Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, one of the things that the other side has been talking about is how we need a vision and need to plan for the future, which is true. The only problem is that the stuff we have before us isn't it. This is a collection of minor programs that already exist and changing them in ways that sometimes make no difference but sometimes have some negative counterpoints. There is one bill that was just talked about here that if there is a default on that bill, all of the sudden now, the Federal Government is on the hook to pay for that. It was never that way before. Those are minor changes that if we were handling these bills separately, if they were actually being done in an appropriate way, we could talk about those minor changes in there. But once you put them all together in a package with a couple of really good things to lead the way, everything kind of falls in place. Let me give you another example. One of the issues that comes in the folderol of bills that are underneath this is the Sea Grant Fellowship Program, which is currently discretionary. This bill would make it mandatory. Sounds kind of nice. The program places fellows in the executive branch. We have no problem with that whatsoever, but what this bill would do, one of the things in the weeds of this concoction of bills that has been cobbled together, is it would use taxpayer dollars to supply free staff for Members of Congress. That concept is just plain wrong. The underlying program is not bad. Reauthorizing is not bad. That one change in there is wrong. If we were doing these bill-by-bill, talking about them one-by-one instead of trying to add them all together in a big package of nothing, if we were dealing with that, we could be talking about those specific issues and making those kinds of decisions. That is the way legislation ought to be done. This is not the way legislation ought to be done. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. What the gentleman from Louisiana was saying is exactly right. Actually, he had an amendment that could have helped with that problem that was not made in order by our crack Rules Committee. I am sure if he would promise to shave next time he speaks, they probably would make it in order the next time we have this bill. Not only are there a lot of bills that are basically meaningless because the authority is already there, there are a few situations simply when the new additions to it do not make sense. One of the speakers in here was talking about one of the coastal zone management amendments to add Washington, D.C., to the coastal zone management plan, which would be good except that, first of all, Washington, D.C., is not a State, and, secondly, it is not even a coastal State. It would actually make more sense to have my hometown, because at least we are on the Great Salt Lake and have brackish water that could be included in part of this thing. It also would make a problem of simply reducing the total amount of funds that go to the 35 States that actually have their programs already here. It is not a problem for Utah. We are not part of it. But those States that have coasts, they will have their programs reduced because of this. More importantly, it provides jurisdictional problems in how the city of Washington, D.C., would interface with the Federal Government. Now, those are not insurmountable problems, but they should have been worked out, and they could have been worked out if you are actually dealing with these things in a logical, sequential way instead of lumping them all together into some kind of overall program that actually doesn't necessarily meet the guidelines of what we are trying to accomplish. But, as I said, there are three of these bills that are in here that could easily have gone in suspension. We would have done it. There is another bill in here that, had one amendment been made, it would have easily solved the problem, and it should have been done. But for the bulk of these bills--minor changes in here, but the bulk of these bills can actually be done under current statutory authority. As we had testimony from NOAA, on one of the bills, they simply said the agency already provides financial and technical assistance through existing programs. There was no reason to add that particular bill to this list. Another one that was on this list that tries to do the CZMA, under their authority, States have discretion to use funding for many of the purposes of the working waterfronts grant program that were proposed by this particular bill. They can do it now. There is no additional authority that is needed. Then, another one of the bills that is part of this falderal of legislation under one umbrella said that the coastal States already have discretion to use funding to develop and implement adoption plans, and they gave a specific example of how one of the States that does use that, NOAA gave the example of how that flexibility already exists. But we are saying over and over again, one of the problems we have with this is that you have taken one really decent bill by Mr. Kilmer, a couple of others that should have easily been in suspensions, and have used them as a hostage to add up a whole bunch of other stuff to it. Then, if you look at some of the amendments that were made in order, obviously, when you take other bills that have not had hearings, they haven't gone through the process, we are going to try and now add them on to this, well, why would anyone want to do that, except we are giving the illusion of getting something done. And this is the only game in town that is going through, so why not try and put as many bills as you can? That way, somebody could stand up and say, ``Look, we just passed 16 bills. Wouldn't it be nice if the Senate picked them up?'' Well, that is not the way we are doing it. We are adding 16 bills. Most of them have no Senate counterpart. Most of them will never be done in the Senate. If the Senate actually deals with this issue at all, they are going to separate it and divide it up and do it piecemeal, which is the way we should have done it in the first particular place. If this package of bills is really a philosophy, a vision of the future of what we are going to do to make either the air better or the climate safer or water more drinkable, it doesn't happen in this bill. These things are simply a retread of ideas that, in reality, the authority they are trying to develop is actually already in existence. They are doing it. Except that every once in awhile, in one of these bills, you will add a little tweak here or a little tweak there that basically is something that is wrong, that it should not be doing: Creating a program to provide interns for our offices without having it come out of our own budgets, that is not a great idea, but it is in here; Creating new areas for something that is not a State, that is not even a coastal State, so they can get part of that money, that is not a great idea, but it is part of it that is in here. Those are the things that, if we did things per regular order, if we actually tried to be logical about taking a bill and discussing it and then coming up with a solution to some of the problems, we could easily do that in a bipartisan way. But we don't do that. Instead, we just lump everything together in one package in an effort to say, ``Look, we are being productive.'' But we are not solving a problem. We are not doing anything that is moving the ball forward. All we are doing is checking a box, saying, yes, we were here on this particular day, and giving the illusion of some kind of activity. What we really need is activity. What we really need is to get on with things that are of significance that should have been done well before now, like the NDAA and the trade treaty and our budget and the backlog maintenance bill. All of those things should be done, but they are not being scheduled. And still we are coming up with a series of bills that don't make the case; they are not ready for prime time. This is a package that we will send over to the Senate, if indeed it is passed in here, and it will be ignored or it will be stripped apart; and we will be asking the Senate to do what we should have done in the first place: taking these things in a logical, sequential way, trying to solve some of the major problems that are there. And reauthorizing something that is already in existence doesn't need to actually be something we spend our time doing that particular thing. So, actually, in the spirit of Christmas, you'll be sorry if you are actually going to vote for this. Only if you spell ``you'll,'' Y-U-L-E, and then it can be a pun. Is the gentleman satisfied? Madam Chair, this is fun. This is not a solution. This is not a vision. This is not anything that really moves us forward. This is something that should have and could have been done in a much, much better way. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I first want to thank the Democrats for at least not wasting our time by debating all of these amendments individually. But, once again, within the pockets you will find some good things and some not so good things that are part of what is going on here. For example, there will be within that list some blanket waivers for Federal cost-sharing requirements. It is not a good idea to do it. There are some stand-alone bills that are in there that have no regular order consideration in this House. It is also not a good process to go through. But if we are going to throw regular order out the window and address 20 amendments all at once that don't really have that significant of a change or an impact, at least we are doing this in the most efficient and effective way that we possibly could. It is not necessarily making a bill, it is not really going anywhere better, but at least we are getting stuff done so we can say we have the illusion of activity on the floor. Madam Chair, I urge rejection of the en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I appreciate especially the ability of putting all these amendments into en bloc to help move this process along. I am just looking at some of the issues that have been brought up already, and I am looking at the list of the Federal grants and the agencies that are already spending their money on these approaches. If the issue is, obviously, you want more money spent on those programs, that is not an authorization that we are doing here. That is an appropriations issue. Go to the Appropriations Committee and talk about how that fits into the overall budget. This does not necessarily move us forward, but at least we are not spending as much time as we would if we addressed each of these individually. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I actually don't have great pleasure in doing that because Mr. Brown is a vital member of our committee, does a great job, and defends his State brilliantly. I appreciate him doing that. But, once again, the process we are doing is adding another new taxpayer program that already has existing programs in effect, and is actually a stand-alone bill that has not received a hearing, a markup, or a CBO score, and adding that to this, because this is, once again, the only train in town and we are not taking time to do these things individually as we ought to. But when it comes to oyster research, which is extremely important, I recognize fully, as you see by the chart the total numbers in each of these years, starting in fiscal year 2014, are how much had been given to this particular program. In 2018, it was $617 million in funds from all of the different government agencies that actually participate. That includes Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and EPA for watershed restoration. NOAA does have a Chesapeake Bay office. They provide research. They provide grants to both Maryland and Virginia. Last year, they also provided a grant to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to add these programs in there. What we are trying to say here is, it is already being done. Now, if this is a problem of not enough money going into there, as some of the other speakers have said, well, that is not an issue of authorization. The authorization authority exists. That is a question of how much we are actually appropriating, which is an entirely different issue, which you should go to the Appropriations Committee to see if you actually want that number higher. But, actually, the Federal Government does do this, and they are increasing with it. There is not a problem that needs authorization. If you need more money, that is an appropriations issue. This, unfortunately, is not about appropriations. This is about authorization. So I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland. I appreciate his interest. I appreciate this issue. But it is already being done by other agencies. There is no need for another entity to enter into this particular market. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is, once again, where we have the same situation that the issue and the problem of which the gentleman from Florida speaks is real and it is there. The concept is it is already also being addressed. These are the kinds of programs that already exist to do exactly what the gentleman wishes to do. Nonetheless, this amendment would authorize a duplicative program that would cost $114 million if it were actually implemented. But just because we pass the amendment doesn't mean the money is there to implement the program. So much of the opposition and so many of the complaints that we have been hearing are that there is not enough money appropriated to do it. The $114 million doesn't exist until there is an appropriation to actually go about that concept. Here is where the problem lies for all of these amendments that we are going to be hearing for this entire process. The bill is the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act, passed in 1998, which already provides the legal authority and the funding level--not necessarily the appropriation but the legal, authorized funding level--for algae bloom prevention and control. In addition--in addition to these activities--and they are being conducted by NOAA, USGS, NASA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and EPA--it is the concept we have been saying all along, this entire concept of this package that we are bringing in here is stuff that is trying to highlight another issue and another problem which may be, in this case, a legitimate issue and problem, but fails to realize it is already covered. Mr. Chairman, you don't need a duplicative program to do what we are already doing. If you want more money for it, that is another issue, and that doesn't take place in these authorizations. That takes place in appropriations. But we are already doing it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although, in all fairness, I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this adds a finding to it. It doesn't have any cost. This is not a duplicative program because it is a finding, so I support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, again, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, we, once again, are in the same situation. This is not a bad idea, and it is not a bad concept. In fact, it is such a good concept, we are already doing it. So, if I quote NOAA in their testimony in our committee, the agency currently provides financial and technical assistance to coastal communities for the use of living shorelines through existing programs. The program already has $300 million that is going in there, and it is going through those areas, including the Interior, NOAA, Fish and Wildlife, EPA, Science Foundation, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Agriculture. All of those are providing funds for this very thing, which means it is happening. You don't need to add this language to have it happen, Mr. Chairman, because it already is happening. By adding the language, I guess, well, you get to add another line in the code, and you can say you passed something. But the bottom line is it still is an unnecessary amendment to an unnecessary bill because the authority and the authorization is already there. The only thing that might not be there is, once again, you don't think it is spending enough money, in which case that is an appropriations issue, not an authorization issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would actually ask to claim the time in opposition, though, once again, I am not really opposed to this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those elements which, once again, the gentlewoman raises an issue that I think is right, it is good, and it is appropriate; and the idea that we should make sure these considerations take effect is an appropriate thing. The concept, once again, but the problem is there is nothing that prohibits that from being done, and, indeed, it is being done even as we speak, but you want to reemphasize it. Once again, we should be taking military consideration into everything we are doing, not just this particular amendment. But it is the right concept there. It is why I am not really opposed to this. It is the right thing to do. Actually, it is such a right thing to do, we should have been spending our time doing the NDAA, which is much more successful and much more important to the military. That should have been passed months ago. That is how important this particular topic is. I am not really opposed to it. It is, once again, redundant, and we are already doing that. There is nothing that stops us from doing that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, let's just say this: In concept once again, regardless of how one votes on this amendment, the issue is still significant. The issue is still being covered. The issue is already being done. There is a redundancy in some elements to it, but it is a redundancy for a good cause. Mr. Chair, I am not going to vote against it, but, once again, we are doing it. We are doing it already, that is what we are doing with the entire package that we are debating. We are doing it already. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it is wonderful to be back down here on the floor again with all of you. I thank Mr. Grijalva for that. I would have been here earlier had the gentleman not scheduled a hearing on our committee at the same time as we are supposed to have all our committee bills here on the floor. But we hit both of those at any rate. We have three bills on the floor here today--I'm really sorry I missed the first one--three bills that are so bad they make the umpire last night actually look good. This particular one has one of those problems that still exists. If the State of New Mexico or New Mexico's leaders want to give away the $1.17 billion they just got a check from last time from this development, that is okay with me. Actually, it probably means that more money is going to come to my State eventually from that pot. But it is not okay to forget that those people who really understand what they are talking about, those who live closely in the area, really need to have their voices heard, specifically. I have to equate, once again, as has been brought up already, but I want to reemphasize, the two chapters in closest proximity that really have an impact on here both voted against this bill. They both sent resolutions against this bill. Those who actually have seen what it is like to deal with the Federal Government on that personal basis have sent resolutions against this bill. This bill has the potential of disrupting 20,000 Native Americans-- almost all Navajo--who are allottees in this particular area. Even though some will contend that the Federal Government has said they will not be a problem, if we look at the history of dealing with the Federal Government, then, obviously, the concerns that the private sector has and those citizens who live in this area have for this bill are pretty obvious. There is historical precedence on when that should take place, and until there is some kind of verification of that, then we ought to be very careful in which way we decide to go in this particular order. Let me also say one other thing here, because this is a frustration I have with the entire process. As we know, bad procedure creates bad policy. But the bill that we have just discussed dealt with a park that has a huge maintenance backlog. Even though changing the mining procedures around the park will have nothing to do with the water, it certainly doesn't solve the maintenance backlog. This bill will all deal with withdrawals from the Bureau of Land Management lands which, once again, have a huge maintenance backlog. So I am going to say, once again, to our friends on the other side, if you really want to talk about parklands in Arizona, BLM lands in New Mexico, and whatever those lands in Colorado are going to be, all on the same day, and we have that huge maintenance backlog, then for heaven's sakes, bring that bill onto the floor. I realize how controversial it may be. There are only 328 cosponsors of the bill. I am sure that probably would be able to go on suspension. But until we have actually addressed the maintenance backlog and not held that up as some kind of sad quid pro quo or sad element of trying to blackmail for something else or try to attach bad elements to it that will actually negate the impact of that bill, we are piddling around here. Bring that bill for the maintenance backlog to the floor. Let us have a vote. Let us move on to solve real problems instead of those that we are creating with these three bills that are going to be before us today. Are they terrible bills? Who knows? Will they result in better quality in other Western States that have public lands? Who knows? Are some of the Native Americans who live in that area very sceptical of it? Obviously. Is there a history of the inability of working these things out? Obviously. Should they have worked out the details with the BLM before we actually introduced land? Yes, obviously. But, once again, Mr. Chairman, we have three bills that make that play on first base look really good in comparison.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I, too, am actually in support of the amendment. I think it is an improvement on the bill, but it doesn't go far enough because it is still only amending the findings. If you really want teeth with it, you have to amend the statutes whatsoever. So for that, it is an improvement, but it still does not solve the base problem that even if you are taking away rights on Federal property and you have private rights that abut it, that has an impact on those private rights at the same time. Those are the types of things that need to be guaranteed because those are the people that could be losing tens of thousands of dollars because the action on the Federal land has an impact on the private land that abuts it at the same time. And that cannot be solved in a finding. However, the language that you put in here is a good effort to try and at least clarify what Congress hopes to be accomplishing. For that, I commend the gentleman for actually presenting this particular amendment. I am happy to be able to vote for it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on November 7, Utah will honor a soldier's soldier. For the past 7 years, the men and women of the Utah National Guard have been inspired by Major General Jefferson S. Burton. General Burton was chosen for his battle-tested grit and resolve. In 2003, this fourth-generation Utahn led the 14-57th Engineer Battalion into Iraq. Living under constant threat of IEDs and ambush, General Burton was even tasked with luring the hyenas, bears, and lions of the Baghdad Zoo back into their enclosures after the Iraqi Republican Guard released them into the streets. His troops tell me that General Burton is a leader who takes the time to teach and mentor others, helping them recognize their own potential. General Burton is highly educated. He is kind. He is deeply spiritual. But what he values most is his wife, Charn, whose support has allowed him to serve. General Burton often tells his soldiers: ``I am asking a lot, but we will accomplish the mission.'' After 37 years of service, we say to General Burton: Mission accomplished.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this place is based predominantly on precedent and procedure. To bypass this proven pathway is predictably painful. So I pause to put a plea to the powers that be: Our people deserve better. The propaganda pushed upon the people is a political ploy as perpetrators usurp the proven precedents of the past. It is painful to be placed in a position to protest the pranks pushed by Pelosi and her posse of players, but people have been pushed out and put on the sidelines as Democrats plow ahead with this so-called impeachment inquiry. The impact of this pandering is the peeling away of the people's trust placed upon us. As the past has played out, I have been perplexed by the pontifications of people in positions of power who puff themselves up in pretentious prominence when it is really petty partisanship. So I plead, as we push and pull for power, that we do so grounded in prudence that protects the proven procedures of the past.