Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think I thank the gentleman from Ohio for that introduction. Since 1857, if I count correctly, John Sullivan is the 19th Parliamentarian we have had in the House of Representatives, even though the term actually wasn't used officially until 1927. But of those Parliamentarians in the 20th century, Lewis Deschler served for 46 years as Parliamentarian, and I believe his replacement, William Brown, served for 20 years. So John, in all sincerity, serving only 8 years as the Parliamentarian here makes you a Parliamentarian slacker. I think a couple more years would be appropriate if you'd like to reconsider and stay with us. But through those almost 8 years as the Parliamentarian, 20-plus years working in that office, your ability to help the majority meet its goals while at the same time respecting the minority is not an easy task. But John Sullivan did do it with aplomb. Former Senator Eugene McCarthy once said, The Senate has rules, but none of them over there care about it. In the House, the House rules are too complex. Don't learn them; just ask the Parliamentarian. I think for all of us, we do that. I do know from my time in the chair, Parliamentarians do not like ad libbing. There is one time I simply turned to John and said, Why don't we just mike you, and I will move my lips. I still think that would be far more appropriate, but I don't think anyone in his office found that funny. George Will once wrote that the only thing he remembers about his wedding day was the Cubs lost a doubleheader. I say that because John's grandfather pitched for the 1919 Chicago Black Sox, and John is still a fan of the White Sox and closely associated with that franchise. His replacement, Tom Wickham, who will come in, is a fan of the Cardinals. For a Cubs devotee like myself, there is just no hope in this world. But I do want to know, even though both of you are on the wrong side of the baseball sphere, I want you to know that I thank you so very much, Mr. Sullivan, for your personal friendship. I also thank you for your two-plus decades of loyal service to this House. I also thank you for your lifetime of service and dedication to this country. We wish you well. We are a better place for having worked with you here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, who will once again try to describe to this body how this county land should stay with the county and needs to be dealt with by the county and all we have to do is remove an unnecessary restriction on its deed. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would be more than happy to close at any time you are ready.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favor of the underlying bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell) knows his constituents; he knows the needs there and has worked very hard for their benefit. This, as we already discussed and voted, is not an earmark. The gentlelady from New York introduced a heritage area for Niagara Falls that got $10 million sent from the Federal Government to that place. That was officially not an earmark. This bill has no money going anywhere. The land is the county's, no exchange of profit whatsoever. There is no earmark, and there is no money being exchanged. This land was originally Virginia's land. They gave it to the Federal Government for a Federal purpose. Thirty-six years ago, the Federal Government, in no longer needing the land, gave it back to this county for a public park. As a public park, it is useless. Now that's the common bond here. It is not needed as a park; it is not used as a park; there is no parking; it is inaccessible; and it is lousy for that purpose. The county, though, would like to use their land to do economic development because that is where it is and for what it would best be used, how it would help the public and the general good if it were used for economic development. All they need is the Federal Government to graciously grant a deed restriction, which they refuse to do--for whatever purpose, no one really knows, but they won't do it. That is why the county needs to keep the county land, to do something that is common sense, simply use the land for the purpose in which it best suits the needs of the people. I don't know why the Department of the Interior, in its infinite wisdom, decides they want to tell the county in Virginia what is best for Virginia, but that is exactly what they are trying to do by being hard-nosed, not on a law, but on an internal rule from the Department of the Interior. Look, this government already controls 1 out of every 3 acres in this Nation. One-third of America is controlled by the Federal Government. That means the Federal Government's in-holdings are larger than any country's in the world, with the exception of Russia's and Canada's. That's what we already have. And yet the Department of the Interior is straining over 32 acres that shouldn't be a park and that need to be used to help the people of this particular county, and that is simply illogical. It is irrational. I have faced similar circumstances in countless bills that we have had and passed before this body. There was public land in the middle of Park City in my district that was controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. They didn't need it; they didn't want it; they didn't use it. It was actually being occupied by squatters. The city had no control over it because it was public land, and yet the Department of the Interior did not want to let go of that land because the control was already there. We passed another bill earlier that went through the House and the Senate that transferred land that the Forest Service had that they didn't even know they had. We had to do a title search to remind them, oh, yeah, that actually is ours. They didn't need it; they didn't want it; they didn't use it; and after 6 years, we finally got them to give it up so it could be used for a better purpose. We have another bill for 2 acres in Alta that the Park Service doesn't want to give up, for whatever reason, even though on that 2 acres there is already the city building, a public safety building, and public bathrooms for the community and those that go to that ski resort; and yet the Forest Service, in this case, doesn't want to give that up for whatever reason there may be. Mr. Speaker, we were just in a hearing earlier this morning that dealt with a proposed Eisenhower memorial. In all due respect, I just recently read a biography of Eisenhower. When he was just a lieutenant in the Army, he had his first child, and he applied for and received permission for a housing increase that he thought he deserved and so did the commanding officer who approved that housing increase. A little while later, they did an audit, and the acting inspector general did an audit and found out that there was a technicality to which General Eisenhower was not entitled to that housing increase. When he was confronted with that, he immediately apologized and said he was more than willing to pay back the $250.67 that he owed the government. But that wasn't good enough for the inspector general. That acting inspector general wanted a court-martial because that was what the rules where. That acting inspector general had this blind fetish for fealty to follow rules because that's what bureaucrats always want to do. Fortunately, there was a commanding officer that realized that this young Army officer had a talent and an ability and intervened and allowed General, then Lieutenant, Eisenhower simply to pay the $250.67 and get on with it. It is amazing to consider what this Nation and what this world would be like if Lieutenant Eisenhower had actually been court-martialed over $250.67 because that was the rule. We have the same situation, 32 acres that is useless. Right now it has no purpose. It sits there, and the Federal Government wants to deny a county in Virginia the ability to do something useful to help people on 32 acres because it violates their internal rule. There has to be some time when common sense takes over and we actually do things because it's the right thing to do, because it is the better thing to do. Fortunately, there was an officer in Texas that realized, in the case of General Eisenhower, common sense should take over. It would be nice, it would be wonderful if, within the Department of the Interior, there were some element of common sense that said it is stupid what we are doing with this land. We need simply to use common sense and use the land for a better, better purpose. There is no transfer of land. The county has it. If we don't pass this bill, the county will still have it. They just can't use it effectively. If we pass this bill, there will be no transfer of money. All you're saying is the county can use the county's land to do something the county needs to help the people in that county. And, honestly, should that not be our goal? Is that not our purpose, to actually use common sense? Or do we have the bureaucratic blood running through our veins that we put these little blinders on and, unless we check the right box, it doesn't matter if it helps, it doesn't matter if it's good, it doesn't matter if it's possible, we won't do it because of our internal rules? That is, indeed, where this country and this Congress has come. There is something definitely wrong with us. This rule is a fair rule. It will provide for a good debate. It provides for all those amendments that were preprinted and are in order to be debated here on the floor. Let us proceed forward with this bill. Let's help this county that desperately needs our help and that desperately needs us just to use some good, old-fashioned common sense. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try and once again put this in perspective. The Federal Government, in and of itself, owns no land, especially in one of the original 13 States. Virginia had the land and gave it to the Federal Government. In 1976, the Federal Government gave this back to the county with a lease for a park and restrictions, a deed restriction only. There is no transfer of money if we take away the deed restriction. There is no transfer of authority. The county has it. The county will continue to have it. The dollar value that was given was made up in the minds of the Department of the Interior. This county actually said, if you really want more parkland, we will create 32 acres somewhere else for more parkland. The Department of the Interior said, No, let's have cash instead. They are the ones that determined that this land was worth 25 grand an acre, asking almost a million dollars from one of the poorest counties. They came up with that on their own. That does not mean it's reality. The reality is the county has the land. The county will continue to have the land. There is no transfer of dollars. There is no loss from taxpayers in America. Actually, these guys who live in Virginia are taxpayers, too. Transferring from one pocket to the other is a ridiculous requirement to place on them, and all we're talking about is a deed restriction--how can we best use the land to actually help people. Now, if the other side does not care about this county, does not care about the 16 percent of the population living in poverty, does not care about the unemployment rate, does not care that they actually use this land in a logical, rational manner, I can understand that. It still doesn't mean that's an earmark. The point of order is a delay tactic of today's consideration of this legislation. Sometimes in the past, a couple of other Members who have declared what I think are earmarks as non-earmarks have always used the old cliche if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But as Hans Christian Andersen told us, sometimes those ducks you perceive are actually the honking of a swan. This bill is a swan. This bill will help these people to produce themselves. This point of order has no merit to it. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business of the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. The resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2087, a bill to remove certain restrictions from a parcel of land that's situated in the Atlantic District of Accomack County, in Virginia. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This rule makes in order all amendments that were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House. So this modified rule is a very fair rule. It is a generous rule. It will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this bill that is not an earmark. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again, the rule does not waive an earmark, because there are no earmarks. It is a general waiver that is in there. If one were to look back at the past three Congresses, official bills that have been prepared that are very similar to this have also included the same type of language and were determined as not to have an earmark. Specifically, go back to H.R. 944 in the 112th Congress, H.R. 86 in the 111th Congress, H.R. 356 in the 110th Congress, H.R. 2246 in the 110th Congress, and S. 404 in the 112th Congress--same language, same situation, same condition. Once again, the rules of our House say this is not an earmark. The CBO says it's not an earmark, because it is not an earmark. There is no transfer of money. The county has the land. The county will continue to have the land. The only thing this is about is the deed restriction. Deed restrictions are not earmarks. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 587 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am obviously in favor of consideration of this resolution. The question before the House is: Shall the House now consider House Resolution 587? While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the committee is not aware of any point of order. The waiver is a complete waiver in nature. Note, there is not a specific waiver against an earmark simply because the bill contains no earmarks. It is in compliance with the earmark definition provided for us in the House Rules, a rule that goes back to, actually--to make the record complete--the 109th Session of Congress and the earmark ban instituted by the House Republicans when they took the majority in January of last year. As is required by House Rules, the committee report filed for this bill on January 18 includes a specific determination and statement that the bill does not contain an earmark. I will quote from page 5 of the report: The bill does not contain any congressional earmarks or limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined by the Rules of the House of Representatives. With all due respect to my friend from Arizona, each person may have his own perception of what an earmark is, but, with all due respect, the term ``congressional earmark'' means a provision that provides or authorizes or recommends a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority or expenditures with or to an entity. It has to have money involved in it. Specifically, the definition of an earmark requires that there be spending in the form directed to an entity or targeted geographically. This bill does not involve the spending of money or loan authority or credit authority or any other form of payment of funds. The land in question is already with the county. It will remain with the county. Whether we pass this bill or not, it is still with the county. The only issue is the deed restriction, not the value of the land, not the transfer of money. This parcel is with Virginia on Federal land that at one time had a deed restriction. It simply removes that deal. The CBO viewed and scored this bill, and concluded it would not cost money, stating it ``would have no significant impact on the Federal budget.'' Moreover, this type of bill, clearing the title to land, has repeatedly been approved when the House has been controlled by both Republicans and Democrats. The definition of an earmark is clear. There has not been a fiscal impact, and this bill does not meet the House rules definition used by either Democrats or Republicans. This is really a red herring to stop economic development and the creation of jobs caused by lingering Federal bureaucratic red tape. This county is one of the poorest counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with more than 16 percent of its population living in poverty and a higher rate of unemployment than the rest of Virginia. This very small bill, at no cost to the Federal taxpayer, will help to turn that around. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the chair of the subcommittee that heard this particular bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this particular bill, who will talk about how to create real power using water resources that we have. (Mr. TIPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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), 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. This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2842, succinctly titled the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House. So this modified open rule is a very fair and generous rule--a continuation of the work of Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee-- and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the bill. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 2842. I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, Mr. Tipton of Colorado, as well as Mr. Gosar of Arizona, one of the cosponsors, Representative McClintock of California, who is the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill, and of course Chairman Hastings of the Resource Committee, who brought this bill forward as one of the companion pieces of the myriad of pieces of legislation which, if enacted, would greatly improve our Nation's energy policy and provide for a responsible and balanced approach to further energy development. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am grateful that we have found new sources of energy, specifically oil and natural gas, on private property because it has not allowed the Federal Government to stop the development of those, and that is the growth that we have seen in recent times. However, it is interesting to note that the bill before us, which deals with hydropower and development of more hydropower, is a bipartisan bill and for just cause. We can both agree, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a great need for more energy, and that greater, cheaper energy is vital to the growth of the economy and the growth of jobs. That's what this bill tries to do. Frequently in this House, we have brought bills that have tried to increase our offshore drilling on Federal property. We have talked about the Keystone pipeline and the ability of 20,000 high-paying jobs if it were just permitted. We have talked about trying to increase domestic energy production on public lands that have been put off- limits by this particular administration. Those efforts we have dealt with. We have passed through this House. They're over sitting in the Senate waiting for action. And today we add to that effort with a significant bill that will add to our hydropower and hydroenergy that once again comes along with this. But the problem that we have and the reason why this bill is here before us, if I can summarize, is, simply, our efforts to add this kind of energy to our portfolio are being stopped by special interest groups and, unfortunately, layers of bureaucracy. It was Nelson Rockefeller who came up with the great line of calling the deadening hand of bureaucracy on proposals and programs; and, indeed, we see that and we feel it today as we are having a harder time trying to be energy independent, and we are feeling the results of the Federal Government's program to stop energy production on Federal lands and Federal property every time we fill up our cars and, unfortunately, every time we pay our electrical bills. Now, it is bureaucratic manipulation that is causing this problem and why this bill is here. Look, it was the energy debate and the energy bill of 2005 that told the Federal Government to move forward in this area with making sure that we had a master plan for hydrological development of energy. Seven years later, now the Federal Government and our Department of the Interior is starting to move forward in that direction, which is either the old cliche of paralysis by analysis or the fact that Rockefeller was right when he called the bureaucracy a deadening hand on programs and progress. One particular program, the Klamath River, took 5 years for government to decide who actually had the authority to move forward on the project. That is the kind of bureaucratic analysis, that's the kind of red tape that is slowing back our efforts to develop this type of energy, and we need it desperately. That's why H.R. 2842 is here, to develop small projects that will add to our total energy portfolio and add to our independence. It stops and simplifies a regulatory process which unfortunately costs these small efforts, these small entities trying to make these efforts tens of thousands of dollars just to do the paperwork. It's ridiculous. It clarifies the role of the Bureau of Reclamation on this area. This only deals with Bureau of Reclamation projects on manmade facilities, but the jurisdictions are not clear. Some jurisdictions have been mandated by Congress; some are administrative; some are questions on whether FERC has responsibility, the Bureau of Reclamation has responsibility. That is causing our slowing in developing these projects. This bill clarifies what that role is. It also clarifies NEPA, that you don't have to do a second NEPA on these small jobs. Anything greater than 1.5 megawatts of production, you do the analysis again. But for small projects, on man-made property where the land has already been disturbed and already has had an analysis done and the mitigation has already taken place, we move on and do the job. The Bureau of Reclamation does have a right of categorical exclusion, but they won't do it. All they're saying is, We may start thinking about it some time in the future. Let me give you an example. There are three specific projects in the neighboring State of mine. One was mandated by Congress in 1990. They are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape. Two other projects took a full year for them to decide to actually start going through a process, and when they did it, they realized there was no change; it had already been done before. All you did is take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. We had somebody from Arizona come in and testify that the administrator review cost more than the actual construction of the project. That's silly. That is ridiculous, H.R. 795 deals with this same issue on non-Federal land. This bills deals with this same issue on existing Bureau of Reclamation projects. It's a commonsense development to get an untapped resource that we need to develop. It would not significantly enlarge the environmental footprint because these are already man-made entities who have already gone through the NEPA process once, and there is no rational reason to reinvent the wheel and do it a second time only to find out they were right the first time. What would be the benefit from this bill? First of all, new sources of clean energy to add to our portfolio. Second, we can facilitate small projects to help offset carbon-based irrigation pumping in the West. Third, it would help reduce the cost of energy. It would produce a cash flow to irrigation districts so they could actually increase and pay for and improve their aging infrastructure and modernize these water facilities. Fourth, it does create jobs, and for once we have a bill that actually increases revenue coming into the government from this. CBO has estimated, the Congressional Budget Office, that this will generate $5 million in additional revenue coming into the government. So not only can we create more energy, we can do the right thing, we can fix our infrastructure, but we actually make money that comes into the government to help with other issues. There is a reason this is a bipartisan bill: because it's the right thing to do. There is a reason why we should move forward with this bill: because it taps a valuable resource that will go to waste if we do not do it. There is a reason that this bill is here: to speed up the regulatory red tape, to cut through the cost, to make things happen and help us move forward as a Nation with better energy development and energy independence. There's a whole bunch of good reasons for this bill, and that's why I support the bill, and I also support the rule that will make it possible to give a good and fair open balance to this debate. With that, this is a good bill and an incredibly fair rule. I urge the adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time. I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 570 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to estimate jobs when you're thirsty, but I realize if there was even one job that is cost because of bad Federal behavior, that is one job too many. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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. This resolution provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1837. It's entitled the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. This is a bipartisan bill that came from our committee on a bipartisan vote. In like manner, the Rules Committee has decided to make this a bipartisan amendment process because we made in order all amendments filed at the Rules Committee which were germane, which complied with the House rules. I think this is very fair, and it's a generous rule to talk about a bill that has support on both sides of the aisle. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in 1972, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was used on this part of the river, even though there was already an existing bridge on that river. Now the safety of that bridge is creating problems for people, and the traffic buildup is creating problems for people. Actually, the National Park Service already had met with everybody, found a way to build a new bridge and mitigate the adverse circumstances. An agreement was reached until outside groups, who came in here with this dogmatic reverence for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, basically took it to court, threw everything away, and we have now exacerbated the problem. Wild and scenic river? On a clear day, if indeed the traffic does not produce enough smog that has backed up because we are trying to get across this river, you can actually see a marina, the smokestacks of a power plant that is in the neighborhood of a sewage plant, and maybe even the orange jumpsuits of the county jail that is in this area. We are abusing the law to stop this progress, stop this bridge that is needed desperately for safety reasons and for traffic reasons in this particular area. There is a reason this bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. It solves a problem, it's common sense, and it's the right thing to do.