Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If the Speaker would forgive me for trying to get us back on the subject matter of the bill in front of us, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to talk about the water bill.

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

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, before I go into complete pivot to nongermane issues, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) to talk about how the first bill deals with water diversions, not water consumption.

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

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman's frustration. Those very proposals were offered by Chairman Lucas in the farm bill and rejected by the Senate. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, the resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of two separate bills: H.R. 2954, which is the Public Access and Lands Improvement Act, and H.R. 3964, which is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act. It provides for an hour of general debate, each measure equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order five amendments to H.R. 2954 and eight to H.R. 3964, and of those amendments made in order, nine are Democrat amendments. So this is a fair and generous rule. It will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of both of these important pieces of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. My good friend from Florida was correct in at least one aspect. There are two bills that are involved in this particular rule, one which involves 10 different sections dealing with land issues that are critical to 10 States chagrined that they have to come to Congress for redressing their grievances. The other one deals with water issues. To explain that water issue, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), the sponsor of that particular bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate all of those who have been involved in this piece of legislation, which is very important. Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago, the National Park Service was established to try and help people enjoy these natural wonders for, indeed, if people are not visiting our national parks, they do not fulfill the measure of their creation. It fills no purpose. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, it seems like there has been an attitude shift amongst many of those who are involved in our national parks and other wonders that we have, especially in the West, in which people who originally were supposed to be the reason for having these parks have now been placed last. The horrific example of what happened at Lake Mead in Nevada is a horrible thing to take place. Were it the only example we have of these types of negative things taking place, this legislation would still be well-deserved and well overdue. Unfortunately, it is not. It is just an example of significant issues that keep coming back in which our administration seems to be putting people last and doing things which are not positive and not helpful. Let me give you a couple of examples. In Washington State, we have another national park in which there is an open area, almost like a community park within the National Park System, and yet the land manager in Washington decided to cancel a traditional annual church picnic because it would make too much noise for the rest of the national park. They also canceled a youth soccer tournament because it would make too much noise and disturb the rest of the national park. During our shutdown, whether, indeed, they were told to try to make life miserable or not, they seemed to be able to do that on their own. The effort for the Park Service was to shut down the parking lot at Mount Vernon until someone had to remind them that Mount Vernon is not Federal property, that it is private property. At the same time, they were able to shut down a road in the Smokies to stop a schoolbus from making its rounds to pick up kids and take them to school and back again. At Yellowstone, an armed guard came upon a busload of seniors to try and escort them off of the Federal property, not allowing them to make any kind of stops, even for restroom breaks. At Lake Mead, at the same time, residents who were living on their private houseboats were escorted off the lake and were told they could not come back. We have in this particular area the Claude Moore farm and the restaurant over on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Even though they were private establishments, the Park Service was doing everything it could to stop people from attending those areas and allowing them to make a success of the particular business. This doesn't happen to be just in the shutdown period. This was happening well before that time. In Alaska, on the Yukon-Charley Rivers, a private boater was stopped by the Park Service personnel. They took him over to the shore. He was held at gunpoint and was told that he could not continue on up the river because they said he couldn't continue on up the river. The unfortunate reality is that they didn't have the right to tell him he couldn't go on up the river. They were simply wrong and eventually were replaced in that particular area. Other agencies of the Federal Government seem to be doing the same thing. We have a Wyoming rancher who did not want to give an easement to the BLM. Instead, he was threatened; they trespassed his property; they followed him and his guests; they photographed what he was doing, including his female guests, who were trying to relieve themselves at the time; they were harassed and punished, and were told they would not have any of his permits renewed if he did not accede to the Federal request. At Cape Hatteras, the Park Service went into a sue-settlement agreement, which shut down areas that had never been before even though the local people were opposed to that particular effort and even though it had a devastating impact on the economy. The Forest Service, unfortunately, has done the same thing with ski resorts and, in California, on another ski resort where they closed summer activities unless they renegotiated the water rights of those resorts. Then there are the grazing permits in the West. They refused to, once again, renew the grazing permits unless they were willing to renegotiate their water rights.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. All of these are examples which, unfortunately, continue to go on. What the good Representative from Nevada has presented us is a terrific case in which the Park Service actually disrespected individuals and did not allow them to do what is humanitarianly appropriate. Yet, when they were allowed to go in there and they found these bodies, they could have overcome all of this if they had just cared about people first, but they did not. With the Keystone pipeline, the Park Service, once again, made a comment that the Keystone pipeline would have a devastating impact on parklands that were adjacent to the Keystone pipeline. Unfortunately, the nearest Federal land--the nearest national parkland--to the Keystone pipeline is 30 miles away. That is some kind of buffer zone we have. If, indeed, we decided that this agency--the Department of this administration--were to put people first, we would have a much better relationship. Unfortunately, time after time, we see where actually people are being put last and bureaucratic responsibility is taking the place of that. That is simply wrong. This bill is an example of what is happening, and it is one that should be passed. I appreciate that both the majority and the minority realize the significance of passing this piece of legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas of Oklahoma and Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Calvert of California regarding the issue of Federal land ownership and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, commonly known as PILT. PILT is a program for counties all across America that have federally owned lands within their boundaries. Counties in every State, except Rhode Island, benefit from this program first established in 1979. PILT helps to offset the loss of property tax revenues caused by the presence of Federal land. The Federal Government is the largest landowner in the United States, and PILT fulfills the Federal Government's obligation to local communities where their ownership presence is the greatest. One out of every 3 acres in our country is federally owned. As you can see from the map, most of this land is concentrated in the West. Counties with Federal land in their jurisdictions are denied property tax revenues typical of communities with privately owned land. The diminished tax base hinders rural communities from fulfilling some of their most basic functions, such as education and public safety. PILT's previous funding has expired, and now we are in a situation where we have to find a new source. We were pleased yesterday when the Speaker and majority leader pledged their support to the Western Caucus that qualified counties would receive 2014 funding. Subcommittee Chairman Calvert, as we continue to work on 2014 funding matters, it seems apparent that funding for PILT will be included in another important legislative vehicle in the future. Is that your understanding? I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 125th anniversary of one of Utah's premier academic institutions, Weber State University. Originally Weber State Academy, a religious school with 200 students, today it is a full university with over 25,000 students. It is a great addition to its home city of Ogden, as well as its satellite campus in Davis County. I am very proud of my association with Weber State University. My father-in-law played football there. My wife and daughter are graduates. Even one of our colleagues, Representative Jenkins of Kansas, is a graduate of Weber State. My son worked for the administration, as well. Its first president was a renaissance immigrant from Germany, Louis Moench, who composed my favorite hymn. Its second principal, David O. McKay, became a leader of my church. The most recent president, Dr. Millner, was the first female leader of the university in the State of Utah. Under its current leadership with President Wight, I expect another 125 years of great research, innovation, and education taking place at Weber State. Everyone in Utah wore purple yesterday in honor of this event. As cold as it was here, I am also proud to say I was wearing a Weber State hoodie and sweats all night long--obviously, in honor of Weber State and to try to stay warm back here in Washington.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have no further speakers.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, if I could, simply to say that what the bill does, does not restrict any kind of free speech opportunity for individuals. They still have the right of comment, which is totally free, in any of those processes from the RPM to the NEPA to the lease to the leased bid to the second NEPA to the APD. So that is there only when an effort actually causes an additional expense to the government, which is typical and standard. That fee is actually going to be initiated to try to cover the costs to the Federal Government. It is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the sponsor of the first of the two bills, who has a bill that will ensure that the standards become fair and equitable for everyone throughout this Nation.

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