Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to control this next 48 minutes as we explain how significant this Secure Rural Schools fix is and how important it is that we do something on a program that, quite frankly, is not sustainable. So at this time I would like to recognize, if not the father, the godfather of Secure Rural Schools, the gentleman from Oregon. His State is impacted significantly by this program. It is a significant issue to the school kids of Oregon. Mr. Walden of Oregon is someone who has talked about this for many years and knows the significance and the importance of this particular issue. So I gladly yield to the gentleman from Oregon to explain his take on the Secure Rural Schools issue.

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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as stated, this workload is a self- sustaining process, which means, if the workload is there, and it is, then the money is there, and it is. To furlough the employees in this area saves no money, it completes no work, but it does raise the cost of overhead for all of the depots. I have empathy for the Pentagon. They made a decision that everyone should share the pain in an effort to be fair. Unfortunately, title 10, section 2472, tells us how this fund should be managed. Sharing the pain isn't one of the options. I appreciate what is going on here, but the Defense Department cannot simply pick and choose. This amendment does not start a new program. It simply requires that the existing law be followed.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving on both the Armed Services Committee, as well as the House Depot Caucus. Our U.S. military has its own defense, repair, and sustainment capabilities, precisely because the government needs to guarantee that soldiers in the field will be sustained and supported in times of war. They will guarantee that needed equipment will be there in working order when and where it is needed because their lives and our freedom depend on it. That is why I object to the current furlough policy of some of our DOD civilian workers. I have great sympathy for the Department of Defense. Unlike every other budget of the Federal Government, they did not receive an increase of appropriations before sequestration. In fact, the military is the only area where in this administration they received two cuts in their funding before sequestration hit, which was the third cut. Our defense has been hit disproportionately because of sequestration. The Department of Defense's approach is to have everyone sharing in the burden or the pain of it. That is actually a political decision, and I don't use that in a pejorative sense. But Congresses have understood the work of our sustainment sector for decades, passing title I, sections 129 and 2472, which deal with working capital funds, and we have five such working capital funds. These are revolving funds that are self-sustaining, which means by law if you have a workload and you have the funds, then these employees should not be thrown under the bus with a furlough. It is silly to think that the workload would be there. The funds are actually there, but the workload will be sitting in depots and the technicians and mechanics working on those will be forced to take off days without pay. It will increase our delay; it will increase our cost. The furlough working fund that funds employees does not save the government any kind of money, but it hurts delay. The gentleman from Oklahoma will have an amendment, which I hope the House will take seriously, which will look at these working capital funds, and realize the unique situation they have within our system and will hopefully solve this problem going forward in the future. It has been said that we have a foreign policy which we will fund. Actually, the book I read said, ``The foreign policy for which we will pay for.'' I just didn't want to end in a preposition. Our foreign policy is funded here in the Defense Department appropriations. This is what gives us the flexibility diplomatically to do things not now, but 5 years from now and 10 years from now and 15 years from now. We are truly looking at our future with this particular fund, and it must be taken seriously. We are living since the Cold War ended in a much less secure world than we were while we were in the Cold War, not just because of what is being done by our traditional adversaries in Russia and China, but in the Rim countries, Third World counties, which have used new technology to create what is called ``technological claustrophobia,'' as their efforts are now compressed together and we are having to respond to that. There are many issues in this particular bill which help us move forward, not only in defense of our military, but in our foreign policy opportunities. There are a few amendments out there that actually do harm to that. I hope we look at it very carefully. It is a well-crafted rule with a whole lot of amendments--perhaps far too many amendments made in order--and it will provide for a logical debate. I hope when we come out of it, we realize the significance of this, not just funding our military, but also funding our diplomatic future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I know my friend from Florida shares my concerns regarding our Nation's nuclear deterrents and specifically in preserving the sea-based leg of the Nuclear Triad in the Trident II D5 submarine launched ballistic missiles, which are carried on the Ohio-class submarine. The current fleet of ballistic missile submarines is planned for service through the year 2042, and the D5 missile they carry is expected to remain viable much longer and will see service on the replacement platform. I hope the chairman agrees.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In reclaiming my time, the original design life of the D5 missile rocket motors was 25 years. Some of the currently deployed motors are reaching that age, and the missiles require a life extension to maintain viability. Does the chairman agree that the life extension program for the D5 missile is critical to ensure the missile will remain the highest level of reliability for as long as our Nation requires it?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and compliment him on his great work on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, my home State has been one of the leaders in the area of equitable funding for kids, so that whether you come from a wealthy mountain resort or the inner city of Salt Lake City or a west desert rural ranching family, the same amount of money follows the kid to their schools in any situation. And we did that simply because we care about kids, and we established a fair system of disbursing the money. When we did a GI bill, the money followed the GI. Only in Washington, here, with these particular funds, where the Department of Education does not have an equitable disposal mechanism, do we find this situation in which we treat kids differently. It appears to me that some of the outside groups that may be opposed to this are simply saying they like this antiquated disposal system, which means that some title I schools get a whole lot of money, and other title I schools don't get very much money, if any at all, because we don't have an equitable system for disbursing our funds. We need to do what many States are doing right now and make sure that we have an equitable distribution system. This amendment moves us in that direction.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in the Constitution, it established a specific relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It's called a duel sovereignty, and it asked people to be loyal not only to their State, but also to the Federal Government, as well. James Wilson, in talking about what they had done as a balance-of-power experiment, said that this system would work well as long as the two entities maintained a relationship like the solar system, like the planets, always traveling in their sphere and path, complementing each other, but never interfering with one another. His concern was that one of those entities might actually act like a comet and go off on its own path, actually running into any material or object in its way, and chaos and destruction would result from that. The amendment I am wishing to propose here would eliminate a section that would allow a local school district to circumvent their State, a school district which is a creation of the State. They would circumvent the State and make a deal with the Federal Government for any kind of grant or loan that they wish to accomplish and actually be required to report not to the State, but to the Federal Government and circumvent the State totally. If a State, for example, were to want to have some limited involvement in a program, under the provision that is in this particular bill, it would be possible for a rogue district to violate that proposal or that policy of the State, make their own deal with the Federal Government, and enter into that agreement and report directly to them, causing not only to void the policy, but a great deal of confusion in the process, as well. We have a deal that we can work easily with the States. The local districts, that is not in the purview of what it should be. It is definitely an extra-constitutional approach to it. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California, but I have to take issue with them. There is no State in which a local district or a State or a city or a county is autonomous to the State itself. States create those entities. They can add to them. They can eliminate them. They are responsible for them. This is not an esoteric philosophical debate. There is a real situation in which this has happened, and in large part the base bill eliminates this from actually happening again in the future. If I can quote from Education Week, there was a policy in which this Department of Education tried to circumvent the States. The Department of Education has responded with the announcement it will begin to offer separate policy terms to individual school districts--circumventing not just Congress, but also the authority of States to direct education. In response to that, the superintendent from Virginia said that this move undermines the States. The Commissioner from Colorado said that this would ``bypass'' State authority and result in ``unintended consequences.'' From the Secretary of Education in Pennsylvania: To allow districts to go directly to the Feds to get waivers, it would be difficult to see who is exactly responsible for accountability and reforms in their States. Districts are creatures of State government. From Jennifer Marshall, she said this would create a ``client mentality.'' In fact, one of the publications said that this is a massive overreach by Washington into local school policy and a blatant disregard for State's education decisionmaking authority. Here is the bottom line: the Federal Government can't change States; States can change local entities. It is an improper relationship for the local entities to be able to bypass a State. We should not have that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the speaker on the other side on one of the other amendments said that this is not the level at which we should be making these decisions. There are some efforts, no matter how noble the goal may be, where this is not the level at which these decisions ought to be made. I taught for 28 years and had multiple evaluations. They were all positive, but if I'd had any input that I'd wished to give, I could have easily accessed my school district, and I could have accessed the State, but if it were on the Federal level, I could fly and stand in front of the Johnson Building for weeks on end, and nobody in the Department of Education would care. The best evaluations come from parents, but parents have the same limitations of which I spoke. Their access on the Federal level is almost nonexistent. The Scalise amendment does not eliminate evaluations. It says you do them in the proper way. You do them, and you clarify that States sometimes can have a better idea than we do. If that happens, States should have every opportunity to implement their better ideas. This eliminates the mandate. It provides flexibility. It promotes a better outcome.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The State reined them in, but it still should not be a part of the policy in this bill. I ask for a favorable vote in removing this section that is extra- constitutional from the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the border surge over in the Senate. In typical Senate-think, they have seen a problem and decided to throw money at the problem, even if a lack of funding is not the problem they are facing. This map divides the country up into the Border Patrol sectors. The numbers are from 2010. The numbers are different today but, obviously, the ratios are about the same. In this year, one has to ask the question of why were 56 illegal entries apprehended in the main sector and 200,000 apprehended in the Arizona sector. What was the difference between those two? If you were trying to sneak into a baseball game, something I'm not advocating, but if you were trying to do that, you don't jump over the turnstile where a cop is standing. You go around the corner and find the hole in the fence so no one will actually see what you are doing. The drug cartels are not stupid. They are looking for that hole in the fence. Obviously, this sector is where the majority of the illegals and the illegal drugs and the illegal human trafficking and potential terrorism exists. So the question has to be: Why is that the entrance level of choice? It's actually very simple. Everything that is red is land that's owned by the Federal Government on this map. In Arizona, 80 percent of the border is owned by the Federal Government. Over half of that is in the ``Wilderness'' category, ``Endangered Species,'' or ``Conservation Habitat'' category, where, by special law, the legislation provides this land a special status which prohibits the Border Patrol from entering that area. They can't enter in a motorized vehicle. They can't even pedal a bicycle. They can go into that area on foot, on specially fed horses, and that is it. The drug cartels recognize this. They're not stupid. And they realize that this is the problem. When this Congress insisted a fence be built along the California border, we passed legislation that waived 40 environmental laws that were prohibiting the fence from being built. Those same 40 laws are the laws that prohibit the Border Patrol from going along the red areas of that border and doing their job, which simply means, as ironic as it sounds, Federal law is stopping the Federal Border Patrol from going on Federal land to do a Federal purpose, which is federally stupid. But this is, indeed, what we're doing. The Border Patrol actually cares about the environment. Drug cartels don't at all. This cacti, cut down by the drug cartel, is an endangered species. It was cut down there to stop east-west access on the only road that allows the Border Patrol to follow in that particular area. This truck is a temporary sensor device in a wilderness area. The Border Patrol wanted to move it from point A to point B. It took them 6 months to get approval by the land manager in that area before they could back the truck up and move the truck over to another stop because the land manager was not happy with the Border Patrol being in his Wilderness territory. And the law was on the side of the land manager, not on the side of the Border Patrol. The Senate has tried to say that they're coming up with a compromise solution to increase border security. In actuality, they have done just the opposite. They have put language in there that says that the Homeland Security Secretary can, notwithstanding any other law, require certain elements to be built in this particular area. But that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to have the political discretion of whether to do it or not. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to have immediate access into these border areas, but only in Arizona. If they go anywhere else along this border, they have to have the written approval of the Secretary of the Interior as well as the Secretary of Agriculture. And most importantly, it says in there that the manner in which the Homeland Security Secretary shall make these decisions must be in the manner that best protects the natural and cultural resources on Federal land. I'm sorry, but as soon as they put that language in there, it requires some bureaucrat to establish what the standard is, and it opens it up to someone else initiating litigation that that is not the best standard possible. In essence, we're back in a worse situation. They wish to have another 25,000 Border Patrol agents. This is what our fence looks like in Arizona today. This is a fence, this is Mexico, that's Arizona, and the open area is the animal habitat to allow animals to go back and forth from Mexico and Arizona. The one road on here is the only road in which the Border Patrol is allowed to go. You can have another 100,000 agents in that area, and you'll simply find out that it won't help unless you let them go outside of that one road. We don't need money. What we need is access. What the Senate is proposing is actually worse than the status quo.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to our good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who I certainly hope is feeling better than the way he's walking today, 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 unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act of 2013, as well as H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and makes several specific amendments in order to each bill which are germane and compliant with the rules of the House. This proposed rule also provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill. These energy bills, if enacted, will help foster responsible development of our abundant offshore domestic energy resources and will do so in an environmentally responsible manner. H.R. 2231 would help reverse some of the current administration's energy policies, which are stalling responsible offshore lease development on the Outer Continental Shelf. This legislation would require that the administration implement a new 5-year leasing plan, including 50 percent of the areas that have been previously identified as the most promising in oil reserves and natural gas. The average American consumer has seen their energy bill double since this administration started. A gallon of gas was under $2 when the President was first sworn in. It's now routinely more than $4 a gallon--and continues to climb. And yet the administration deliberately stalls and blocks job-creating, energy-producing projects like the Keystone pipeline for the responsible development of coal and tar sands reserves we have on our public lands, including in my own State. This actually hits the middle class and the poor class the worst. H.R. 2231 will streamline the current bureaucracy handling these leases and will also implement a fair and equitable revenue-sharing plan for coastal States. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that passage of this bill will reduce net direct spending of the Federal Government by $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. So, in essence, you have a bill that makes us more energy independent, drives down the cost of fuel for U.S. families, helps reduce the cost of the Federal Government, and produces an estimated 1.2 million jobs. I think, by most standards, that would be considered a fairly good bill. Likewise, the other bill in the rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, will provide for improved Federal management and oversight of energy resources which straddle international boundaries. Passage of this act will implement an agreement we already have with the Government of Mexico on how to handle development of these resources, including revenue-sharing concepts, as well as ensuring that the United States companies that are investing will develop their resources but not be imperiled by actions that may be taken later on by the Government. Finally, the resolution also provides for a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 2410, the fiscal year 2014 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which continues what was common when I first arrived here and then stopped but was then reinstated and continues to be reinstated by Chairman Pete Sessions--having open rules on our appropriations bills. I'm appreciative of the Rules Committee chairman's leadership in this regard. I'm also appreciative of the hard work and dedication of the bill's sponsors. First, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Washington, also chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee (Mr. Hastings), as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), for his leadership on the Agriculture appropriation bill. In short, this is a fair and good rule dealing with good pieces of legislation. Mr. Speaker, these are good bills. I urge their adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments that were just made by the gentleman from Massachusetts about a program which does fund $6.7 billion in the WIC program and was passed unanimously by voice vote from both parties in the Appropriations Committee. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of one of the bills that is part of this rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the opportunity of being part of a debate that covered a smorgasbord of ideas. Let me just respond to several of those that have been presented in the last lead-up to the vote on this particular amendment. As I said before, I'm a teacher. I care greatly about education. I'm especially frustrated with the way Congress has passed or handled the student loan provision. Several years ago, while the Democrats were in control--I'm trying not to be too partisan, but they were in control--we changed the law that dealt with student loans to consolidate that authority within the Federal Government. By doing so, we crushed private-State partnership plans that were an excellent avenue for loans that students could use. They could get breaks depending on their repayment habits. It was a marvelous program, but it was stopped in an effort to try to consolidate everything here within Congress. Since that time, we have played silly games of brinksmanship that deal with what the rate should be and what the rate might be. We have a bill that this body passed on May 23 in plenty of time to extinguish this issue, plenty of time for the Senate to debate it, amend it, send it back to us, appoint the conference, go through regular process, if the Senate wished to do that. Instead, the result is the Senate has basically turned their back on the issue and said, We'll let it go over the cliff one more time. You see, it shouldn't have been that way. If we had not changed the policy back when we passed a bill in the previous leadership of this House, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place. What this House tried to do is say this is a silly approach going into the future. Let's come up with a policy towards student loans. If we have to consolidate them, if the Federal Government has to have their control and grasp over the entire thing, we should do it in a way that provides some kind of flexibility and some kind of rationalization so it can ebb and flow in the future as the market requires it to do. We passed a bill not just that allowed them not to double, but we passed a bill here on this floor which solved the problem. The fact that the Senate does not wish to solve the problem is something that I find sad. But we solved the problem, and we did it in a timely fashion. The great speeches that I heard today--and they were very good and their verbiage was better than mine--should be given over in the Senate where it can do some good. I also want to talk about a couple of other issues that I've heard, that these particular bills in this rule would violate states rights' agreements, even though the issue at hand is only those waters and coastal waters that are a part of the Federal preserve and does not talk about State waters whatsoever. We talked about in H.R. 1613 a poison pill being inserted into that provision that exempts Dodd-Frank. Somehow I wish we could actually go back to the person who actually inserted that provision in there because it was Secretary Hillary Clinton. That's part of the negotiations we did as a country with the Mexican Government; and it's logical that it is in there because it gives some protection to U.S. companies that, if that language was not in there, could be forced either to violate Federal laws or violate foreign laws and face civil penalties or cease to operate in foreign countries. I can understand why the Secretary of State at the time did negotiate that portion that is in there. That's not the poison pill. That's simply what is in the negotiated settlement. All we're doing with this bill is enacting it, putting it into place, and allowing us to move forward with what has been simply negotiated on resource areas that straddle international lines. I'm also somewhat frustrated with the statement that we might as well use the leases that we currently have. I'm also frustrated because we have had a great deal of increase in production of oil and gas, and it's all happened on private and State lands. I happen to represent a State that has almost 70 percent of it controlled by the Federal Government. I have enormous amounts of resource potential in my State, but it is controlled by the Federal Government. So even though areas where private property and States have been able to increase the revenue to their States and increase the total amount of petroleum productions that we have, my State has seen the exact opposite. If you go onshore to the areas that are controlled by this administration, the Federal lands, the amount of parcels that have been offered since 2005 are down 88 percent. The amount of acres that are offered for development of resources are down 85 percent. And what is most sad is the amount of revenue that is produced both to the State and to the Federal Government from onshore development since 2005, which is down 99 percent. A lease is simply not, as has been stated, the green light to start drilling. A release simply says you start the process. And part of the problem with the releases both onshore and offshore has been the inability of the Federal Government to do so in a reasonable fashion. On onshore lease development there is regulation that says it must be done in a 6-month period of time to move forward from the initial sale and to which the lease is then offered so the company can start its drilling process. Yet in a survey done by GAO, 91 percent of the time, that 6-month standard has not been met onshore. Part of H.R. 2231 is a reorganization of the administrative function that deals with how these leases are developed and how they proceed going forward. By taking one agency, which has had a very poor record and dividing it into three with specific responsibilities, we think we can streamline this process and make sure that what we are doing on the Outer Continental Shelf is far more effective than what we are doing on Federal lands onshore, where all we are having is stalling delays and a lack of production and a lack of revenue coming from them. It was once said to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee that if he had a better idea, do it. In all due respect, he has a better idea. That better idea is the two bills before us right now, H.R. 2231, and the other bill, which is H.R. 1613. Those are good ideas. They will move us forward. They're the things we ought to do to prepare. I think it's a great rule that is allowing that and allowing the appropriation bill to come through in an open rule, allowing anyone who has an idea that he or she wishes to bring to the floor the opportunity to do so. With that, this is a fair rule. It deals with an appropriations process, as well as two bills that are good bills that will help people. Especially after yesterday's speech, we should have an energy policy in this country aimed at helping middle class Americans, not one that simply says, freeze in the dark, especially if you're poor. That's the best thing we are going to be able to do. These bills move us forward. We should vote for them. With that, having failed at my effort to give you good verbiage, in which case I'm sorry you're holding the cane there, I hope you're using that only to navigate around this floor and it will not become a weapon in the future. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 274 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 8. 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. 1595) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest rate for Federal Direct Stafford Loans. 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 Education and the Workforce. 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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 595 as specified in section 8 of this resolution.

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

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