Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for purposes 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 consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are a couple of different levels on which we need to respond. I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Connecticut, as well as the gentleman from North Carolina, on this issue. I have a great deal of empathy on this issue. There is the technical approach about which this rule deals, as well as the potential of how we can actually solve the problem, and those are two different concepts. I think you alluded to that fact. The first one, as to the specifics of this, and as I would then obviously claim the time in favor of the consideration of the resolution, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 661? And while the resolution waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute and the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, the committee is not aware of any points of order and the waivers are prophylactic in nature, which means Chairman McKeon has filed an earmark statement regarding his manager's amendment and the statement we will read at some time in the future. There is the ability, though, of obviously trying to find a solution to a problem that has developed, whether it is from miscommunication or not. From my position as managing this particular rule, I cannot commit to that. But I am aware, and I am sure that the committee is obviously recognizing the fact that we have multiple steps as we go forward. The Senate still has to produce a piece of work, and it has to go to a conference committee. At any of those steps along the way, there is the opportunity of trying to find a good solution to this particular issue. Though I cannot make a commitment on my part at this time, I think we can talk about that in the future. And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and see if you want to go any further with this.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am limited in the kinds of responses I have here. Once again, I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut bringing this issue up. It is a significant issue. We have a great deal of empathy for this particular issue, and I'm sure that as we go along through the process of this bill, this issue and some others may be able to be worked out in other venues. At this stage of the game, though, there are certain restrictions procedurally on what we can and cannot do with this particular issue. This issue, as I said, has had the statement by Chairman McKeon as to the amendments. His statement was simply as follows: The amendments to be offered by Representative McKeon to H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 under rule XXI. So with that, there are certain restrictions which we have to do procedurally to go forward with this particular piece of legislation, realizing there are other discussions that will take place before we come to a final conclusion. So in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution so that we can continue on with the 141 amendments that were made in order and then talk about procedurally how to do some others that may be coming down at some other time. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and provides for the consideration of specific amendments that have been made in order pursuant to the rule. I'm actually pleased to stand before the House on this one, as well as the underlying base bill, which was approved in a rule yesterday and was debated on this floor. It signifies the hard work of the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Smith), and the complex of wide-ranging bills that go to the floor for our consideration or issues. One of the things that is so nice about this particular issue, bill, and the relationship of this committee is their tradition of working together across the aisle in a bipartisan manner. It was done again this year in committee. I certainly hope that that policy retains itself here on the floor as well. Much has already been said regarding H.R. 4310. This particular rule now allows amendments to be considered to that. Realizing that every one of the issues that we will be talking about was handled under regular order in a subcommittee hearing with a subcommittee mark, and then a full committee hearing--which lasted for over 2 days, going way into the early morning hours of the morning--we have now been requested, as the Rules Committee, to consider 240 additional amendments. At some point in the process we need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel at every level and go on with the work that moves us forward to a product. The Rules Committee, in an effort to try and be as open as possible, made in order 141 of the 240 requests. Of those 141, 49 were Republican, but 63 were Democrat amendments and 29 were bipartisan amendments. It's going to be an open process. And it's going to be a process that will allow for a wide range of debate, some of which--and hopefully all of which--will in some way be directed to the purpose of this bill, which is to provide authorization for the military defense of this country and provide what our military shape will appear to be. There may be some efforts to try and go with other issues that are tangentially related but not directly to the core responsibility of this bill, which is to shape the future of our military. But it is a fair rule and it is a good rule, which makes lots of amendments in order and which makes lots of Democrat amendments in order and bipartisan amendments in order, with also a few Republican amendments in order as well. With that, as I'm sure we'll have more time to discuss this rule, 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 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Is the gentleman yielding time to me?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would you like to start the colloquy, because I really don't have the best answer for you right now.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. What I suggest is if the gentleman would reserve the balance of his time, let me say what I have to say about this particular issue, and then we can proceed from that point, if that is okay.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, as we discuss the amendments that we've made to a bill whose purpose is to shape the future of our services and how they will function, not necessarily every kind of tangential issue, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the full Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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).

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, at some point, I will make some comments as to the history of what we are trying to do, but I would like to get a few of the other issues before us--which are amendments-- covered before we collapse into what appears to be the direction in which we are going. Because of that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to one of the members of the Armed Services Committee, who, indeed, is the chairman of one of the subcommittees and who does yeoman's work, especially with our missile defense system, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself 2 minutes at this time. I am somewhat perplexed at the idea that what is happening here is not being fair, according to the standards that we've had in the past. This particular rule makes 141 amendments--two-thirds of them Democrat or bipartisan amendments--in order. Last year, the rule made 152 amendments in order. Yet when the other party was in control of this body, on this same bill, they made in order 82, 69, 58, and 50 in each of the 4 years in which they were in control. The idea of tripling the number of bills that are being made in order to be debated on this floor has to be considered as one of those things that's fair. The issue that supposedly is not allowed--even though it will be debated because there is an amendment, and it will be part of the discussion here--was not totally ignored. In fact, some of the statements that have been made on how we're not talking about this at all--it was addressed in the committee as well. And the committee voted on a bipartisan vote of 56 5. But this is where I have some difficulty because all I can do is know what I'm reading. And in section 1216 of the bill, it clearly says the United States military should not maintain an indefinite combat mission in Afghanistan and should transition toward a counterterrorism and advise and assist mission at the earliest practical date consistent with conditions on the ground. It's what the committee went through. They talked about it. It was part of the discussion. It can be part of the discussion in alternative bills other than this particular one, which we have to have if, indeed, you want to fund the military and pay their salaries and pay their health care and provide the shape of the future military. That's what the purpose of this bill is. To say that we are denying any kind of access just does not meet with the reality of what is in the base and what has been done and what will be done in other particular venues. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, despite advice to the contrary, our Constitution establishes a government with two sovereigns, the Nation and the individual States. They worried about that in Philadelphia. In fact, James Wilson wondered if this system would be like two meteors on a collision course, the collision of which would be catastrophic, or if this system would be like the solar system where the planets stayed in their sphere and course and did not interfere with one another. That latter vision we call federalism. It is stated in the 10th Amendment where each level of government had a specific and distinct responsibility. When the States were interfering with the Federal Government, it produced historical catastrophic consequences. But also when the Federal Government interferes with the role of States, the consequences range from being catastrophic to just plain silly. We are now in the silly system. In 2010, this Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. We were wrong to pass it for five reasons: number one, it was a Senate bill. That should have been our first tip-off; number two, it was opposed by the National Governors Association; three, it was opposed by the National School Boards Association; four, it violated the Constitution. You see, the Federal Government's only advantage is that everyone has to do the same thing in the same way at the same time. The Federal Government can impose that. But schools are given to the States because they require creativity, efficiency, and justice. Finally, number five: we created a one-size-fits-all Federal program not defined by us. We simply passed this grand idea and then gave power to a Secretary in some building here in Washington to come up with some kind of standards. Two schools in my district have now been hit by those standards. I care about those schools because from one I graduated a long time ago, and the other I taught for 23 years. They were hit with a $16,000 and $19,000 fine respectively. What was the heinous crime for which these fines were levied against the funds that go to help the kids in these schools? During the lunch hour, their vending machines were plugged in. These vending machines were not in the cafeteria. That violated the standards. They were down in a different part of the school. But since the kids walked out of the cafeteria with their lunches and walked down the hallway towards the gym where the vending machines were and there was not a wall, by our standards, to stop them from doing that, the entire school was designated as a cafeteria and the schools were then penalized. You see, by the standards that were created, if a kid buys a Coke and then takes it to lunch to drink, that's nutritional. But if he buys his lunch first and then goes down to buy a Coke, that is now, by our standards, unhealthy. Snickers by our standards are healthy food; licorice is not. Ice cream is healthy; Swedish Fish are not. Apparently by our standards, anything that could stick to your mouth is not a healthy food. Starbursts are out; Milky Ways are in. It was wrong for Congress to pass a law without taking the time to establish standards that were rational by ourselves and giving that power to another body. It was wrong for Congress to invade the role of States. It was wrong to punish kids for these silly reasons. It is wrong to violate federalism. If a community school and their PTA wanted to create these standards themselves, fine. Federalism means people at the local level should be free to create any decisions they want to do, even if those decisions are dumb. It is wrong for this body to think that every issue has to be decided here in this room, and it is wrong for us to forget that the 10th Amendment has a purpose. It is there for a reason. It should be respected.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 205) to amend the Act titled ``An Act to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases,'' approved August 9, 1955, to provide for Indian tribes to enter into certain leases without prior express approval from the Secretary of the Interior, as amended.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This commonsense piece of legislation moves nine parcels of land to the respective communities that currently manage and maintain these cemeteries. It frees the Forest Service from administering these cemeteries so they can focus on other jobs, like maybe tackling the growing mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Black Hills. It's a great bill, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.