Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I remind the body, once again, that 9 out of the 10 amendments were made in order, and the only one that was not made in order had a question of its germaneness to the body here. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), who does have a germane amendment that will be debated later on on the floor.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To be honest, I'm not quite sure. I know I have a speech and there may be another one coming down here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's comments. I would remind him also that the CBPA, the bill that started this problem, was actually authored by the Senator from New Jersey at the time, and I appreciate that. This is one of those things we are trying to fix. I gladly yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With gratitude to the last speaker, this may be about California water, but it impacts all of us who eat, and as you can tell, I am one who does that very well. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I had the opportunity of going down to California to one of the hearings where we met the farmers who are living in this particular area. I heard their anguish. I understood their anger. Their ability to make a living was being prohibited while we in Congress simply talked about unrealistic concepts. They were living in pain while we continued to talk. Actually, our actions and talking were causing that particular pain. This bill is about trying to help people. This is time to put people in the forefront and put our ideology behind so that we can solve a problem that has been caused by us. This effort is to put forward legislation that corrects harms that are inflicted by onerous, extreme, completely unbalanced Federal regulations which too often seem to favor a narrow special interest group constituency as opposed to a balanced approach to protect our environment while considering jobs and the needs of real human people. As many have said already, our colleagues have put forth a program which, unfortunately, is causing massive unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley, causing thousands of acres which were the most productive farmland to go fallow, and risks turning this productive area into a dust bowl causing erosion. These are negative environmental and economic impacts that were not considered in the Federal Government's original decision, but ought to have been and should be considered now. The unfortunate reality is that California's Central Valley is one place where our actions and other regulations have had a negative impact on the country, leaving those farmers in danger but also affecting all of us. If you are an artichoke lover, which I am not, 98 percent of those that are sold in the supermarket are raised in San Joaquin Valley of California. For those who enjoy walnuts--I'm now zero for two--or almonds and garlic--which I finally like--98 percent of those supplies come from California. Nearly all of the domestic avocados and nectarines are raised in California. Just for the record, I'm three out of six for those particular food items. California's man-made drought does not just impact Californians. It attacks and it touches each and every one of us in some way. The next time we go to the grocery store and stop and take a look at where these products come from, the chances are pretty good they're coming from California's Central Valley. You can nearly have a complete food meal group just by looking at what comes out of a 10-square-mile area of Central Valley California. As prices continue to rise at the grocery store for fresh produce of all kinds, you can be assured that some of the main drivers of those increased costs come from a combination of skyrocketing fuel costs under this administration's poor domestic energy production policies, as well as less domestic food caused by this water diversion. Ironically and sadly, in recent years since the Federal water takings--and that's takings by the Federal Government--more and more produce has found its way from other foreign sources to replace what should have been produced in our own particular country. This bill addresses that problem in a positive way by reinstating water rights to farmers from water that was unjustly taken away by Federal regulations. With that, Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Colorado I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I had the honor of attending a public hearing in California with the gentleman to my right from California. It was an honor to listen to these people, and I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that worked through this bipartisan bill, Mr. McClintock.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), who is the sponsor of this bipartisan piece of legislation, to talk about his particular underlying bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in addition to restoring agricultural productivity in this area, what has been referred to as ``America's salad bowl,'' this bill is a comprehensive piece of legislation which would reduce Federal spending by $300 million by allowing certain water users, presently obligated to repay Federal loans on water projects in this area, to repay those loans early on a penalty-free basis. In addition, as we are facing unprecedented debt, this bill would stop wasteful spending, terminate over a billion dollars in unproven and unnecessary Federal spending projects, and it codifies the historic, previously-agreed-upon bipartisan State and Federal agreement known as the Bay-Delta Accord. It is pro-environment by restoring warm- water fish habitats. It also protects northern California waterfowl habitat and still helps those who are trying to make a living as farmers in this area. Mr. Speaker, in this body, we always use comparatives and superlatives at the drop of the hat or any other cliche you wish to use. If a bird flies over this Capitol, we will talk about it in superlatives. We often do that. We talk about bills being so important. In this case, I think superlatives are appropriate. This is a significant bill that is life and death for these farmers, and it is unique. Even though it deals with California, there is no other State that has this particular problem. We are not setting any precedent for anywhere else. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of March 1, 2012, to consider in the House House Resolution 562; the resolution be considered as read; and the previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective designees.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am here tonight to talk about one of the issues that is of extreme significance. In fact, in every town hall meeting I've ever held, one of the first questions that's asked, if not the first question, is about illegal entry into this country and is about, specifically, border security. So in talking about what the issue is before us, this is a map of the United States that is divided into the Border Patrol sectors, the areas that the Border Patrol has. As you will see, if you can, from the numbers, there is a vast difference in the numbers of people coming illegally into this country based on the sectors. If you go to the sector of the State of Maine, the last time we had verifiable figures, the last time we had complete figures from the Border Patrol and from the Department of Homeland Security, only 56 illegals were apprehended trying to get into Maine, which has to tell you that there are not a whole lot of people from Nova Scotia who are trying to come over here and take hockey jobs. In fact, I have to think they probably looked at them as tourists. But if you look down here in the area in blue, the Tucson, Arizona, sector, which is only part of Arizona--it's not the entire State of Arizona--in the last 2 years for which we have complete data, 51 percent, or a quarter of a million people, came through Arizona. In fact, 51 percent of all of the people who illegally came into the United States and who were apprehended came through the Tucson, Arizona, sector and were apprehended in the Tucson, Arizona, sector. This has to bring about the simple question of why. Why is this part of Arizona the obvious entrance of choice of those trying to get into this country illegally? I really think the answer lies in the next chart. This is the borderland along our southern border. The black line is 100 miles from the border, which is, by definition, both by statute and judicial decision, the legal jurisdiction of our Border Patrol. The area in red is the area that is owned by the Federal Government in those areas. You'll see that that specific area of Arizona--almost 80 percent of that--is owned by the Federal Government. That's almost 21 million acres of land owned by the Federal Government, which is in sharp contrast to, say, the Texas border and especially the northern border. Of that roughly 21 million acres, an area the size of the States of Connecticut and Delaware combined is wilderness area, and that doesn't include also areas that are endangered species habitats. Those areas that are red are where we find the Federal Government prohibiting the Border Patrol from doing its job. The Border Patrol actually has access in the white areas--private property--to do their job. It is only when the Federal Government stops the Federal Border Patrol from doing their job on Federal property that we seem to have a problem. Unfortunately, those coming into the country seem to realize that this area where the Federal Government stops the Federal Border Patrol on Federal land, as unusual and bizarre as that seems, becomes the entrance of choice for their coming into this country. I'm not just talking about immigrants, people who are coming over here to try to find jobs in some particular way. This is the entrance of choice of the drug cartels. The Border Patrol will tell you privately that their best estimate--only an estimate--is that 40 percent of those coming into this area of Arizona, in fact, into the country, are part of the drug cartel. They don't care if the economy is going up and down. They don't care if there is E-Verify or not. They are still trying to come into this country. They will tell you, roughly 80 percent of the illegal drugs coming into this country are still coming by the drug cartel area. What is worse, it is not just the drug cartel. This is also the kind of human degradation that is taking place. There is a Seattle Times story that ran in 2009, and the title was, ``Pacific pair accused of smuggling, enslaving illegal Mexican immigrants.'' The story was about the human trafficking we have that is a very serious problem and the kinds of violent acts that are used against women and children on this Federal property. The Seattle Times went on to illustrate the kinds of violent acts against humanity that are happening right here on American soil, the kinds of numerous accounts of rape and other violent acts that are taking place against women and children here. The counties--and I have been down there on the border and I have seen evidence of this--have ample evidence, if you go along these trafficking routes, of rape trees in which the drug cartel members, sometimes other illegal immigrants, will rape females and then force the victim to leave an article of clothing, usually an undergarment, on the trees and make this as if it is a type of monument to the horrible activity that is taking place on government land. Yet still we do not give the Border Patrol access on government land that they have on private property. We are a sovereign country and, by definition, a sovereign country controls its borders, and that should be what we are doing. Unfortunately, we are not doing that at all. This is what the border down there in Arizona will look like from the air. You see, going along here is a fence--the fence doesn't go all the way up the mountainside; there are some areas in which fencing does not make sense and cannot be done--and there is one road that goes along the fence. That is the access that our Border Patrol has in this particular area, and in some cases that becomes the sole access. If you talk to the Border Patrol agents by themselves, when they will be honest with you, they will clearly tell you they don't need more money to fight this problem on the border. They don't necessarily need more personnel. What they need is access, east-west access so they can go somewhere other than along the one road that follows the border line and the border fence. That is what becomes extremely significant. What is so bizarre, what is so bizarre in that is that the Border Patrol must obtain permission or a permit from Federal land management agencies before its agents can maintain roads or install surveillance equipment on the lands or do what we ask them to do; and that, frankly, is simply wrong and, once again, ludicrous. Now, you see, it's one of those odd things that we stop the Border Patrol from doing their job and, instead, we find that environmental degradation is taking place, but not by the Border Patrol, not by any other American citizens, but by those who are illegally coming across. This simply is one of the pictures of the kinds of trash that is left behind on private property and on public property, tons of which must be picked up, resulting from the fact that we do not have a Border Patrol that does have ability to patrol these particular areas. That's what's left behind. I hate to say this, but the drug cartel who was coming over doesn't care about wilderness designation. They don't care about endangered species habitat. They don't care about the endangered species--unless it can be eaten. What they do is simply leave behind all of the trash as they are coming through. There is something wrong with that. This is another picture of what takes place there on the border. The cactus, this time being cacti along the border, is an endangered species that has been cut down by the drug cartels. If any other American did that, that becomes a felony. For them, all this is is a nice roadblock along one of the few roads that is there. So when somebody else comes down there in a vehicle and stops, they are a perfect target for mugging and robbing and anything they want. You will find some of the cacti that's down there has graffiti on it, which shows certain areas where the cartel is in operation. The last couple of years, there have been some major fires down there along the southern border. The last large fire that went through Arizona and spilled over into New Mexico was a fire that started in two parts. The part up in northern Arizona probably was started by a camper, but in southern Arizona, that wasn't it. The Forest Service has yet to determine who started that fire that spilled over into New Mexico and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. They have ruled out everyone except, well, illegal aliens that happened to be close to the known smuggling trails where the fire actually started. You see, what happens down there is there are three types of fires that are started, two of them on purpose: One is a distress fire, in which case if somebody coming across the border is in a dire situation, lost their ability to go any further and they need rescuing, you start a fire, because then obviously the firefighters will come in and you will get rescued. There are also diversion fires started specifically. A diversion fire is to make sure that when the fire starts over here and everyone runs over there to stop the fire, it means over here is now open for your entry into this country. The drug cartels have this down to a habit and a style all of their own. The third part is simply an accidental fire. I think the assumption is that the last fires that were done down there were probably accidental fires, started indeed by those coming across the border illegally, but definitely not for a diversion and not for a distraction, just it was a problem that caused us an enormous amount of loss of public wealth and public time in trying to fix that particular problem. The Department of the Interior claims that the 1964 Wilderness Act takes precedence over everything else that is taking place on this property. They say that their duties are to fulfill this particular act, not necessarily to control the border. In fact, one of the letters that they sent reads very carefully. It says: Issues remain, and we seek your (the Border Patrol's) assistance in resolving them as quickly as possible in order to prevent the significant, and perhaps irreversible, environmental damage we believe is imminent. Specifically, we are concerned with operating vehicles anywhere other than roads, road dragging, and other activities that could cause erosion and mobilize fragile hydric soil characteristic of the San Bernadino Wildlife Refuge. What that says, in simple terms, is it doesn't really matter what the Border Patrol does; you don't want them to disturb the soil even if it means being able to apprehend somebody illegal, especially the drug cartels coming over there. They would rather have the soil not bothered than actually find somebody who is entering this country illegally, especially part of the drug cartels. This is where I started. This is a response, once again, from the Department of the Interior to the Border Patrol on this area: The issue of emergency vehicle access by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection on San Bernadino Wildlife Refuge has been in dispute over the past few months. The recent exchange of letters from our respective offices failed to clearly identify the needs of our two agencies and reach agreement on how to best proceed. Now, once again, from my point of view, the way to best proceed is to stop the drug cartels from smuggling illegal drugs over here, not necessarily what took place. In fact, what they decided then, it says the Federal land managers believe it is their duty to enforce restrictive laws associated with the Wilderness Act, even if it helps the drug cartel in their drug trafficking and the human smuggling and other criminal activities that are occurring as they cross into the United States. The chief also went on to say: ``Emergency circumstances exist''--that's nice of them--``when human life, health, and safety of persons within this area must be immediately addressed. Access to the refuge by the Border Patrol will be limited to the use of established administrative roads. However, you may access on foot to patrol or apprehend suspects.'' Managers of the land are dictating to the Border Patrol how they will do their job. I might add that this definition of what considers the chance of a Border Patrol actually going in and doing something rapidly is not what the memo of understanding between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland Security actually said. They came up with their own definition to stop the Border Patrol from doing it. Now, under this recommendation, the Border Patrol has to drive around this refuge, which adds hours to get to the other side, which obviously, if you're trying to capture somebody, something just doesn't work. So since that's what's taking place, how does the Department of the Interior decide to solve the problem? It's easy; they put up gates. That was the result of that exchange on how to solve the problem of controlling our southern border. What the Department of the Interior simply did is they put up a gate with a lock on it on the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. It's amazing that they thought this solves the problem, because what this gate does is block out the Border Patrol from going into this area. It doesn't lock out anyone else. It doesn't lock out the drug cartel, the human traffickers, or anyone else from trying to come into this particular area. Early on when Janet Napolitano became head of Homeland Security, we received a couple of letters from her. They actually said what the issue was down there on the border with the Border Patrol. She wrote: ``One issue affecting the efficacy of the Border Patrol operations within wilderness is prohibitions against mechanical conveyances''-- that's like four-wheelers--or in the air. ``The U.S. Border Patrol regularly depends on these conveyances, the removal of such advantage being generally detrimental to its ability to accomplish the national security missions.'' In simple language, if you stop us from going on motorized vehicles into these areas, we can't catch the bad guys. This includes that these types of restrictions can impact the efficacy of operations and be a hindrance to the maintenance of officer safety. It makes their job more difficult and it puts them at risk. She continued: For example, it may be inadvisable for officer safety to wait for the arrival of horses for pursuit purposes, or to attempt to apprehend smuggling vehicles within the wilderness with a less capable form of transportation. In simple words, again, if the idea is of the Department of the Interior that the Border Patrol, when they come to one of these special areas, have to go on foot, they have to chase them down on foot or wait till a horse arrives so they can chase them down on horse, while the drug cartels are using motorized vehicles, that flat out does not make sense. But that is, indeed, what is happening down there. She continued on with a different correspondence to say that it illustrates that in areas where the Border Patrol has been given access, the regrowth and rehabilitation of the land has improved. But ``overall, the removal of cross-border violators''--stopping the drug cartel from coming across the border--``from public lands is a value to the environment as well as to the mission of the land managers. The validity of this statement was evidenced recently when the vehicle fence project south of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge received praise from a Fish and Wildlife biologist. The biologist was encouraged by the regrowth and rehabilitation taking place naturally to the north of the vehicle fence subsequent to its installation.'' Now, what she was saying very simply is, when you stop the Border Patrol from being able to do their job, they don't do their job and the bad guys come across. And the bad guys don't care at all about the environment or what the laws are or what the rules are. And if you are able to stop them, then all of the degradation that takes place by the drug cartel coming across the border can be fixed, and can be fixed well. Now, I have to admit that was early on in her administration with the Department of Homeland Security. I have to admit also, of late, that the Department of Homeland Security has been told to simply tell us everything is going fine down there on the border. Things are getting better. We are working together nicely. It's not quite the same story I got on the trips down there to the border when I talked to the people. In fact, one of the things that is actually disturbing is our committee staff has been refused access to even talk to the Department of Homeland Security personnel ever since we started making this particular kind of push. My assumption is there is a reason the drug cartels are trying to go through this Arizona sector. The reason relates to the kinds of lands that are down there and how we treat those lands. And the reason simply says, if we allow the Border Patrol to do their job, we will all be much more secure. And the concept of stopping the Border Patrol from doing their job on Federal property is simply unacceptable, and yet that is, indeed, what we are doing right now. To the Department of the Interior's response to that, they said the following in a memo in 2008: ``Congress has directed construction of these facilities''--meaning the public lands--``and there is a compelling national security issue, but these towers and buildings and associated equipment and motorized activities within congressionally designated wilderness would be contrary to protecting the primeval character of wilderness; and, hence, contrary to the intent of Congress.'' Contrary to the intent of Congress? Do they really want us to believe that Congress wants to have a porous border? that Congress actually welcomes with open arms the drug cartels coming into this country? that the illegal drugs coming in here that are destroying the lives of our children we welcome with open arms? that the kind of human degradation, the kind of victim crimes, crimes against humanity, are something Congress really wants to perpetuate? That's really what they want us to believe? Further on in this memo: ``The Department of Homeland Security's proposals would not preserve natural conditions''--this is once again Interior's memo--``would make the imprint of man's work substantially noticeable, and would substantially reduce opportunities for solitude, or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation and would impair these areas for their future use and enjoyment of the American people as wilderness. The DHS proposals do not fall under the exemptions of the prohibitions for use in section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act and, therefore, are prohibited.'' Reduce opportunities for solitude? Unconfined type of recreation? Maybe they do have a point. I'd say that the drug cartel operatives, armed with AK 47s, would pretty much reduce the solitude in a pretty serious way along the border. But, unfortunately, that is the approach; that is the attitude. So what does the Department of the Interior propose for this? Rather than allowing the Border Patrol to do their job and trying to control our border, which a sovereign country would naturally do, you put up a sign to tell Americans that travel is not recommended. The goal is to stay away from these particular areas. The approach was simply this: Since the areas of American land on the American border are unsafe, let's do whatever we can to stop Americans from going down there and, in so doing, cede over these areas to the drug cartels. That will be one of the ways of solving the problem. Since that's not a terribly, terribly politically correct approach, to warn the public of the danger of traveling through American territory, perhaps you can put up a softer and gentler sign, which is a travel caution: Smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area. Proceed at your own risk. I'm sorry. This may be the approach, but it's the wrong approach. And I wish this were just limited to the Arizona border. The same line was used in the Big Bend National Park, and it has been used on other lands around the border. We simply know it is not safe to go into these areas where criminal activity is taking place, and the problem is no one is doing anything about it. Almost all of the Organ Pipe National Monument was closed to visitors. That's along the Arizona border. Recently I saw an article in which a portion--a portion--of Organ Pipe was opened up to visitors. That's wonderful. However, if you went there, you still had to go with an armed guard. There's an article that was written only 8 hours ago talking about the opportunity of people going down there where the park ranger, wearing a bulky, dark green bulletproof vest, told the tourists last week that they would be going on their travel in a van and a hike. He told them that there would be some law enforcement officers hiding in the hills and closely watching their 2-hour nature hike, while another pair of armed rangers would follow the tourists closely from the ground. They'll all have M14s at hand, he said. Please don't be worried. As the group loaded into the vans, one woman from Idaho whispered to her husband: Does it make you worried? They get chest protections, and we don't get none of them. Homeland Security is saying that in this park, things are getting better. I think they are because finally they allowed Homeland Security to put up nine surveillance towers in the park, making it easier for the agents to detect new foot traffic so that drug-runners are no longer simply hiding in the hills waiting to succeed where the towers cannot contact them. You see, that's what we're doing, and that's simply not a viable approach to it. Let me try to tell you this way. Obviously, a fence by itself is not enough to secure the border. We do need electronic tracking devices. This is a picture of one of our mobile tracking devices. It's very high tech, it's very wonderful, and if you will notice, it's a truck with a traffic device on it. In the Organ Pipe National Monument, they tried to move this from point A to point B, and the end result was that after 6 months, the land managers finally said, okay, you can move this truck from point A to point B. By that time, it wasn't worth it. It's a truck. Now, if the land manager had studied this issue for 6 months and then said, all right, look, the land is too precious in that part where you want to go, you can't go at all, maybe I could understand that. I wouldn't like it, but I could understand it. But that's not what he said. He said, you're going to wait 6 months, I'll review it for 6 months, and 6 months later he said, okay, go ahead and back up the truck and move it. These devices are essential for our controlling the border, but it is essential that if it is a mobile device, it has to be mobile. It has to have the ability to back up the truck and move it to somewhere else. There is another example of the pronghorn antelope that is there, the Sonoran pronghorn antelope, in the area. A BLM official wrote in an email to the Department of Homeland Security regarding testing for replacement of equipment that they could do the following: A biological monitor shall be present--a person--shall be present at the proposed location of these traffic monitors for the Sonoran pronghorn prior to any disturbance. The monitor must have experience with observing pronghorns. The monitor will scan the area for pronghorn, and, if observed, any kind of activity will be delayed until the pronghorn moves of its own volition. The pronghorn cannot be encouraged to vacate an area. And if by any chance the Border Patrol were to run across a group of these, its job was then to back up--not turn around--but to back up no faster than 15 miles an hour until you were out of that particular area. One of the things that we have found out that is taking place down there is basically the Department of the Interior is insisting on mitigation--I think there are some other words I would rather use-- mitigation funds coming from the Department of Homeland Security. The calculations we conducted a couple of years ago say that, as of that date, $10 million of Federal money has gone to the Border Patrol, supposedly to protect our border, and then instead been reverted over to the Department of the Interior to hire things like the pronghorn monitor or buy other property for other purposes in the name of mitigation of the environmental damage caused by the Border Patrol. Unfortunately, there is no way to mitigate against the environmental damage caused by the drug cartels and the human smugglers coming in here, nor does the Department of the Interior seem to care about that. I'm joined here by a good friend from Arizona who knows this full well. This is where he lives, and he understands it. He also sits on the committee that talks about these particular areas and has introduced an amendment to the reauthorization bill that comes from his committee. So the Representative, Mr. Quayle, I will yield to him what time he needs. If he would like to enter right now, and then I'll pick it up whenever you're done.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank you for that, and I appreciate your joining me here because, once again, you live in that State, your constituents know the fear that is taking place, Americans who live on that particular border, the danger that is down there. And, once again, this is not just an issue that will go away if the economy goes sour. These are the drug cartels. These are the human traffickers. These are the worst kinds of people, and we don't want them here. And as a country, if we're going to be a sovereign country, we have to control the border, if for no other reason than we have to be able to control the border. Whether the total number coming across is getting less or is increasing--we don't have definite figures yet--it doesn't matter. As long as one drug cartel is still coming across the border with illegal drugs, that's one too many, and we have to do something about it. So I appreciate it very much, and I realize you have another obligation to go to. Thank you for coming down. You're welcome to stay if you would like to. But he also added a premise into where we're going, because what is taking place, quite frankly, is the violence that is taking place on the Arizona border. We all know about Fast and Furious and what a silly idea this was, how ludicrous a program to arm the drug cartel and to find out that those arms they were given by the Federal Government are coming back to harm us. But along the border, we have had a specific row of people who have been not just harassed by the drug cartel but have been killed by the drug cartel. Starting in 2002, Park Ranger Kris Eggle was shot and killed in the line of duty while pursuing a member of the Mexican drug cartel who had crossed the United States border into Organ Pipe National Monument, which is off limits to Americans. In 2008, Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar was killed in the line of duty after being hit by a vehicle that had crossed illegally into the United States through the Imperial Sand Dunes, which is BLM ground, where the Border Patrol has restrictions. What hurts me, as well, is Rob Krentz, a rancher, a multigenerational rancher, on his own property in Arizona. See, Rob Krentz over there was actually out patrolling, going through his property. He had just had a hip replacement, was ready to have a knee replacement--or vice versa. He was on an ATV vehicle with his dog. He came across a group of illegals who were there--part of the cartel, again, is the assumption. Usually what happens is there is flight, but in this case there was no flight. He was not physically able to fly, and so what happened was both he and his dog were shot. The one we assume did the shooting came across that wildlife refuge where the gate was locked to prohibit the Border Patrol from going in there and doing their job. Then we assume his exit back into Mexico was a circuitous route that went back out of his way so he could go back through that same area that was off limits to the Border Patrol from totally doing their job. He lost his life because of our policies that don't make sense. December 10, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed--once again on Forest Service land--with guns that were obtained through the Fast and Furious program. One of the other committees of our Congress has on their Web site the statement that a now-sealed Federal grand jury indictment in the death of Border Patrol Agent Terry says the cartel operatives were patrolling this rugged desert area with the intent of intentionally and forcibly assaulting Border Patrol agents. And it happened because we are not taking control of our border. As sad as that is, this is still another look at the border. You know you're looking at the border because you can see the fence is still running along and the one road along the fence is still running along. Unfortunately, there's a gap in the fence. That gap is an endangered species habitat right-of-way so the species can go from one side of the border to the other. Unfortunately, I will tell you that it's not just an endangered species that goes from one side of the border to the other. That is endemic of the situation we have down there where our border policies, our land policies take precedence over border security. That is simply what we ought not or should not be doing. Our solution is, I think, very simple. It's House bill 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act. The simple answer of what this bill does is simply it allows the Federal Border Patrol to do on Federal property what it already can do on private property. It says our number one priority should be controlling our borders for stopping the drugs and the violence that is taking place in Arizona. This bill protects legal use of the land--such as mining and hunting and camping and fishing--in an effort to try and make sure that we can protect American property for American use, not for drug cartel use. There were simpler versions of this that simply said you can't stop the Border Patrol from doing what they need to do to meet their needs. Unfortunately, some of the administration in these Departments laughed at us and said, That's not going to work. You can't tell us what won't happen. So we wrote the bill to be proactive and tell what the Border Patrol can do. It also had to put in there specific--and this is, once again, from the Department of the Interior insisting it--we put down the specific environmental laws that can be abridged only for the purpose of protecting the border. It is the same list that was done about 5 years ago when the Department of the Interior insisted that as Congress we had to list specific environmental laws that could be broached in order to complete some of the fencing along our southern border. Same rules, same laws, same element so the Border Patrol can do their job. That's what it simply does. There is one group that was opposed to it because they said the Border Patrol is found 15 to 20 miles north of the border. Yeah, their jurisdiction is up to 100 miles north of the border. They also said that surveillance status shows that there are nearly 8,000 miles--some estimate 20,000 miles--of illegal wildcat roads cutting through some of this border area. I want you to know it is not the Border Patrol--even though this group tried to blame the Border Patrol for these 20,000--if indeed it's that high--miles of illegal roads. They're not the ones creating that. It is the drug cartels that are cutting roads through our habitat, through wilderness areas so that they can use them for their drug-smuggling activities. If you go down there, you can simply see on the ground where these trails are. If you fly above it, you can see where they are. If you go up to the high points, you can see where their nests are. So you can see very clearly and very easily where they have their lookout spots. Actually, I went to one of those. It was just over the border into Mexico. I was actually unimpressed because I found out that amongst the things they were leaving behind in the trash is they drank only Diet Coke. If they had done Dr. Pepper, I would have been impressed by their taste, but it was only Diet Coke. I have also heard all sorts of rumors about what we are trying to do with this bill, trying to make sure that this border is secure so Americans can go back into American property and be secure. I have heard rumors that we are trying to limit public access. That's not true. What we are trying do is make public access safe. That's the job of the government is to make our borders secure. I have been told that this is a simple land grab. Some groups out there who simply don't understand what's going on tried to label this as a giant land grab. I don't know how you can call it a land grab when the Federal Government is simply trying to allow the Border Patrol to do its job on Federal land. We're not expending any more power or opportunity to the Border Patrol. We're simply saying Federal land should not stop them from doing their job. There are some that will simply say, well, if we ignore this, it will simply go away. This problem is not going to go away. It is too deep; it is too severe to simply go way. There is one last reason why this approach is extremely important, and I'm saying this in conclusion. As I said in the beginning, almost every town hall meeting that I have they talk about immigration. Immigration issues are complex. Sometimes they are going to be complicated and will require compromise and consideration. Right now out there there's a great deal of anger and anxiety in a lot of people simply because we are not controlling our borders and American lands are not safe, and there is too much violence taking place. And it's simply wrong to prohibit our Border Patrol in favor of allowing the drug cartels and those doing human trafficking to have free access into this country. If indeed we are serious about long-term immigration, the first thing you have to do is reduce the anger and reduce the anxiety level. The first way to do that is to be able to look at the American people with a clear conscience and in truth, look them in the eye and say our borders are secure. We control who comes into this country and who does not come into this country because that is what a sovereign Nation does. Our hope is that we can pass this bill and take the first step to controlling the border, which is simply to allow the Border Patrol access to where the Border Patrol needs to be, to give them the same opportunity on public lands that they have on private lands. Because it is very clear, Border Patrol knows what they are doing. They are doing a good job. Where they are allowed the freedom and flexibility to do their jobs, the issue of illegal immigration and illegal entry into this country of all kinds, but especially illegal entry into this country by the bad guys who are trying to put illegal drugs and other kinds of crimes and bring them into this country, where they are allowed to do their job, they are successful. What we have to do is now look on Federal property where the Federal rules prohibit the Border Patrol from doing their job and change that, simply allow them to do their job. House bill 1505 does that. Until we do that, we will never move forward into a larger solution to our immigration problem. And we will continue to have illegal drugs and other kinds of crimes against humanity taking place on American soil, and it will not stop. That's why this bill is so important. With that, Mr. Speaker, with gratitude for allowing me this moment to go through this particular issue, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I enjoyed watching ``Moneyball.'' I enjoyed reading the book as well. In the book, they talk about fielding averages, players who don't make many mistakes. And in the book, Billy Beane said the talent for avoiding failure is not a great trait. In fact, the easiest way that someone can avoid making a mistake is just being too slow to get to the ball. With all due respect, this administration and my good friends on the other side are simply too slow to get to the ball. The background or the basis of their arguments against this particular rule for this particular bill is they wish to fund transportation programs the old- fashioned way, which means we spend money we don't have. What we're trying to do with this particular bill is go outside of the box and find a way to actually pay for infrastructure improvements, a way to pay for our transportation needs, and to do it with energy development, like we all have a problem with escalating prices of gas at the pump. For the most vulnerable of our society, we have a problem with them paying for heating oil. Economic development, business development demands a cheap source of energy, if it's going to happen; and we need to find a way to fund our infrastructure needs, and we are wrapping them all together by paying for it with economic energy development. Who can possibly be opposed to that? Even the President of the United States, in one of his arguments for having a payroll tax increase, said the reason we need to do it is because we are paying too much money at the pump for gasoline, which I think is justifiable in his case. When President Obama came into office, the average cost of gasoline was $1.79. Today, the average cost for a gallon of gasoline, not inflated prices, just same dollars, is $3.28. That's an 83 percent increase in the cost at the pump since President Obama has been in office. Now, we asked in the Rules Committee the other day, if we went back to the old-fashioned way of paying for transportation and just paid for it out of gas taxes, how much would we have to raise to fund this particular program? And the guesstimate at that time was around 20 cents a gallon--20 cents a gallon. Even if you had a small car, that's still two to three bucks a time every time you went to fill up. At that rate, nobody in the car can afford a Big Gulp. Basically, what we're trying to do on the Republican side is allow people to drive with good drinks on good roads. Our friends on the other side apparently want us to walk; or if we have good roads, you have to pay significantly more for it. That simply is wrong. We have problems with heating oil in this country. The other side's approach to it is simply freeze in the dark. There is a better way of doing it; and this bill, these bills, try to accomplish that. The other day we heard in the Rules Committee that there is no oil in ANWR. That comes as a great surprise to people who live in Alaska, which is maybe one of the reasons why the State Legislature of Alaska has asked us to please allow them to have access to their resources. The Native Americans who live near ANWR have asked us and begged us to please allow them to have job production by allowing them to be able to get to the resources of their area. And, indeed, if we had not usurped the control of the lands of those people, this would have happened well before that. Even President Carter has suggested that this particular area in ANWR is where we should be developing our oil and gas resources, and that's specifically why it was put there. The fact that we haven't done it is nothing more than a dissatisfaction and a shame on us as the U.S. Congress. I heard the other day that there is no plan for oil shale development. We have no technology to do it, even though Estonia has been doing it for over 100 years in a way that has minimal amount of water that's used. Last year, they produced 1.3 million barrels, meeting the European Union environmental standards. My friends over in Germany who are trying to get away from nuclear are looking to Estonia and using their oil shale to supplement what they need. And we don't have the technology to go forward with that? We are looking in the western States as a Saudi Arabia of oil shale. We have more energy potential in those three States than there is in Saudi Arabia, and all we are asking to do is be allowed to deal with it. In the 2000s, the professionals on the ground, they did the study. They charted the land. They held the town meetings, and they came up with a plan that this administration threw out the window, arbitrarily making a political deal to stop that. What we're asking is to go back to that as our starting foundation. What the professionals on the ground did, use that as our basis to start moving forward in this particular area. I heard that the CBO said there's no money to be gained out of it, there's no energy from that. What the CBO actually said is, of course, there is, but by scoring it--you're not going to score in the future--it's zero because you already know what's going to happen in the future. It is there, it is possible, and we can do it. We want alternative energy. We certainly want more solar power, as long as you're not bailing out failed programs. We want more wind power, especially off the coast of Massachusetts. We just want to have every element--every element--of our energy portfolio developed, including what we have here in the United States. These bills do just that. Let me figure out one last reason to do it. It's for kids. I live in a State where 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. That means, quite simply, when we try to fund our education system, we cannot charge property tax on our land. When you stop, by arbitrary decisions of the Department of Energy, developing resources, we don't get income tax from high-paying jobs, we don't get severance tax, and we don't get royalty payments. That means the 12 western States that have all the BLM lands grew their education funding over the last 3 years at a 35 percent rate. That's not bad. But every State east that has no BLM land that doesn't have these kinds of restrictions grew their education funding at 68 percent, almost two to one. That's the difference. That's the reality. What we are doing when we stop energy development, it's hurting kids in the West--my kids. Their education opportunities are retarded simply because we do not allow the development of resources that are there, and that should be done. Look, we're asking you simply to allow us to develop these lands and, in so doing, make it possible to have cheaper gas at the pump, make it possible to heat our homes cheaply, make it possible for energy development that goes on energy, cheap energy, and build infrastructure with it at the same time to develop our potential. All I want you to do, Madam Speaker, is to follow the words that are printed above you on that wall where it simply says: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, and see whether in our day and generation, we may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' It is time for us to do something worthy to be remembered by developing our resources, using it to pay for infrastructure, and for Heaven's sake, for once, Congress doesn't need to be too slow to get to the ball.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the year we have been here discussing these things, we have talked a lot about budget problems that we have in this country. It is my contention that our budget is not just that we have been spending too much, but we have been spending on too much. One of the things, though, that we should be spending on is, of course, military issues. Article I of the Constitution clearly states the defense of this country is a core constitutional responsibility, and for that there must be government workers who are required to do this. That is what it should, indeed, be. Unfortunately, we have a President and an administration that has decided that there should be some financial restraints in this particular area. Indeed, it means reducing spending significantly on the military, not necessarily other areas. The result of this will be, as has been shown in testimony, that we will create an Army smaller than any Army we have had since World War II, a Navy at its smallest since World War I, and an Air Force that is smaller and older than at any time in this country. And to do that, there will at least be 100,000 uniformed jobs that will be cut, destroyed, and reduced. There are some people who think that simply cutting a few soldiers, a few airmen, and a few sailors will be an easy solution to this issue. That is naive. It will not happen. What it means, though, is that, also, programs must be cut at the same time. We have acquisition which buys new materials for our soldiers, and we have sustainment which fixes it. That means in certain situations our maintenance and sustainment side will have even greater requirements of them because of the decisions the administration has foisted and we will be making in this and the appropriations bill to come later. For example, the United States has owned air superiority ever since the Korean war, and we take it for granted. Yet the F-16s we fly to maintain that air superiority we were flying at 150 percent of their designed capacity when I was first elected to this Congress. And yet this is an administration that, even though we have that deficit, decided not to build any more F-22s and are delaying the F-35, which does produce, and put our air superiority in jeopardy. You have to have a plane for an Air Force, and you have to have a boat for a Navy. And they cost some kind of money. In each case, we will have the oldest equipment. That means when men and women go into battle to defend this country, we are equipping them with the oldest products they will ever have to protect themselves, and that old stuff requires massive maintenance if you're really going to do that. But what we are requiring to do in this particular budget, if we go along with the President's request for making bigger and bigger cuts in the defense of this country, is taking those civilian employees that make that maintenance effort, that do that sustainment, and that make that equipment last longer than they were designed to last, we are taking them out of the picture. The end result for the massive cuts we are looking at in the military, both proposed by the Obama administration and if, in effect, they go into effect because of rescission by the failed supercommittee, will be anywhere between 100,000 and a half million civilian employees--and this vital function in this constitutional function-- that will lose their jobs. And if you go to the worst case scenario, it may even be 1 million employees. Now, I mention that specifically because we have heard often and often, where are the jobs bills. This House has passed a number of jobs bills to promote private sector growth. Yet at the same time, we now have a situation where, indeed, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. There are those out there who are going around saying that we have to pass--and they are pillorying this Congress for not passing much bigger and bigger spending to create more and more government jobs in areas which are questionable if we should be there in the first place. But at the same time we are being pilloried for not doing that. We are being presented by the left hand with a proposal that will actually cut existing civilian jobs in areas where we were constitutionally required to have them and to maintain them. If we don't find that at least inconsistent--and mind-bogglingly inconsistent--it is one of our problems in not facing the reality. We are always told pass more government jobs. And at the same time, the same people who are demanding that are saying, okay, now in this area, cut more government jobs. There is no consistency with that. And the sad part is the left hand, the one that is defending this country with the needs of the military--which is our constitutional responsibility-- those are the ones which are appropriate, and those are the jobs that are needed, and those are the jobs that are not being protected in the future. We must make some decisions in Congress on what is significantly important to us, and this is an area in which we must make those decisions in the future. We must continue to talk about jobs; but we have to realize that if you want more jobs, you can't go about cutting the jobs, and, unfortunately, this administration is trying to play both of those ends, and it is unfortunate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey is right, yesterday the House did act in a bipartisan way. Now it's up to the Senate to act--amend, change, anything except just sitting there and not taking action. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This bill has gone through regular order as no other bill has. It went through its committee in regular order and was passed out in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, 60-1. It came on the floor with 152 amendments to be considered and was passed out with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. It went to the Senate, was passed out in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and the conference report was signed by the conferees in a clear bipartisan effort. This is one of those good bills that does authorize our military forces through fiscal year 2012, and it is significant. But I would like, in closing, to talk about one of the issues that I think was brought up, and brought up with some exaggeration to the content of what is there that deals specifically with military detainees. I want this very clear because both Congressman McKeon, who is the chairman of the committee, Congressman Smith, who is the ranking member of the committee, spoke at length in Rules Committee on this specific issue. They were asked about the issue; they addressed the issue. Let me make this very clear. Anything in this law that deals with detainees does not change in any way, shape, or form existing law. It does not deny anyone habeas corpus opportunities. That is not waived in any way, shape, or form. Let me quote from Mr. Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee, when talking about different things, he simply said that there is the possibility of indefinite detention without a normal criminal charge, but even if you do that, which, once again, the President said he won't do, but even if you did that in certain isolated circumstances where it could be necessary under the law of war, even if you do that, habeas corpus still applies, which means you have to have a hearing in front of a Federal judge to make your case under the law for why you have the right to detain this person. And to do that, you have to show there is a connection to al Qaeda and the Taliban, and you have to show there is a threat that they present. So habeas corpus applies to everyone, whether they are a citizen, illegal alien, or a noncitizen. Habeas corpus still applies. It is very clear in both sections 1021 and 1022 that protections for American citizens are clearly stated in there. In the Senate, they added, in 1021, the words: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. In 1022 it makes it very clear, before somebody can be detained, there are two standards which must be met. First of all, there has to be association with an armed force that is in coordination and acting against the interests of the United States and, not just membership, they have to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out attacks or attempted attacks against the United States or its coalition partners. You can't just go out and pick people off the streets. There has to be a standard. And everyone still gets habeas corpus rights in all of these events. Let me quote again from the law, from the report, the bill that we are debating and discussing and voting: ``The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section''--this power--``does not extend to citizens of the United States,'' which means you can't do this kind of detainment against a citizen or a lawful alien of the United States. Only in this section, and in both sections, do you have to meet certain very restrictive criteria which are not different than what we are currently doing, which simply means in the past history of this United States, especially in some of our war times, there have been Presidents who we jokingly say used to throw people in jail who were opposed to them. President Obama could still do that under existing statute, but he can't do it with this language in this particular bill. There are specifics that are set forth. There are specific protections written for American citizens, specific protections written for illegal aliens of the United States. It is only a very restricted authority and a very restricted power, and it doesn't affect habeas corpus. It doesn't change existing law. In essence, those people who worked in the committee on this bill have done a yeoman's work in coming up with a good bill. Those people who worked in the conference did a yeoman's work in coming up with a good conference report. This is a good rule, which is a standard conference report rule. And with the only exception that we still must be very careful that if we follow the administration's advice and cut our military spending too much, not only are we putting our military in jeopardy and our equipment in jeopardy, but we are destroying jobs, which is what we don't want to be doing in this particular time period. I would urge everyone to vote for this rule, and I would urge everyone to vote for the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 493 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a bill consisting of the text of the amendment printed in the Congressional Record dated December 13, 2011 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII and numbered 1, which will bear the title ``to support the middle class and create jobs, and for other purposes''. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not--apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 6 of this resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).