68th National Debate Tournament for the second time in 3 years. As sophomores and seniors, they were the national citizenship team. As juniors, they were in the final four, which means they are the only team in the history to accomplish these standards each year. There have been 286 colleges who have competed at this tournament since 1947. Only eight of those colleges have actually won more championships than these two guys by themselves. They are the only team to have won two national championships and the Copeland Award for the best yearlong performance. Arsht was also named as the top individual speaker at the tournament. I congratulate these two debaters, as well as congratulations to Jonathan Paul, who is the director of debate at Georgetown University.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, Utah has some large educational shoes to fill. Martell Menlove, the State superintendent of public instruction in Utah, is ending a nearly four-decade career in public education. He has served kids as a classroom teacher, a counselor, and an administrator in the Jordan, Tooele, and Rich districts, and he was my superintendent while I was teaching in the Box Elder district. Twice he was named Superintendent of the Year in Utah before he joined the State office in 2009. His wife, State Representative Rhonda Rudd Menlove, is also a career educator and is retiring after five terms in the Utah State legislature. Utah is losing a great team who inspired kids. They will be missed. We want to wish both Martell and Rhonda all the best in the new adventures they will be taking together. We thank you for what you have done for kids in Utah.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am actually pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule as well as the underlying pieces of the legislation, H.R. 4681 about intelligence and H.R. 4745 called the T-HUD bill. From the testimony that we received in the Rules Committee on these measures, it appears that both of these measures have enjoyed bipartisan cooperation in their formation and from their respective committee processes. One of the toughest responsibilities that a Member of the Congress has is to help prioritize the Federal expenditures of resources that we take from the American people. Sometimes, worthy projects and programs have to be trimmed to meet budget requirements and prioritization. While there are some spending choices--which I disagree--contained in H.R. 4745, overall, it is still a balanced measure which will provide for American infrastructure so essential for the economic growth and jobs, and maintains discipline by adhering to the top-line funding levels arrived at through that 2-year budget agreement that was passed by Congress. The $52 billion for transportation provided in these agencies is $7.8 billion below the President's request and still actually $1.8 billion less than the 2014 enacted level. Members have a chance, under the open rule of this resolution provided, to argue for changes in the prioritization. I am pleased that one of the things this bill recognizes is that States are different. Those of us who live in the wide-open West have been able to use transportation to help the desert blossom. We should not try to restrict every State to the same standards with a one-size-fits-all approach. The committee was very wise in what they actually did. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, switching gears to the intelligence reauthorization measure, every Member of the House takes seriously our responsibility to preserve individual liberty and freedoms under the Constitution. We also have a constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, because without a strong national defense, which includes the indispensable work of the defense intelligence agencies, personal freedoms are also at risk. The question is achieving and maintaining a balance in deciding how to best preserve inalienable constitutional rights against possible incursions by technologists, whether inadvertent or intentional, as our Nation deals with the very real threats both at home and abroad. Technology gives us wonderful tools, but it can also be a fertile ground for abuse of privacy. We have a responsibility as Members of Congress to exercise oversight in U.S. intelligence agencies, and that can be difficult since much cannot be debated in open forums with any degree of specificity without bringing great harm to the national security. That is why we have the expertise of standing committees. Not only do they understand these issues, it saves time by allocating the proper amount of time to the discussion of these issues in advance. And from the testimony received in the Rules Committee, I believe that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger have demonstrated a strong bipartisan commitment on this issue. Provisions of this bill are aimed at bolstering personal and individual privacy. Passage of H.R. 4681, when you combine it with the passage last week of the U.S. FREEDOM Act, is a good step towards enhancing our U.S. intelligence capability as well as congressional oversight on these issues. It is a good bill. It is a fair rule. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave