Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 876) to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 862) to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels of land within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest containing private improvements that were developed based upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey conducted in May 1960.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. At this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), someone who is clearly a better gentleman than I am.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this is one situation that is just unbelievable that the situation exists. It is unbelievable that it takes legislation to solve this type of a problem. And I want to thank Mr. Gosar, as well as Mrs. Kirkpatrick from Arizona, for working together to try and solve this problem that should never have existed in the first place. It's a good bill. I urge support. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, again I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 520) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Parks, and for other purposes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular bill authorizes the National Park Service, again, to conduct a study. The cost of the study would be subject to appropriations. This study would commemorate the role of Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of our National Park Service. For 25 years preceding the creation of the National Park Service, Yosemite National Park was administered by the United States Army, and the Buffalo Soldiers played a key role protecting the park resources that have been enjoyed by many people today. This bill would simply authorize a study as to the role that we should do in commemorating the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Park system specifically as it deals with Yosemite National Park. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, as counterintuitive as it may appear, when there is a drawdown, there may be a long-term savings, but short-term savings are not there. In fact, the cost spikes. As all the equipment comes back from the warrior that has to go to the depots for resetting, repair, and restoration, that is an extreme cost that has to be borne by the depots if it is not in this particular bill. That is one of the reasons why I support the chair's mark, which is supported by the chairman, as well as Chairman Ryan, and as well as the original Obama budget when it was sent here before. For whatever reason, they decided to pull $5 billion out without giving us a plan going forward. This needs to stay.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the invitation from Mr. Pearce. This problem illustrates a couple of overwhelming problems we have. One is that agencies don't talk one with another. When the FAA closed towers down, they put three military bases in a difficult situation because they didn't talk. When NASA changed its policy on manned space flight, it increased the cost of our missile defense system because the agencies flat out didn't talk. Here is another situation of agencies that simply are not working together, which illustrates a second reason why, in this bill, when we try to talk about land, we're not talking about withdrawing land so that two different agencies have the same land. We're trying to do transfers of land so one agency can make the decision--in this case, it should be the military. Now, as subcommittee chairman for the Public Lands Subcommittee in the Resources, I want to say I support this amendment, and I would ask that people would pass this amendment. There may be some areas of trying to change some of the language to limit the scope of what we are doing here, which could easily be done in conference if this amendment is placed on the table in the first place. We already have language in there that deals with White Sands, but this amendment would have to be in addition to that. So I would urge my colleagues to actually vote in favor of this. If there are some areas that we need to scope down again, we can easily accomplish that if we have the opportunity of doing so in a conference.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, even though I appreciate the efforts and the goals of the gentlemen who are introducing this amendment, the experience at most of our air logistics centers simply means that A-76 has brought along delays; and those delays, even if they're in the form of a study, have caused the work to delay, meaning the product given to the warfighter is delayed, and the fixed cost overhead that our depots obviously have faced have to be paid from some source, which is, indeed, the taxpayer. A-76 is about low cost and not necessarily best value, which means if you're dealing with a market system where something goes out there, you see if it sells or not, that's okay. But you're dealing with military equipment which must be performed and must be prepared on a timely basis and in a specific way. And that is why the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget are both opposing this amendment, as well as why they halted the process in the first place, because they found there are structural flaws inherent in this process. It is better to go about finding a better solution to this, and that is public-private partnerships, which we are already doing at the air logistics centers. By taking the creativity of the private sector with the stability of the public workforce, we actually get the best of both worlds. That would be far better than tearing this open for a food fight that would affect the quality of military equipment which is at stake.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding. I now owe you one more. This is an impeccably good rule. It made in order 172 amendments, which makes someone wonder why we have committees in the first place. I wish to bring to light three of those particular amendments so they're not overlooked in the rhetoric that we have going here today, because each does have an impact on the readiness taking place. The first one is one by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), which would ask the agencies of this government to communicate with the military when something actually would impact the military; in this case, BLM making a decision which would have a great deal of impact on our military lands in New Mexico. We saw this earlier when NASA decided to change its flight program--it had a great deal of impact on the cost of our missile defense system--and when the FAA decided to close towers, which impacted three military bases and made their security much more tenuous, and all of these cases without ever discussing the impact of those decisions with the military. We have an administration that seems to have the problem of interagency communication--when the actions of one impact the actions of the other--and this is the first step to move it that way. Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming has an amendment which would create a warm line for the ICBM. Not only would this increase our security, but it ensures we have an adequate industrial base. We cannot turn on and off our industrial base like a spigot: when we need them, they're there; and when we don't need them, they can go off. This would require us to have a strong industrial base and would move us forward in the area of security. Finally, I wish to address an amendment by Mr. Rigell of Virginia which deals with A-76. On the surface, this looks like a wonderful idea. Who can be opposed to competition? Especially when it's fair and apples to apples. Unfortunately, this particular amendment is comparing artichokes to avocados, which have only the fact that they start with the letter ``A'' in common and the fact that I hate both of them equally. Five years ago, the Office of Management and Budget asked the Government Accountability Office to review A-76, as well as the inspector general of the Department of Defense. They concluded that this program should be suspended because there were structural flaws within the system that was dealt with on its implementation. None of those suggested structural flaws have been fixed in the meantime. This system has been studied and found wanting. At the same time, the Department of Defense has come up with a DTM process, which is required to be reviewed by the underlying base bill. Now is not the time to change that process of A-76 until that review has also been completed. Let me be kind of honest here. The idea before A-76 is really about lowest price but not necessarily best value. With lowest price, you're doing a product that will be put on the open market that will sell or not sell. Who really cares what happens to it. But when you're dealing with the military, you're dealing with military equipment that must be repaired on a timely basis and be available on a timely basis or lives are lost, and that becomes the significance of this particular issue. What we should be doing, instead of trying to go backwards to A-76, is do a public-private partnership, which many of our depots are actually doing. In that case, I am appreciative that Mr. Rigell did put one sentence that would not interfere with any public-private partnerships that we are doing at the present time. But the idea of allowing the creativity of the private sector to meet with the stability of the workforce from a public sector would be the ideal solution, rather than trying to do some other program which would create a food fight, which would be costly, counterproductive, harm our readiness, and destroy the morale of our workforce, which is already harmed because of the furloughs they're facing. In this particular amendment, the Office of Management and Budget is opposed to it. The Department of Defense is opposed to this amendment, and so should we be on the floor of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Fruit Heights, Utah, is a city of around 5,000 people. In the center of Davis County to the east are the mountains which are owned by the Forest Service. Surrounding it to the south is the city of Farmington, which has a landlocked cemetery and only allows Farmington residents to be buried there. On the west and the north is Kaysville and Layton, which has a cemetery which faces the same situation and is restricting who can be buried there, as well. Fruit Heights really has a significant problem. The only way they can go is east, up the mountain, on land that is currently owned by the Forest Service but is within the boundaries of Fruit Heights itself. So on this map, the brown, barren area without trees is what's owned by the Forest Service. Totally surrounding the Forest Service land are houses, and only residential roads can get up to this particular area. Running through the middle, blasted in there, is a canal which will be preserved for canal use and be dedicated to that. Above it, the area that is above that, still within the city of Fruit Heights, is too steep for any development. So, by city ordinance, they have already said, when they receive this land, that will be permanent open space. The area below the canal here is the land in question that would be transferred to the city for the purpose of a cemetery, which they drastically need. They have been through every area they have as potential in Fruit Heights City. This is truly the only area. It is true that a nature conservancy group purchased this land from a citizen in Fruit Heights and then sold it at a profit to the Federal Government to be used as habitat for mule deer. The Mule Deer Association is neutral on this bill, neither opposing it nor in favor of it, and they basically privately say that if it's a cemetery, they'll probably have more forage potential for the mule deer than they have right now. This is what is necessary. I appreciate the minority's working with me on this particular issue to find the realization that there is a need for a cemetery. I thank them for their support. I thank the chairman for putting this crucial issue forward, which to us may be not crucial, but to those dying to get into this place, it is indeed crucial.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it's a great bill. Let's hope the third time is the charm in the process. I urge support of this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is a great bill that treats the Northern Marianas the same way as other colonies by expanding their submerged territorial miles. That would be the same as with American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. It is compatible with all other acts. It's a great bill that we passed last year by a very close vote of 397-0. I urge adoption of this bill again. I hope this time the Senate will be wise enough to pick it up. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Again, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 573) to amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It's an excellent bill. I urge adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are in strong support of this particular piece of legislation, which would be a name change in the Montana Pilot Project office in Billings, Montana, to include the words ``Montana/Dakotas State Office.'' It's extremely important in this pilot process that we don't actually just limit it only to the area of Montana, especially because the area of North Dakota is so important in the development of these pilot projects. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.