Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, as well as for consideration of H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. The rule provides for each bill to receive 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, except that on H.R. 2728, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will control 20 minutes of the 1 hour provided for. The rule makes in order eight amendments for H.R. 1965 and five amendments for H.R. 2728. In both cases, the number of amendments to be offered by Democrats outnumber those to be offered by Republicans. A number of those amendments which were filed and not made in order violated the House rules either by not being germane or by violating CutGo. So this is a very fair and generous rule and will provide for a balanced debate on the merits of these important pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House to support this rule, as well as the underlying pieces of legislation, which are both important bills aimed at making the United States more energy independent. I appreciate the hard work of the sponsors, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, Mr. Flores of Texas, as well as the work of the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), as well as that of the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). These are significant pieces that will move our Nation forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the rule that we have before us is about two bills. The first bill deals with fairness for those who live in public land States as to the ability to process oil and gas leases. The second bill deals with fracking, the fracturing of oil that is a policy that started in the 1940s in the State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), who is the sponsor of the second bill, to discuss that particular portion.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the poll that was presented into the Record; but that is why, I would submit, the Interior Department has a resource management plan. Those RMPs are established in the first place so that incompatible relationships and incompatible entities are not put in the same area. It is why you can actually have both. What the two bills before us that would be brought to the floor under this rule do is allow States to have a say in what is going on, because States are confident. They are closer to the problem. They should have a say and a stake and make a statement in this particular issue. If these bills were brought to the floor, public land States in the West--the red areas on my map--would be treated fairly and treated closer to what is happening in the white States, where there is little public land. This is also, though, one of the things that I want us not to lose focus on. It is not about drilling or not drilling. It is what is the purpose of developing our energy resources, that is, to make sure that people can heat their homes and have lights in their houses, that they can drive from point A to point B and afford it, and so that people can have jobs so that that little middle school girl in my State can actually have a place for her horse. That is what these bills are about. More importantly, for Western States, the public land States, is to allow us to generate the revenue we need from the resources we have in our State to fund an education system. If these bills are defeated, the ability of Western land States to adequately fund their educational systems will be stymied. It is important. If you care about kids, you have to provide this kind of resource for the Western States. That is why these two bills are not just rehashes. These two bills are essential for those of us who live in the West. For the sake of the education system of Western kids, I would encourage everyone to support not only the rule, but support both underlying bills. They are important. This is a fair rule. It is appropriate legislation. They are good bills and a fair rule. I urge their adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When Ronald Reagan was first elected President, he talked to his National Security Advisor--I believe his name was Richard Allen--and told him that his policy for foreign affairs was going to be ``we win and they lose.'' It shocked his National Security Advisor because they had always been talking about managing communism or coexisting with communism. This was the first time somebody had actually come up with such a specific and precise rationale and policy for the Nation. But President Reagan also realized, for him to actually enact his goal, they first had to fix the economy, which, as strange as it seems, was worse than the economy we have today. With double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, he had to first fix that before he could go on to his goal of actually winning the Cold War. He also recognized that if he was going to fix those economic problems, he had to have a reliable and affordable source of energy, and that, indeed, was one of the problems that caused the situation they were in under the Carter administration. Earlier this year we brought a couple of bills forward, one for the Defense Authorization Act and the Defense Appropriations Act, and I said at the time that the reason we had those here was because it allowed and empowered our State Department. Foreign policy is whatever we are willing to fund as far as military growth. They are interrelated. One of the things this administration appears to have forgotten is the interrelation between improving our economy and improving energy production at the same time, although they have done well in trying to forward green energy solutions. Unfortunately, as much as that is a positive and proper approach, most of what they have done has failed to reach the goals they established for themselves, and not only that, much of it has also been involved in scandals. Also, it cannot be done at the time you are attacking traditional forms of energy. So that is why we are here. One of the realities is that, oddly enough, at this particular time, we are producing more energy in America than we have for a long time. And the numbers are always all over the place, depending on what the starting date is with these surveys. Whether you go to an industry like the Western Energy Alliance or a neutral entity like the Congressional Research Service, they are all saying basically the same thing. There is a slight increase in offshore energy on Federal lands. There is not an increase in onshore energy production on Federal lands, depending, once again, on what base you are using, and our increase in production, which is true, has almost all come from private lands, State-owned lands, and Native American lands of this country. Now, the fact that we are closer to energy independence is nice, but that is not our goal. That is simply an infamous goal that we should have. The goal should be to reduce the amount of energy coming into this country and becoming more energy independent so we can actually help people, so that we can come to the point where we are producing enough energy from this energy-rich Nation to make sure that we have affordable electricity, so when a family goes into a room, they don't have to worry about turning on the light, impacting their kids' college education fund; so that even low-income families can realize they can heat their homes in the winter; so that one can travel from Point A to Point B in your car and realize it is affordable; so that jobs actually are plentiful, especially spinoff jobs. It is not those who necessarily are working at the site in which you are developing the energy, but the spinoff jobs: the trucker that goes to and from bringing product into or away from the site, or those who are doing the motels and the restaurants that are feeding the workers, those who are working on Main Street that are providing food and resources to those who are providing the services to those particular workers. In Western States, like the State of Utah, it is essential, also, to our education fund. If you were to look at this particular chart, the chart on the top, the States in red are the States that have the hardest time, the slowest growth in their education funding. The chart on the bottom, the stuff in red is what is owned by the Federal Government. I hate to say it, but there is a relationship between the amount of public lands owned by the Federal Government and the inability to try and fund the proper education system. What that comes to, in gross terms, is over the last 20 years, Western States, the predominantly public land States, have increased their education funding by 35 percent. The rest of the Nation, which has very little public ground, has increased its education funding by 68 percent. They are doubling the growth of it. What simply matters is that States in the West that are public land States have a difficult time of funding their education system when they are prohibited from being able to develop a lot of the resources which are found in those Western States. That is one of the reasons why we have a difficult time in funding our own education system and why the first bill in this rule is asking for Western States to be treated fairly in this particular process. Whether one likes it or not, to vote against these bills unintentionally harms kids, and it harms education in the West. If our funding for education in my home State is going to be effectively increased, it has got to come from development of the natural resources that are in my State and not putting impediments in the way of the State moving forward. This is the map of significance that I showed you. Everything that is red is that which is owned by the Federal Government, and you find-- glory be--we have the predominance of it here in the West, in my State. There is a difference in how energy is developed in the red areas, as opposed to the basically white areas. If you were trying to develop areas in the white, which has very little Federal land, it simply means a company goes out, they contact a property owner, get the right to do exploration, and then, if they find something which they wish, they buy either the land or the mineral rights and go ahead and do it. On the red areas, the public land areas, the process is far, far different. It has been said on this floor that this bill would allow oil companies to go wherever they want. That is an overstatement. It is not quite accurate. In the red areas, what happens is, first, the Federal Government, in this case, the Department of the Interior, will establish a regional management plan to establish which areas are proper for economic development, for drilling, and for mining. Not all areas are, so not all areas become part of the regional management plan, and only those areas that have potential for economic development in oil and gas are the ones that are listed in the RMP. Then it goes through a NEPA process. Once the NEPA process for the RMP is completed, then the Interior Department decides what areas that are listed as potential energy development areas will actually be leased by the Federal Government. Then they are let out to bid. That also has to go through a NEPA process before, finally, a company can bid on lands and go through and try to find out if it is worthy to develop. If they wish to develop, then they also have to go through an application for drilling. Now, in most States, the white area, that application for drilling by itself takes between 15 to 30 days. In the red area, that application has been averaging over 300 days, which is where the unfairness takes place. The first bill that is in this rule would say, okay, let's split the difference, and we will say you make the decision within 60 days; plenty of time to make that particular decision. It is also noted that, in all of these processes I went through, from the RMP to the NEPA process, to the lease, to the lease bid, to the second NEPA process, to the APD, there is opportunity for citizens to have input, free speech access to input. Now, that costs the Department money to access that, which is true, but it is part of their job, so we accept it. However, when the bid is actually made or a protest is made to that bid, that is extra work for the Department, which, in every other area of government, we would require a fee when some kind of citizen action requires extra work to expedite the paperwork for that type of protest or that type of policy or that type of request. The companies that do an APD are already charged that by the Department of the Interior. They pay a fee of $6,500 every time they have a request to drill. This bill codifies that. But also it says that, if you are going to challenge or protest one, this is not the opportunity for citizen input that you have along the process each and every step. But if you are actually going to do a challenge of this, then you also should pay a fee because this challenge requires extra work and extra expense on the part of the Department, and this is put at a $5,000 fee. It is $6,500 to actually request the permitting process to start and $5,000 if you want to protest it. In my State, unfortunately, we have seen examples where, on what I consider to be a whim, the President or the administration or the Department of the Interior has simply withdrawn leases that have gone through all of those steps I indicated and were effective and were put into motion. The first thing this administration did was to withdraw 77 leases in Utah. It had a catastrophic effect upon the Uinta Basin in my home State, where unemployment skyrocketed immediately after that was done, not only because the leases were withdrawn, but the private companies that were doing their work on private lands also saw the handwriting on the wall and wished to no longer go forward with that because of the implications of the withdrawal of those leases. I got a letter from one of the kids who was living there. She was in junior high school. She asked me to please do something about it because her father was not working on the wells or the sites of those leases. He was one of the truckers, a private contractor who was taking stuff into those sites and trucking stuff out from those sites. And she was so happy because her family had been situated. They were doing well. They had finally bought a house and bought some property, and she had her dream of finally having a horse. And she wrote to me, pleading to see if we could change what this administration had done with those 77 leases so she could simply keep her horse. It didn't happen. She lost the horse. Her father lost the job. They lost the house. They lost land and had to go back to Salt Lake City to find employment. Recently, in this same area, once again going through the process, the Interior Department identified 800,000 acres that were susceptible and appropriate for economic drilling development. They were those that were already abutting existing leases or intermingled within existing leases. But there were 800,000 acres. When they came up with the lease process, the administration decided to only offer 144,000; and then before the lease actually went out to bid, they withdrew almost 100,000 of those 144,000 because they had found a question in their minds as to what the impact might be. Now, I recognize this could be legitimate. I mean, the Federal Government has only owned this land since the Mexican War. Obviously there are things that can slip somebody's attention in the first 180 years of looking at a piece of property. But nonetheless, only 44,000 acres were put out to bid. That is 5 percent of the total that was identified as acceptable for this kind of development. Now, we are not talking about wilderness areas or national park areas or conservation areas; only areas that were susceptible and appropriate for this concept, which is why the 25 percent figure is really kind of a modest figure of what should be the case and should be taken. If we were to pass these two bills, it is very easy to realize that the desert could bloom again because that is the purpose. These bills, for the first time, identify Native American interests and make sure that Native American interests on Native American lands are going to be respected by the Federal Government. They take it. Four score and 7 years ago, we started a fracking process in the United States--give or take a score. But this fracturing process has, so far, been working. We have a list of those from the EPA, from the Interior Department, from both Energy Secretaries, the last two Interior Secretaries, a former EPA Administrator, the current Administrator, former BLM Directors who have all said that there is no identifiable problem with what the States are doing with fracturing. The States do have this experience in doing it. The language is very clear. Sometimes people say, well, there are no regulations because they can't find a specific regulation. It mentions the word ``fracturing.'' But to be honest, and not trying to be too wonkish, if you have rules and regulations that talk about wellbore construction or drill site integrity, that is what is necessary to ensure the health and safety of individuals. And States do know how to go do that, and they do know how to protect that area. The actual question, though, is, if we are coming up with rules for fracturing--and this deals with the bill that Representative Flores was addressing--where should the decision be made on how to implement those rules? Should it be made here in Washington or should it be made in the State where the situation exists? I have a great deal of empathy for what the gentleman from Colorado was saying was what he wished to see in his home State. I would be more than happy to allow him to do anything he wanted to do. If, indeed, they want to cancel all kinds of fossil fuel development in the State of Colorado, I would be more than happy to allow him to do that. I just don't want that in my State. And unfortunately, the conventional wisdom is always that only people in Washington, D.C., have the broad view to make decisions for the entire Nation. That is a ridiculous wisdom. That is inaccurate. States are just as competent. There are as many smart people who live and reside in States, their Department of Environmental Quality, which we have in the State of Utah, as live here in Washington. They can make these decisions. They can do it well. If a State does not want to make these kinds of decisions, does not want to have these kinds of rules, allow a national rule to take precedence. No problem. But if a State is willing to be independent and make decisions for themselves, we should allow them to do it because the States are just as good and, unfortunately, often better than the Federal Government in making these kinds of provisions. You see, one of the things that is happening--the good gentleman from Colorado did talk about what is happening in his State. And once again, if his State wants to ban all kinds of these activities, if they want to ban all development of fossil fuels, that is fine. This bill's adoption does not stop Colorado from doing anything that Colorado wishes to do. Not passing this bill will stop the State of Utah from having primacy and doing what the State of Utah wishes to do. Look, we are not talking about the decimation of enormous tracts of Federal land. Within the Federal campus, there are over 650 million acres. That is one-third of America that the Federal Government owns. Of those 650 million acres, 450 million acres are already set aside for preservation and conservation and will never, never have any kind of development or any kind of drilling taking place on those 450 million acres. The amount of area that has been identified as potential for economic development is only 38 million acres. But on those 38 million acres, allow the States to move forward to make sure that what the State wants on our local lands is respected and that what happens on Federal public lands is fair and equitable to what happens on private lands in non- Federal States. With that, I look forward to anything the gentleman from Colorado has to say, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in 2003, 5-year-old Isabelle Jane was diagnosed with leukemia, a disease that has driven the decisions her family has made since that time on where to live, what doctors to have, what insurance to gain. She had daily chemotherapy for 3 years and is now in remission. But 18 months ago, she started to have side effects from this disease. It affected her heart, her bones, and her cognitive processing. Since that time, and since ObamaCare was passed, her insurance rates have more than doubled, and she was told this year that their insurance would be canceled by the end of this year. As Isabelle Jane's mother wrote: The Affordable Care Act has seriously threatened my family's way of life. For over 10 years, we have had the coverage we have needed to care for our family. I defy anyone who says the insurance we currently have is not enough. My daughter is living proof that it is. Mr. Speaker, these people are being hurt by the present system, and that needs to change.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, last summer, thousands of civilian defense workers were furloughed in violation of the law as the administration decided to spread the pain for political purposes. In July, the House passed the Defense appropriations bill to fund the military, including those illegally furloughed employees, by 315 votes in an intensely bipartisan effort. And yet since July, the Majority Leader has yet to bring that bill to a vote in the Senate. This week, we passed a law to fund our military, although the administration attorneys are still arguing over what the word ``support'' means. And I commend the Department of Defense in their efforts to overcome this roadblock and get people back to work. But because of these examples, it is imperative that all Federal employees are guaranteed they will receive the backpay that is due them. This will not cost the government extra. There is precedent. It is logical. Yes, our goal should be to start the government working. But as we are looking, within 2 weeks of this period of time, debt ceiling, the issue of sequestration, entitlement reform, a Senate that continues to demand that we spend an extra $60 billion we don't have and ObamaCare, it is clear that the strategies of the past don't work. Senator Reid's position of ``it's my way or nothing'' has won. We have nothing. And we will continue to have nothing until something new breaks this logjam. If the Senate were to engage in legitimate talks with real negotiations, that could break this logjam. So it is clear, the Senate's attitude is the key to ending the shutdown. But until that happens, it is significant that all Federal employees know that they will receive their funds, and they will not become innocent victims of the Senate's attitude of belligerence.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of National Public Land Day. Whoopee. I am also reading a book about the members of my church trying to live in post-World War II East Germany where all building was restricted. If they wished to have a house in which to worship and it was on government land, the government always owned the building and could possess it at any time. If they actually wished to possess the building, they had to find private land to trade to the government because the official policy of East Germany was ``no net loss of federal land.'' I mention that because communist East Germany has the same policy standard as the Department of the Interior and Forest Service have today. Mr. Speaker, either we are wrong or East Germany was right, and I sincerely doubt the latter is accurate.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity we have of presenting this particular rule to the body. I've always appreciated the opportunity of sharing this time with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is a good friend and a very colorful orator. And I always like to hear his orations here on the floor. You'll forgive me if I want to try and refocus on the matter that it is hand, for, indeed, I recognize the statements that have been made by the last two speakers that deal with the significance of jobs. What we simply have to have is a policy in this country that promotes private sector jobs, not just government sector jobs. By promoting private sector jobs, we actually expand the economy and build upon that concept. That is one of the reasons why this particular bill is here. But all of a sudden you go from 30 minerals that we had to import from other areas to 61 minerals that we now have to import from abroad. That means there are a bunch of minerals that we used to be producing in good, high-paying jobs that no longer are there. So this is one of the areas that we can move our country in the proper direction and not just simply say, Okay, let's create some kind of make-work program that actually adds particular jobs. It needs to be the right kind of jobs to move our country forward. One person once told me the people sitting here is the entire universe with which we talk. We will not make ourselves rich by paying each other to take vacations. At some time, someone has to add real wealth into the equation. That's what this bill is trying to do. We have critical mineral wealth in this country. It needs to be added to the equation so that we can create those good-paying mining jobs that will spin off into good-paying manufacturing jobs in the private sector. That's everything we are attempting to do. I would like to take one issue and try to put it to rest as to the idea that these companies who would be receiving benefit from this are somehow getting off and not paying taxes or royalties. They are not paying Federal taxes, but sometimes we forget that we're not the only equation out there. Every one of these pays significant royalties and severance taxes to State and local governments. The Federal tax that is proposed by some of the amendments to this bill would be on top of that. It would be a form of double taxation. Its goal would be to raise money, which is a nice goal, but simply because you found a potential effort for the Federal Government to try and raise more money doesn't mean you need to rush into that, especially when it has a negative aspect somewhere else. It would have a negative aspect on State and local governments. It would also have a negative aspect on those companies that some people don't want to have any empathy for the situation they're in. If you actually put an additional Federal royalty on top of the State and local royalty which they are paying and the severance tax that you are paying, in a traditional company you could pass that tax burden on to the consumer. In a world market, you cannot. That just doesn't happen. It has to come out from the company itself. The companies who are involved in here have clearly said that they are not opposed if we could put some kind of net proceeds up. But these kinds of proposals that we will be hearing in the debate today are not net proceeds tax; they are an unparalleled, unprecedented gross tax. Nothing has ever gone to that level in which the amendments would try to put on this program. So once again, what we're trying to ask you to do is look at this in the overall view of what we are trying to do to develop real and good private sector jobs. The underlying element still goes back to the fact that, look, what we need is to go through the permitting process but to do it in a way that is legitimate. It should not have to wait 7 to 10 years to actually permit something. That is just unrealistic. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I am an old schoolteacher. As a schoolteacher, we had 9 months to do something. If you couldn't get it done in 9 months, you didn't get it done. There was no idea of just postponing it to a future date. If a principal came to me and said we're going to have to have our testing done on Tuesday for the standardized test, I couldn't say no, I can't do that; let's wait for 2 weeks and maybe--maybe--I will be ready to help you with the testing data. In any education system, when the time is up, the time is up. You have to do the work, and you back-schedule to make sure that you actually do the work. That happens in almost every element of society except for here in government. When I was in the State legislature, we had a constitutional end of that State legislative date. We had 45 days to make a decision. Often those decisions are not easy and you make the better of the bad choices that you have, but we had to make a decision. I contrast that with what is happening here in the United States Government in which the Forest Service was asked to do a study on a potential bridge that we could transfer from Federal ownership over to State ownership. They said yes, in about 4 years we would be able to do that study. Four years to do a simple study? We give ourselves these unreasonable and inexcusable time references, and we do it all the time. I had a bill that we passed a couple of years ago and which mandated that a certain agency of government had to give a piece of property over to the local entity of government. Congress passed it. They mandated it. Now here, 2\1/2\ years later, the agency still has not transferred that land. They are going through their surveys. They are taking their time. Even the local government had to pay for all these time-consuming surveys. What Congress mandated, 2 years later, still has not happened. That is unrealistic. In the private sector, no one would tolerate that. In our State government, no one would actually tolerate that. In the education community, no one would tolerate that. Yet we look at that as the norm, 7 to 10 years, as an average, to actually permit these things? That is why what this bill is trying to do is say, look, go through the process, use the NEPA process, but do it in a fair and rational way and make a decision. You don't drag things out just for the fun of dragging things out. If the decision is yes, fine; if the decision is no, fine; but for heaven's sake, make a decision. Some elements of government, whom I will not make caricatures about even if it's true, some elements seem to like to drag out decisions. This is an area that should not be. So this simply says, if you're going to deal with this area, you've got 30 months to make a decision. You can do that in 2\1/2\ years. There is no reason why it cannot be. We are doing this in other areas of the government. The President, in his executive order, said this has to be the way we move forward. This bill moves us forward. This bill does a good thing. It was right that it passed in the last session by a huge bipartisan vote because it's the right thing to do. It's the right message. It's the right program. It moves us forward. It's the right thing to do this year. And we will continue to push this until at some point we have succeeded in making sure that we are moving forward with hard deadlines so that decisions are made and we're not just piddling and piddling and waiting and delaying time after time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill. It was a good bill last time we passed it. It's still a good bill. We need to pass this bill again. It's also a very good rule. It's a fair rule. It's a rule for which we can be proud. I would urge my colleagues to make sure that we vote for this rule so we can move forward on a bill that should have been passed by both bodies a long time ago. But we need to, once again, start this process and continue going forward because it is the right thing to do. It will provide us with resources; it will provide us with jobs; it will provide us, more importantly, with decisions. Finally, we can actually have an agency that makes a decision in a timely manner. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 347 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. 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. 851) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage domestic insourcing and discourage foreign outsourcing. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 851 as specified in section 2 of this resolution. 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. Obviously, I am prepared to close. It depends on how long your closing goes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to 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, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in 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 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 761, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act. It provides one hour of general debate, equally divided between both sides. It provides for five amendments, four of which are Democrat amendments and one is a Republican amendment. So this rule is fair to a fault and it is totally generous, and it will provide a balanced and open debate as long as we, as Members, structure our remarks to the merits of this particular bill and don't go off on tangents. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand before the House and support this rule. It's a good rule. I also support the underlying bill, H.R. 761, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), as sponsor of this particular piece of legislation, as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his leadership in this particular effort. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is blessed with an abundance of resources, which has made us a leading world economy and industrial power, and we have only scratched the surface, literally, of what we can potentially develop. We have energy potential such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas deposits, as well as various critical minerals that we, as a Nation, need and should be developing. But unfortunately, much of this development of our domestic mineral resources has actually been stymied by a combination of special interest politics, as well as bureaucratic red tape, particularly under this administration. It is a pain we have all seen coming. Twenty-five years ago, 20 percent of all money that was spent for development and production of critical minerals was spent here in the United States. Today that's down to only 8 percent, as other nations have replaced our efforts, unfortunately. This has meant an increase in our trade imbalance, dollars going overseas, escalating prices here at home for both energy and commodities. It means job losses here in the United States. And ironically, these jobs that we are losing are some of the highest- paying middle class jobs that are available. Bureaucratic delays are causing this, and they are causing us to see a change, both for manufacturing and defense. Twenty-five years ago, there were 30 minerals that we actually had to import to this Nation that were considered critical minerals. Today that number has gone from 30 to 61. Twenty-five years ago, there were 16 minerals that we imported a great majority of. Today that number that has gone to 24. It affects manufacturing, such as electronics and metal alloys, ceramics, glass, magnets, catalysts, everything. It affects our defense as well, as our Defense Logistics Agency tries to stockpile these minerals so the demands are there when we actually need them. Unfortunately, as we've illustrated, more and more of these are being purchased from overseas. They are critical to our weapons development system, including such things as night vision equipment, advanced lasers, avionics, fighter jet components, missile guidance systems, and it goes on and on. Look, the Constitution tells us that our first responsibility is to provide for a common defense. This bill steps us into the right direction so we actually can provide for a common defense and do it intelligently and avoid unnecessary and frivolous delays. There are some that will criticize us for the kinds of minerals that we are placing in this restriction area. There was a study in 2009 that was done called the Great California ShakeOut, which was a mock of what could happen if the big earthquake actually hit that area, and it found out that, in an effort to try and rebuild the infrastructure that would be necessary, there's a whole list of things we normally don't consider as critical that would, in that situation, be critical, including sand and gravel, that we simply would have a frightful deficiency of if we were trying to rebuild under those types of critical situations. This bill anticipates that, and makes sure that we will not be found lacking, either in defense, or in manufacturing, or in critical civilian needs in case of disaster. This bill doesn't predetermine anything. It simply says, make a decision, yes or no, on whether this project should go forward; simply make a decision, and do it in a timely fashion. We still, today, average between 7 and 10 years in which those decisions are made. This bill says that that is unrealistic, and it simply says, you've got 30 months--2\1/2\ years--to make a decision, yes or no. If you have to have an extension, it provides for that on common agreement, which is only rational to do. But for heaven's sakes, finally make a decision. It is based on not only what we are talking about here, but it's based on what we are doing in our transportation area. It's based on a Presidential concept; when the President established an Executive Order No. 13604, which talked about the importance of trying to streamline reform and reference our process. This is the basis of what we are attempting to do in this particular bill as well. This implies that whenever there are agencies, multiple agencies involved in a project, that there must be a lead agency which must take the responsibility of actually getting the job done, so that any kind of environmental statement should be being done currently, not sequentially, that we can make sure that any kind of lawsuit does not stop the process of making a decision. Once again, this is one of those things that simply is logical. Just make a decision. You have plenty of time to do it. Make a decision. There is no reason we cannot make a decision on whether to go forward on a project in 2\1/2\ years, none, none whatsoever. The fact that we are dragging our feet is simply done from bureaucratic excess that is illogical and irrational. We have done this in other areas. This is the time to do this in this area as well. If, indeed, we could do this process, it would be very clear that this Nation would prosper. We could have good-paying jobs, and we could make the desert blossom. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of comments before we go on with the discussion of this particular rule, which, once again, is a fair rule and is a good rule. This bill is one of those bills that has no significant cost to the budget. At no time does this stop any of the NEPA requirements. All it says is, do your job and do it on time. Nothing big about that, simply what those regulations are. And it is obviously one of those things that takes place that we desperately need, both for the manufacturing sector, as well as for defense. Look, I'm old. I still use legal pads. I trust those. They never crash on me. But if you have an iPhone or an iPad or any of that other kind of new stuff that my kids like to have, you're going to have these critical minerals. And if we are not proposing and developing them here in the United States, we are paying more to develop them out of country, and we're putting ourselves, manufacturing-wise, in a significant deficit situation. And obviously, with the defense, what is happening is even more critical. This is simply taking the executive order and saying, yeah, it's good for infrastructure; it's also good for our critical mineral development system, and saying, do the job. Do it well, do it quickly, get it done in a reasonable period of time, and don't drag this stuff out by sequencing the issues and the actions one after the other. You have a period of time. Do your job. It's an amazing concept of asking the bureaucracy of this Nation to actually do their job, but it's important. Yes, it was passed in the last session by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It's a bipartisan bill. The fact that the Senate did not take it up is another indictment to Senate leadership, admittedly, an oxymoron, but it's another indictment for the Senate leadership for ignoring the significant issues that we have to face in this Nation. It's another indictment that they should actually do their job. Just because the Senate leadership decides to sit on these type of issues does not mean we have to sit on them as well. This is something we have to have, and it needs to go over to the Senate. If it has to go over every week to the Senate until the Senate finally decides to actually do something, then that is our responsibility, and we should do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentlelady from Wyoming for being with us and talking about the concepts that are going on and what we can do for our future. If I could, Mr. Speaker, at the turn of the 20th century, the so- called ``progressive era,'' there was a paradigm shift that took place in the United States in which the government decided to basically keep all of the land. It was based on three premises: The first is that the West had to be protected from itself. The second is that only somebody in Washington, D.C., would have the vision to make decisions that could impact the rest of the Nation, and if there were ever a conflict between what local leaders or local officials wanted and what D.C. wanted, D.C. obviously had the better advantage. The result of that is, as you have heard from the people here today, that our forest system is not as healthy as it used to be or ought to be. The communities that relied upon the timber industry to survive and the school systems in those areas that relied upon the timber industry to survive have been decimated, and our solution as a Congress and as an administration is simply to find a temporary payment to these solutions with actually no revenue source to make them permanent. What we have now done since 2000, when the Secure Rural School Program started, is spend $6 billion, which has come from the pockets of those who live in the East, to fund a temporary program when what we actually need is a long-term solution that works--that puts people to work, that finds a real source of funding for education services and provides a real solution for what we need, a solution that will provide for healthy forests, a solution that will provide for vibrant communities and for the support of our public school system. That is, indeed, what this proposal for the Secure Rural School Program attempts to do. Mr. Speaker, about 20 years ago, a former Democrat Member of this House, who is now part of the Senate leadership--I realize that's an oxymoron, ``Senate leadership''--but he was here, and he gave an impassioned speech upon this floor that dealt with the controversial decision of Major League Baseball's potentially switching to aluminum bats. As that Representative from Illinois, who is now a Senator, rose, he said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the desecration of a great American symbol. No, I am not referring to flag burning; I am referring to the baseball bat. Several experts tell us that the wooden baseball bat is doomed to extinction . . . Please, do not tell me that wooden bats are too expensive . . . Please, do not try to sell me on the notion that these metal clubs will make better hitters . . . If we forsake the great Americana of broken-bat singles and pine tar, we will have certainly lost our way as a Nation. His conclusion was simply this: I do not want to hear about saving trees. Any tree in America would gladly give its life for the glory of a day at home plate. As much as I agree with his statements, I'd like to take his comment one step further and say that, not only would any tree in America gladly give its life for the glory of a day at bat at home plate, but any tree in America would gladly be overjoyed to give its life to help fund the education of our kids. The solution is that we don't need all trees to provide the bats or the education funding--just some of the trees. In fact, by not cutting them all, you actually save and improve the health of the forests; but if you don't do it, we lose these trees to fire, and every burned tree is a burned baseball bat, and that is not good for the psyche of this particular country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time in order to turn the management time of this Special Order over to Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania so that he may speak and also introduce a couple of more speakers whom we have still to talk about this vital issue of Secure Rural Schools and how this House has finally come up with a solution--a long-term, lasting solution--to this particular problem.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Montana. Very few people realize the Federal Government actually owns 1 out of every 3 acres in this country, but it is disproportionate. So, of the 13 Western States, 54 percent of the land mass is actually owned by the Federal Government. The 33 States east of the Western States only have 4 percent of their land. Which simply means no one actually east of Denver quite understands how this relationship necessarily works. It also means that the unfortunate truth is, as we've already heard, that private and State forests are today healthier than the Federal forest system. But those of us in the West realize this firsthand because those are our neighbors, those are the areas that surround our communities. I'm glad to hear from the next two speakers who will be talking--they are from Colorado. The first one is the gentleman from Colorado Springs, who is on the Natural Resources Committee, and he's going to explain the significant situation that they find in Colorado with our forest health situation. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman for his comments here. Mr. Speaker, we have heard now from three Members from the west coast--one from California, one from Oregon and one from Washington-- who have explained the situation and how this particular act is, indeed, a solution to the problems that those west coast States are finding in their forestry efforts. But this also impacts the interior of this country, so I would like to yield a few minutes to the representative from the State of Montana, who represents the entire State of Montana, to explain how this has an impact on interior State forests, as well as the coastal State forests. I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines) to explain what's happening in his State.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Lamborn has already introduced the concept of what's taking place in Colorado and the bill for Mr. Tipton, let's turn now to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) to also explain the significance of why he actually did that particular bill.