Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 767) to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project offices of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project, as amended.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the State and the tribe have been trying to get Congress to act on this measure for a number of years. It's a widely popular proposal. It's supported by the State. It's supported by local governments. It's supported by the tribes. It is a bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 356 is called the Hill Creek Cultural Preservation and Energy Development Act, and it's to promote economic development within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation and to increase funding for public education within the State of Utah, as well as to protect some culturally and environmentally sensitive lands that are within that particular reservation. This is a bipartisan bill. It's supported by the entire Utah congressional delegation, the oil and gas industry, the Ute Tribe, the Wilderness Society. Actually, everybody with an IQ over 7 is in support of it. It's a noncontroversial measure that will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to resolve a decades-old land tenure issue in a manner that's supported by all parties. In 1948, Congress extended the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, surrounding about 18,000 acres of school trust lands and mineral leases that were within that portion. In 1955, Congress attempted to solve the dispute amongst some of these lands, and actually failed in doing so. So the Ute Tribe has long protected the southern portion of this Hill Creek area for cultural and environmental reasons. It's also in an area that's known as the Book Cliffs, which is one of the most remote and rugged places within the State of Utah. The Utah School Institutional Trust Lands Administration, or SITLA, which manages the school lands in Utah, has a constitutional mandate to generate income from trust lands to fund the public education. So, to achieve the desires of the State, for funding education, and the Tribe, to promote their cultural areas, both parties have worked together in a cooperative way to craft a plan that authorizes the Secretary to exchange land so that areas that are now with SITLA in the southern part that want to be preserved will be sent over to the reservation. Areas in the northern part that have mineral resources on them will be given over to SITLA on an acre-by-acre basis. And once the exchange is complete, both the tribe and SITLA will jointly develop oil and gas resources located within the northern portion of Hill Creek and share in that revenue. American taxpayers will also share in the mineral revenue. So, Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to take note that this model of how you resolve land tenure issues is an extremely effective one. Divisive issues in the past can be resolved through a collaborative process that allows for all points of view to be considered and heard, as was done in this particular bill. In this example, we're able to balance these multiple views and, as a result, we will protect some of our wildest places in Utah and also allow for responsible oil and gas production that will help in funding the education system in Utah. So I'm hoping to replicate this collaborative model to resolve some of the other longstanding issues that are public land conflicts in my home State of Utah. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 356) to clarify authority granted under the Act entitled ``An Act to define the exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the State of Utah, and for other purposes''.

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 yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed being held accountable for the Senate's inaction on some of these issues. However, we do have a bill before us that is a good bill, that solves a real problem, and that helps real people. And I promise you that if we use this bill, or if we pass this bill, which has amendments that suggests that there has to be some controversy applied, that if, indeed, we were to pass this bill we would make the desert bloom. Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will provide suspension authority for potential consideration of additional measures prior to the district work period next week where we will be meeting with people. Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, if one needs an MRI, this helium bill is extremely significant. If one needs to use microchips, this helium bill is significant. This bill solves problems of real people. And I recognize that we have other issues that people wish to discuss. That's great. This one is one that we should do now and get it over to the Senate and see if once again the Senate actually will do something, at least on this issue, which has bipartisan support. It's a good bill. I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I'm ready to move on as soon as the other side is.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again, a nice conversation. We need to have that conversation with my friends in the Senate. We've already sent two bills over there they haven't addressed. I don't know how many more we need to address, but it would be nice if the Senate did something. With that, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the words that were given by the gentleman from New Jersey. He is far too modest. You are a cosponsor of this bill. It's a good bill. It was worked out well. This is not an unwarranted delay bill. This is an important bill that solves problems for real people. Once again, even though I think what you have done with your bill is a very good job, there are others in this body who are not on the Natural Resources Committee who would disagree, and that is why they have proposed amendments. The only way to allow those amendments to be discussed on the floor is not through suspension, but going through regular order. I appreciate also the comments that were made by other speakers as to issues that we're taking. I do take one sense of umbrage at the idea that we're going on a vacation again. I do not know how some people try to view the district work period--to some it may be a vacation, but for me it is not. When I go back to the district, at that time, I'm constantly in meetings and going to places to meet with constituents and find out how the actions and ideas of this body impact real people. I note just in the history of Congress there occasionally have been Speakers who did not like to allow people to go back and talk to their constituents. You have the opportunity, if you're here all the time, of hiding from constituents and not necessarily having that interface. So, one Speaker, every time that particular Speaker allowed Members to go back and interface with the districts and the constituents in the districts, they always came back with a different opinion that had to be remolded and reshaped. Some people don't like the idea of actually interfacing. Some people think if we never go back and talk to our constituents, that we're hiding from them. That is why the district work period, to me, is not a vacation. It's not a recess from what we're doing. It's a chance to actually expand what we're doing so when we come back here we make wiser decisions, or at least have a true understanding and implication of what it does and how Congress impacts the real workings that deal with real people. I appreciate that. I also appreciate, once again, the concepts of sequestration. The gentleman from Massachusetts, I think, makes some nice points about sequestration. I think he's in the wrong spot, though. This body has, numerous times before sequestration went into effect, passed laws to blunt the impact of sequestration to solve the problem. We need to talk to our friends on the other side of this building who refuse to even discuss any of those bills that were passed in this body to solve the problem before it hit. It was a great speech, wrong people. You need to be talking to an element that is a lot more elderly than we are over on this side, and I say that with grey hair. Also, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his kind words about the process that we are doing here. It is nice to be complimented on a bill which we have done correctly and done right. I would suggest, though, that it is wise of us to actually bring it here to the floor, rather than put it on a suspension calendar. There were several Representatives that wished to have a chance to speak to this and amend it. We are dealing with amendments to this particular bill, which is, once again, why you bring it to the floor, otherwise they would be closed from that process. I also appreciate his comments about sequestration. I am very happy that he mentioned that because, not only did I vote against the original law that established it, but I voted twice for solutions to it well before sequestration was ever established. Both of those bills passed in a bipartisan way and were sent over to the Senate. The Senate responded by doing nothing, which is typical of a lot of things that simply happen around this place. In 1925, when the issue of helium was first addressed by Congress, we made a mistake. The idea at the time was that dirigibles would be the source of aviation for the future, and therefore helium was extremely successful. It's not the first time we've been wrong. The fact that we have steps leading out the east side of this Capitol Building, going in that direction, is because, when this was originally laid out and established and built, everyone knew that Washington, D.C., would grow to the east. We've been wrong from the very inception of this governmental city. But in 1925, the Federal Government enacted legislation which created a Federal Helium Reserve, and the Federal Government basically has had a monopoly on the helium market ever since. After World War II, the demand for helium increased dramatically, so Congress passed the Helium Act in 1960 to provide incentives for the private natural gas industry to strip helium from its natural gas wells and sell it to the government, which then placed it in the Federal Helium Reserve, eventually leading to a supply large enough to supply all of the U.S. Federal and domestic needs as well as the ability to sell some overseas. The 1960 legislation required that the Federal Government set prices on the sale of helium, which would cover the costs of the Federal Government for its purchase and storage. Since the 1990s, the Federal demand for helium has dropped significantly while the private demand has increased. So, in 1996, Congress passed the Helium Privatization Act, which was intended to lead to the phasing out of the Federal role in helium production and storage with a view towards allowing market forces to work within the private sector for its production and reducing the cost to the Federal Government. The 1996 law required the government to price helium, not on market prices, but only on the minimum price necessary to recover $1.3 billion in Federal debt that was incurred to build this helium reserve. The Federal Government will be able to pay off that $1.3 billion debt sooner than was anticipated--another cause for celebration. That doesn't happen very often in this government either; but unless the particular law we have on the books now is amended, it will close the reserve, leaving no new domestic sources of helium. The industry would be forced to look overseas to such producers as Algeria and Qatar and Russia to fill their needs. In essence, if we do not deal with this particular bill, there will be a harm that will impact real people. I'm sorry that fixing this harm is not good enough for some, but it is something that needs to be done, and it needs to be done in an open way, which will allow us to discuss some amendments people wish to present towards this particular bill. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 2010 which addressed this issue, as did the General Accounting Office. H.R. 527 is based largely upon the recommendations of these reports, and it makes revisions to the law to continue the effort to divest the Federal Government from its current role as a monopoly on helium production in an orderly, three-phased process. A new approach will better incorporate market forces into the production and the sale of helium, and it will ensure the future supply of helium to the Federal Government and to private users; and it will ensure that it will not be interrupted. It is important that Congress take a proactive step through the passage of this legislation in order to avoid disruptions in our helium supplies worldwide; and it would have, if we did not, a far-reaching negative consequence. This legislation is a model of how important bipartisan legislation which addresses real issues and real problems for real people can, indeed, be achieved in Congress. It's a good bill and a fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act. It makes several amendments in order, which were compliant with the rules of this House. In fact, four of the five amendments suggested to the Rules Committee will be presented. The only one that was rejected is one that was duplicative of one that was added in here. So everything that the Members cared enough about to file in an appropriate way have been accommodated for the discussion we will have be having today on this particular bill. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. It's a very fair and good rule. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule and the underlying piece of legislation, H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, as opposed to the irresponsible helium administration and stewardship act one could assume coming from the other body. The underlying legislation is a bipartisan bill and enjoys a broad base of support on both sides of the aisle, including the sponsor, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, and the Natural Resources Committee ranking member, Mr. Markey. In fact, H.R. 527 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Natural Resources on February 14 on a voice vote, and there were no dissenting votes. I'd like to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his work on this commonsense bill and approach. Mr. Speaker, helium is an essential and vital element and a commodity that we all depend on in countless ways. It's used widely in the scientific community, but also in the health care industry. It's vital to the proper functioning of MRI equipment in hospitals. It's vital in the production of electronics, such as microchips and superconductors. Helium is essential for science. It's essential for our NASA space program. Helium is a byproduct of natural gas production. In short, we have heard from people for a long time that what Congress needs to do is come together and work in a bipartisan way, find a compromise and present a solution that can actually solve some of the problems we're facing. This is exactly what this particular bill does do. This is exactly what this particular bill does do. The leadership, both Republicans and Democrats on the committee, have crafted a bill in which they have come together and presented a compromise. We should be happy with this day. We should be celebrating this particular bill on the floor because it's a perfect example of government done right. When an elderly lady will call my district office and complain that her Social Security check has not arrived, the most important issue of government to her is her Social Security check. To me and my staff, the most important issue of government for us should be getting her Social Security check. I do not have the arrogance to try and tell her that, look, take the broad view of government, your issue is so small in conjunction to everything we're doing, it should be ignored until we do something more complicated first. No. You find the problem and you solve that particular problem. This is one of the situations we have here today. The concept of helium is a potential problem if we don't change the law that regulates it. It will affect people in the manufacturing sector and in the health care sector. It will hurt real people. What we should celebrate is the fact that today Republicans and Democrats have come together and done what the people have requested and found a problem and suggested a good, commonsense solution to a problem in a rational and reasonable way. That is what we have before us today, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 178 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the past two years, Tooele Army Depot, Utah, has been led by an outstanding officer whose record of achievement certainly deserves recognition. Colonel Christopher O. Mohan, USA, assumed command of Tooele Army Depot on July 19, 2011. From the moment he assumed command, Colonel Mohan's commitment to worker safety became apparent. He implemented solid safety policies and procedures and, as a result, in 2012-2013, the depot achieved more than 350 consecutive days without a loss-time injury. This was the best record in Joint Munitions Command as well as Army Materiel Command, AMC. In 2013, the depot continues to prepare for the Voluntary Protection Program, VPP, Star Status. In 2013, the Army implemented the Logistics Modernization Program, LMP. Under Colonel Mohan's guidance, the installation continued to succeed with implementation of LMP, which modernizes the systems and processes associated with managing the Army's supply chain at the national and installation levels. LMP also permits the planning, forecasting, and rapid order fulfillment leading to streamlined supply lines, improved distribution, a reduced theater footprint, and a warfighter who is equipped and ready to respond to present and future threats. Colonel Mohan's leadership led the depot to excel in continuous improvement efforts. In 2011-2012, significant savings were realized through this concerted depot wide effort, with a LLS ($916K) and Value Engineering ($1.2) combined total savings and cost avoidance that exceeds $2.1 million. Considering the depot's $64 million annual budget, a savings of over $2 million is a major accomplishment for a small installation with approximately 473 personnel. The realization of these savings was a result to successful partnering with all directorates on the base, and assisting them with their goals and simplifying the process. This year he continued a focus on furthering simple LEAN techniques such as taking ``5S'' techniques throughout all of Tooele's shops. He also continued to promote Visual Management Boards, which serve as directorate and lower scoreboards. Tooele Army Depot exceeded the Value Engineering goal last year by 16 percent, and continued that trend this year, exceeding the goal by 23 percent with actual savings of $1.2 million which is even more remarkable taking place during a difficult time of defense budget cuts and limited dollars for projects and infrastructure. Colonel Mohan's guidance was instrumental in continuing to utilize simplified acquisition procedures that maximize the use of standard commercial items and services procured using combined solicitation and synopsis. Tooele Army Depot has promoted the use of the Government Purchase Card to the maximum extent practicable. Usage for FY12 was 11,003 purchase card transactions and Tooele's percentage of purchase card orders placed was 99 percent, exceeding the Army goal of 90 percent. In 2012, Tooele Army Depot shipped approximately 34,892 tons of conventional ammunition and received 36,328 tons of conventional ammunition. Colonel Mohan supported the Ammunition community in demilitarizing 3460 tons of outdated ammunition. During Colonel Mohan's command, the Garrison Office exceeded the Joint Munitions Command, JMC, Commanding General's goal of reducing energy consumption by 10 percent with a total energy consumption reduction of 15 percent. In addition, Tooele has reduced energy consumption 96.68 percent from its Army Energy and Water Reporting System, AEWRS, 2003 base year. Tooele's wind turbine produced approximately 2.051 MW of power during 2012. Colonel Mohan contributed to the organization and planning of the 1.5MW Stirling solar electrical generation project. A groundbreaking for this planned and funded alternative energy project occurred in August 2012, and will lead to the eventual installation of 430 power dishes over 30 acres of depot property. In recognition of the importance of this project, Colonel Mohan was privileged to host a visit by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, as well as top Army officials and State and Local government officials, to this groundbreaking event. Colonel Mohan's guidance and leadership led the depot to excel in financial management. During 2012, the planned revenue was $60 million, but actually received $74.5 million. Planned direct labor hours were 441K and actual labor hours used as 464.7K. 2012 was the third consecutive year that Tooele Army depot execution rate was reduced. Colonel Mohan's command of Tooele Army Depot will conclude on July 10, 2013, as he will assume another assignment of leadership within the Army Materiel Command. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join with all of the Utah Congressional Delegation in thanking Colonel Christopher Mohan for his distinguished service to Tooele Army Depot, to the State of Utah, to the United States Army, and to the Nation. He leaves behind an admirable record of dedicated leadership that is to be commended, and we wish him and his family the best in their new endeavors.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me state a couple of things. Number one, this is a good rule. Therefore, you should vote for this rule. It is a fair and open rule--a fair and modified open rule. More importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a very good bill. This bill encourages energy production. We may think of these as small energy projects, but I am told that all these small projects already being held up in Colorado would create the amount of energy that comes from a large project like the Glen Canyon Dam. It's a large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing. Number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. It is not that we are doing away with environmental protection or a review for environmental protection. That environmental protection review has already been done. It is that we're simply saying for these small projects you don't need to do the same thing a second time and incur the cost, which is an amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along with it. If we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy goal, you have to have energy to do it. This bill produces the energy which will be used to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we really want. That is why it is a bipartisan bill, and I expect a bipartisan vote on this particular bill. It's a good bill, and we should pass it today. This is a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am prepared to close when you are.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me take a moment just to give my impression of this particular bill, and then I'll be ready to close at that time. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which had a bipartisan vote in this body last time and a bipartisan vote in the committee, sent to the Senate, where an errant Senator was able to hold the process up. Fortunately, in this session, there is a new chairman of that committee in the Senate from the West who clearly understands the value and significance of hydroelectric power. So I think that everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle can agree that our Nation is in great need of more energy. If we want to create real jobs, private sector jobs, there has to be a strong energy component to our ability to do that. Our Nation has tremendous amounts of energy that are locked away domestically in the forms of oil and gas and low sulphur and high-BTU coal reserves; but too often special interest groups and layers of bureaucracy have kept us from becoming more energy self-sufficient with these areas. And we're now seeing and feeling the results every time somebody tries to pay an electric bill. This administration seems to be dragging its feet on energy development of everything from the Keystone Pipeline to the development of public lands. But there is also another source of energy that is presently being unused and can be put to good use without negatively impacting the environment. The energy resource is what we're addressing here in this particular bill. This bill deals with electricity that can be generated from hydro, a renewable energy resource that is very clean and helpful to the environment. Numerous witnesses testified this year and last year that there is an uncertainty on the NEPA costs, which throw these projects into limbo and often render projects financially unfeasible and stifle private investment far beyond what has been able to be done. Thus, this is stifling what could be done to produce self-sufficiency in energy production. One witness from Arizona simply testified in 2011 that it would cost them $20,000 to install this generator that would create energy in a Federal canal. Yet the NEPA analysis would cost them $50,000 to check the boxes and do that simple paperwork, as we have heard about. The environmental paperwork in this case is almost three times the cost of the capital that you would put into the project. And it all is redundant since the NEPA analysis was done in the first place for the entire canal. This is a second project put in the same canal that has already gone through this process. It's a manmade canal. Witnesses have testified this year that despite the Bureau of Reclamation's claim of its categorical exclusions and having a policy in place, not one project has utilized this project because of a potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions. As a result, there is no new development that has occurred, and the gentleman from Colorado's amendment will improve this particular situation. So, once again, let this be done. This is not denying a NEPA review. NEPA has already been done on every one of these projects. This is saying you don't need to do the same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's red tape, bungling by administrations that need not be there. The choice is very simple in this particular bill: Either you can give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in which case it invites litigation because of the uncertainty of an administrative policy, and also invites conflict within different administrative agencies. Or we can do what we're supposed to do and actually pass legislation to solve problems. The gentleman from Colorado's approach is simply allowing the legislature to make the decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies how they will proceed into the future. We can either have the legislature stand up and do our job and do it the right way or we can pass it all off and let the executive branch come up with regulations now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of litigation. This is an easy thing to do. This bill actually should be a no- brainer. It will increase the energy production we have in the country, it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water resources in the West, it will also give a needed boost of revenues to the canal companies, and it will create ultimately more jobs, especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production. This bill is reasonable, and it's understandable why it passed with a bipartisan vote last time. I hope it passes with a bipartisan vote again, and I hope we can recognize that this will move us forward. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time unless the gentlelady has other speeches that she has requests for.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this piece of legislation, to explain why it is so necessary that we do this, even though on paper it seems like this problem is solved.

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