Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This particular resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, which contains 14 titles containing important legislation impacting our Nation's public lands and our national parks. The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the vast majority of amendments which were filed at the Rules Committee. So this structured rule is extremely fair and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this particular bill. It was only a couple of Congresses ago, Madam Speaker, in which the Senate sent over an omnibus bill. It had over 100 particular bills added to it. I should have been happy. Three of them were mine. And even though mine were really great bills, some of the rest of them were really bad. That was 1,200 pages. But what was most egregious about that bill that was sent from the Senate is that 75 of those 100 bills had not had any hearing whatsoever in the House. One in particular that dealt with my State, although not my district, not only had not had a hearing in the House, it hadn't even had a hearing in the Senate when it was put into this pile, and it was brought to the floor under a closed rule. This bill, every single title has gone through regular order. The committee of jurisdiction has had a hearing on each of these elements. They have had a debate in full committee on each of these sections, and they have had a markup on every one of these bills. The committee has heard and has done the work. The amendments that were germane to the issue and were not assigned to other committees were made in order to be heard on the floor. So once again, this is a bill that is unique in the spectrum of traditional omnibus bills, tying things together, because it did go through regular order, the committee did hear each of these provisions, and it is appropriate to now send it over to the Senate so they can try to consider something at some time in some form of regular order. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 688 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), with also a congratulations and a welcome back to the gentlelady from New York, who has been incapacitated for a while. It is nice to see her back on the floor with her health starting to recover. Pending that, 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. I appreciate the efforts of my namesake from New York. I appreciate what he is doing. Chairman Hastings of the Resources Committee was extremely specific in which he said that after the Democrat Senate had sent over that atrocious omnibus bill with over 100 bills cobbled together, 75 of which have never had a hearing over here, we would only put together this type of regulation if it had gone through regular order. Unfortunately, the gentleman's bill has not had a hearing in any committee. It has not actually been reported yet, which is one of the reasons why it has not been included in this particular list. Although I'm not denigrating his efforts whatsoever. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In my last minute, Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like to say. First of all, I appreciate the words that were read. Unfortunately, reality is different. One of the reasons why this particular provision is supported by the Border Patrol Union as well as the Association of Retired Border Patrol Agents, reality is sometimes different than what we think it should be. And I also have a list of three pages worth of groups who support not only this provision but the other 13 provisions. I must in closing, though, bid the apology of the gentlelady of New York for one thing. One of the former Parliamentarians wrote a book and said when we put C SPAN cameras in here, everyone started to read their speeches, and our debates became extremely dull. That's true. But when you read something, you don't make a misstatement. I did. I did a couple. My amendment does not reduce it from 36 down to 12; it reduces it from 36 to 16. I also used the ``disingenuine'' in talking about the gentlelady's remarks. That was the wrong word. That was, indeed, the word I said, but it is not what I meant to say, and I apologize for saying that. That goes over the line of comity and I'm sorry, and I just want you to know that I apologize for ``oopsing.'' That should only be done by Governors, not by Members of Congress. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, each of these bills in here has been heard by the committee of jurisdiction. It's had a hearing. It's had a markup. The difference between this and other bills that we have seen in the past is that everything had to go through regular order first. Nothing was included in this rule that had not gone through regular order through this particular committee. It's a good bill. It's a good rule. It's a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I hope I will not take the 5 minutes of this time. With all due respect for my good friend from Arizona, for whom I have a great deal of admiration, I would emphasize again that the title of this section is National Security and Federal Lands Protection. It does not extend to any other property except those that belong to the Federal Government on our borders. It has a 5-year limitation on it. There is a sunset provision so it can be reviewed. But more importantly, the elements that are in this particular title are there for a reason, there is precedent for them. One hundred miles is what the legal definition of border land actually is. The 36 laws--I'm ready to go back to those. The 36 laws were the laws that were presented by the Department of Homeland Security as those potential laws that could cause them damage, and this Congress agreed to that precedent. Congress established that they could be waived for that specific purpose. I want to once again tell you what Secretary Napolitano said about this particular issue of border security when she first came into office: The removal of cross-border violators from public lands is a value to the environment. You want to protect the environment, get the drug cartels and the human traffickers off of that particular area. It is the removal of those violators from public lands that is a value to the environment, as well as to the mission of the land managers, which is once again the 48 groups that talk about and support this. They come from conservation groups, they come from agriculture groups, but more importantly, they come from the Border Patrol agents themselves. Those are the ones who have come forth and testified that they need special ability of having access to this land if we're going to control the border, which is what a sovereign country does. Mr. Chairman, this is the word of what their responsibilities are. This is what we have told the Border Patrol they have to do: Prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders of the United States. That's in this title. That's their job. That's what the Border Patrol has requested to do. All we need to do is give them the tools they need to be able to accomplish that, tools on Federal land that will mirror the tools they have on private and State lands. Let them do their job. They need access to this area to patrol it and to apprehend the bad guys. Give them that opportunity. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, there are basically four elements that are involved in the amendment that I am proposing. The first one is to narrow the list of laws that can be waived by the Border Patrol on these areas to maintain operational control of the land. Presently, it lists 36 bills that could be waived. Now I want you to know that that number was not irrational. It was not picked out of the air. Thirty-six bills have precedence of what this House has already done. When the government was trying to finish the fence in California, there were litigations and environmental laws that were prohibiting them from doing that, so the Department of Homeland Security recommended the 36 laws that they thought did or could impede the building of that particular wall along our border. Congress agreed with them and, for the purpose of concluding that wall, we allowed them to waive those 36 rules, regulations, or laws. Those are the same 36 in this bill. It's nothing additional to it. Well, I take that back. Democrats add one bill in committee that was not part of the original list, and that was fine as well. What we are now trying to do is admit that about 20 of those really are not going to be a problem, but 16 still could be. So it limits it from 36 to 16, as those that can be waived for the purpose of allowing Border Patrol and Homeland Security to do the job for which they are paid to do. The second thing, it specifically prohibits any additional access to private property. It eliminates the possibility of Border Patrol reducing public access to any Federal lands, and that includes for purposes of hunting or fishing or off-road vehicles. It adds a provision to ensure that we are to protect tribal sovereignty, that nothing in this bill may supersede, replace, negate, or diminish treaty obligations or agreements with Indian tribes. Existing practices and negotiation cooperation between the Border Patrol and the tribes will continue. It also clarifies what is the purpose of operation control, which is to prevent all unlawful entry into the United States, including entry by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband through the international land borders of the United States. There are three reasons why this amendment, indeed, the underlying bill is important. Number 1, a sovereign country controls its own borders. We are not doing that here. We need to. Number 2, we will never solve our overall immigration issue until we can guarantee that we can, in some way, lower the anger and the rage and the anxiety that is out there. If indeed we can look at our fellow citizens and, with a straight face, say we have control of the border, all of a sudden the ability of solving other problems, some of which are easy and some of which are complex, the ability to do that increases. And third, and most importantly, the violence against women--the women who are raped along these trails, whose garments are left on these trees as a trophy to the coyote who raped these women, these woman who have absolutely no other source to go, they have no one to complain to, they have no one to ask for protection. This must stop. The Border Patrol can't stop this practice. Right now, what we're doing is simply putting up signs saying areas are off limits to Americans, but that does not stop this practice. And unless we can give the Border Patrol access to this territory so they can stop this practice, we're not doing anything about it. We are not solving this particular issue. I'll add one more time. We have talked about the ``drone zone'' in here, which is something, once again, it's cute and inaccurate. This amendment has nothing do with the ``drone zone.'' It does not authorize, nor does it stop drones. It doesn't authorize black helicopters or stop them, or red-headed stepchildren, or illegal Druids coming to this country as well. But what it does do is allow our professional Border Patrol to have the same rights of access to Federal land that they have on private property and State land. And it says that we will control our border, we will solve our immigration problem, and we will stop the rape trees. We will stop this heinous practice from going forward, and we will do it positively. That's the purpose of this amendment to this title of the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Yes, Hawaii was taken out in committee. It is not put in with the amendment that was just passed.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me just say once again, I appreciate the arguments that are given. When I have been on the border and have been able to talk to the people who work on the border about what they need to protect the border, once again they're telling us that they need the access. The ability to waive these law, these rules, these regulations is what we have done in the past. Congress already did it once before. There is precedent. This is not something that is new, but this is what is definitely needed. This is the right thing to do. I urge you to reject this particular amendment. And in all fairness, Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona so he has a chance to close on his particular amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the Border Patrol does a great job when they are allowed to do a great job. Unfortunately, one of the ironies we have is there are certain areas of access into this country by those who are illegal that seem to be an area of choice, especially of the drug cartels and the human traffickers. There is also an unusual correlation between these areas of access and Federal property which has been designated as wilderness area or endangered species habitat. In fact, in the last year's figures that I have, over half of the illegal entries into this country went through one sector in Arizona. Only a portion of the State of Arizona is 80 percent federally controlled, much of that in wilderness area and endangered species habitat. Ironically, the Border Patrol is restricted in these areas from the way they can enforce their purpose of patrolling the border. I find that one of the things that's very strange is the Border Patrol, on private property, has almost unlimited ability to do their job in enforcing border security. It's only on Federal property that the Federal Border Patrol is restricted on how it fulfills its Federal purpose. Fortunately, the drug cartels and the human trafficking, they don't necessarily care about that restriction. They, for some reason, don't necessarily respect the environmental laws that we have, and the destruction to our environment is caused by them. The trampling of those sensitive areas, pictures of endangered cacti that have been cut down and used by the drug cartels as blockades on the roads, the amount of trash that is left behind is not only destroying the environment, but also an amazingly expensive effort to try and clean it up. I have often flippantly said that the drug cartel would rather eat an endangered species than protect it. Nonetheless, the Border Patrol is required to pay for environmental mitigation damages. Since 2007, the Department of Homeland Security has used the money we think we are appropriating to Homeland Security, to the amount of $7 million, to go to the Department of the Interior for this proposed mitigation of environmental damages. Let me give you a couple of examples of what this has bought us in the past. At the Arizona border they had to reposition their surveillance towers, which, of course, did lead to some security gaps in those areas, but it also caused a problem with the lesser long-nosed bat, which has the nasty habit in evenings of flying into the towers. So one of the mitigations that was insisted upon by the Department of the Interior is that the Border Patrol had to pay for a bat patrol, costing thousands of dollars, to monitor and track a bat who may, indeed, sometimes fly into a tower. On the Sonoran pronghorn sheep, over $5 million has been paid in the last decade for the Border Patrol to create another Sonoran pronghorn herd, and to make sure that they have people there to monitor, feed, and avoid the pronghorn. And if they ever come across it, they have to stand really, really still. Even though this provision has been revoked in recent years, at times some of this money was used by the Department of the Interior to buy land that had nothing to do with border security whatsoever. My amendment, therefore, takes what is in this proposal, $3 million that has been earmarked for environmental mitigation, and moves it to a more legitimate and deserving use of that activity by taking it to the Air and Marine Interdiction Account to provide money for the Border Patrol to recapitalize their aging fleet. Almost half of all the airplanes that the Border Patrol has are 33 years or older. This has impeded their operational readiness. These obsolete planes that they have make it unable for them to assist in properly securing the border. GAO, in its report, said in 2010 only 73 percent of the over 38,000 requests for air support could be granted simply because the fleet was aging at that particular time. What it's simply trying to do here is a very simple concept. The better the Border Patrol is at controlling the border, the better the environment will be on the border. It's not the Border Patrol that causes environmental havoc; it is the drugs cartels and the human traffickers coming across. To take this money, which would go to mitigation, and put it where it is desperately needed, to try and help the infrastructure so the Border Patrol can better do their job, simply means we'll actually have a better environment by doing it. It's the right thing to do. It would be an appropriate and intelligent thing for us to put the money where it would do the most good, in giving the Border Patrol the infrastructure they need to do their jobs along our borders, both in the North and in the South. I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4849) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue commercial use authorizations to commercial stock operators for operations in designated wilderness within the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, May 25, 2012; when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2012; and when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2012.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I said others were coming down here. I do not know whether that happens, so when the gentleman from Massachusetts is ready to close, I will be ready to close at whatever time that is.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of coming down here and presenting the particular rule on the amendments. I take a little bit of umbrage with the idea that the amendment process that we are authorizing in this rule is not necessarily fair. I would remind people that it took 3 years under the prior Speaker before they authorized as many amendments as we are authorizing just this year alone in this particular bill. It's 141 amendments covering a vast variety of issues. Sometimes I get the impression from some of the comments that were made that we're not going to be talking about Afghanistan; that's sorely wrong. There is an amendment made in order about that issue. It's given twice the amount of time on that issue as any other issue that's before us here. It is there. The debate will take place. The debate will happen. It may not be the actual verbiage or the pride of authorship that some wished, but it will be there. Indeed, in this hour of discussion, we've talked about that as well, as was done in the Rules Committee, as was done in the base committee. There is a section, page 544, which does talk about the President's proposal in Afghanistan. One of the things we have to remember is why we're doing this bill at all. This is one of those significant issues. We talk about a lot of stuff on the floor of the House, and we introduce a lot of bills on the floor of the House which have very little to do with our core constitutional responsibilities. This is not one of those. During the Articles of Confederation time, the United States was in a situation where we had fewer than 800 men in our military capacity. We had no Navy to protect our shipping. Since we had not paid off the Tory debt, we were in breach of the peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. Therefore, British troops were on American soil. There were British forts on American soil. There was a military force on our northern border which was threatening us, and the British were plying with impunity weapons to Native Americans who were opposed to the Government of the United States. What the United States could do about it was absolutely nothing. We couldn't do squat. Therefore, when the Constitution was actually debated, I don't think it is any insignificant issue that over half of the issues and powers granted to Congress in section 8 dealt with the defense of this country. Indeed, the Constitution was in major part about how we defend this country. This issue before us today, this bill, is on how we shape the military of the future and the military of the present, how we defend this country. I would remind people that before World War II started, we had made a decision in this country we didn't need fighter jets any more and so we cut production of them. And when the war started, we were unprepared. Our fighter bombers suffered enormous casualties in those first runs in Europe. In fact, we suspended our bombing runs until we could produce the fighters to accompany those bombers that were necessary to protect our young men and women who were fighting in World War II. We don't have the luxury of being unprepared in the future, and that is the core of this bill. This bill is about talking about the infrastructure that we have for our military so we are prepared for whatever the future may bring. The base of this bill restores approximately $4 billion in authorization of necessary Department funding that was recommended by the President for deletion. Sometime ago, Secretary Panetta went on the record publicly saying the possibility of sequestration would hollow out and have catastrophic impacts on the Department of Defense; it must be avoided. We agree. This bill attempts to do that. Unfortunately, the Secretary pointed the finger at Congress saying that we were to blame for this situation. In all due respect, the Secretary was half right. We share in the situation. And we share the need for a cooperative administration--and very particularly, a cooperative President and Commander in Chief--to fix the immediate threat to our national security that could come back by sequestration. We don't need threats of vetoes and any attempt to roll back the sequestration cuts to the Department of Defense. This is an alarming situation. Many of us in Congress would encourage Secretary Panetta to communicate the urgency of this need to his boss, the President, and try to persuade him not to oppose what we are attempting to do in this particular piece of legislation. We have some military construction replacement projects that were needed yesterday and are being deferred year after year--pushed so far into the future as to render them meaningless. We can no longer make those kinds of mistakes as we did prior to World War II. Our ICBM fleet will be aging out in the next 12 to 15 years; and as of yet we do not have an adequate replacement policy, nor have we provided the research and development funding needed to a follow-up replacement system. Instead, we are urging what will amount to unilateral nuclear reductions on our part, while China, Russia, India, and others are developing and fielding new and modernized ICBM nuclear systems for their countries as well. Those are the situations which we need to face. That is what is significant. That's what this bill addresses. This bill addresses the funding and infrastructure needs of our military, and we should never lose sight of that core reason for this bill. And amendments--all 141 of them--either have to add to that concept of making the infrastructure viable, or we're talking about tangents. This is not the avenue for those particular places to be. In short--I wasn't short, but in long, then, Madam Speaker, that's the purpose of the National Defense Authorization Act. That's what the base bill does. That's what the bulk of the 140 amendments we have authorized do. We need to proceed without getting lost in the purpose and the intent of this particular process and why it is so important. It is our core constitutional responsibility, and we need to take it seriously. All the other issues that were talked about will be addressed. The issue of our policy in Afghanistan--which has multiple opportunities to be addressed--will be addressed on the floor. There will be an amendment made in order. There will be twice the amount of time in debate on that as any of the other significant issues of how we shape our military forces. The reason it is so significant is because we're not talking about what the military will be in the month of August of this year. The decisions we make on the infrastructure of the military today influence what our military will be in 15 to 20 years. It also influences what diplomatic capacities and opportunities we may have 15 or 20 years from now. That's why it is so significant. We cannot lose track of what is the purpose of this bill, and any amendment that distracts us from that is not productive in what we are trying to do. I'll say this one more time: this is a fair rule. We have made 140 of the 240 amendments that were proposed in order. It covers a great variety of issues, issues that perhaps should have been covered in the committee as well, but they will be covered again here on the floor, including what we are doing as a policy in Afghanistan. I urge adoption of this particular rule because it is a fair rule, one that makes more amendments than we did in years--and in years past when the other side was in charge of this. It's a good bill. It's a fair rule. I urge its adoption.

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.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I urge the gentleman to read page 544 in the base bill to answer his question. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).