Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 686) to require the conveyance of certain public land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, to support the training and readiness of the Utah National Guard, as amended.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2608) to provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment; that the Senate amendment be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation. Fortunately, the anagram comes to TRAIN, so it's the TRAIN Act of 2011. It makes in order 12 specific amendments out of the 14 that were received by the Rules Committee. Of the two not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor and the other was not germane to the rules of the House. So what the Rules Committee has presented here is a rule that is, quite frankly, not bad. It is going to provide for an open discussion for those who are interested in this particular issue on the floor. It's a very fair rule, and it continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which simply conform to the rules of the House. That's been the goal of our chairman, Mr. Dreier, and say what you will, he has produced a standard of fairness in the floor discussions that we will be having here on the floor in the past as well as in the future. There are a lot of people that say Congress is simply dysfunctional. I admit, the system was designed to be complex, but there are a lot of people, especially those that have very little contact with this system, who simply stand up and say, why can't you just reach across the aisle, find some compromise, and work in a bipartisan manner? To those people who are continually asking for that, you got it. It's here today in this particular bill. The discussion draft of this bill was a bipartisan bill with a Republican and Democrat sponsor. First hearings on this bill were done back in April, so they have done their due diligence in studying the issue and working the bill to the point that they actually scrapped the first bill and reintroduced another, and once again, with bipartisan sponsorship of the bill. If you look at the cosponsors on this bill, you will find Republicans and Democrats. Even in the final vote in committee, one Republican voted against it, and 29 percent of the Democrats actually voted for it. This is a process to be envied. If you want a good system, a bill that comes through in a bipartisan manner, this is it. We all know that business is impacted by both legislation and regulation, and sometimes the blatant disregard for the cumulative negative impacts of onerous and sometimes overlapping new rules and regulations have had a disastrous effect on industry and on jobs. The current EPA appears to be driven to regulatory excess by asserting powers or controls in an area where that power and control have never been expressly delegated to the agency by Congress. So, Madam Speaker, while I'm sure that every Member wants to have clean air and clean water and all Americans want clean air and clean water--they are vital objectives and laudable goals--however, I also think that many would agree that some of the current issues in some areas have gone beyond what Congress ever intended or ever approved, and also far beyond common sense. It has not helped the economic health of this particular country, which is why I commend the sponsors, both sides of the aisle, who recognize this problem and have come up with this legislation to fix the problem. The underlying bill, H.R. 2401, simply says to the EPA--and potentially other agencies--stop, slow down. Take a more careful look at what you're doing or proposing to do. Take a serious and methodical look at whether or not what you're doing is duplicative of rules and regulations already on the books, whether or not they are overlapping, confusing, or contradictory rules and regulations to those already on the books. It tells them to do an analysis of alternative strategies that may be used to avoid damage to our fragile environment as well as our fragile economy. This bill tells EPA--and others--that before certain draft regulations go into effect, it actually needs to study and consider the cumulative impacts of these new rules and regulations on energy production, on costs, on jobs, and on our Nation's global competitiveness. Imagine that. Imagine a Federal agency seeking to institute rules and regulations which actually took the time to study the impacts of those plans and rules and regulations first. Who could oppose such a concept? It is just common sense. There will be some that will complain, when the bill is discussed on the floor--maybe even here on the rule itself--that this goal is to dismantle the EPA and dismantle other organizations. No programs are cut by this process. Nothing is changed by this process. Some will stand up and say it's going to be a biased study. There are no limits to what the agencies can study. What this bill simply does is it makes sure that what has been ignored in the past is no longer ignored. Are there some specific things that have to be considered? Yes, that's right, because we specifically identify what has been ignored. There is nothing in this bill that forbids any rules or regulations. It just says to the agencies, for heaven sakes, get the facts first. This bill holds the executive branch agencies accountable and forces them to be reasonable and actually study what they're doing before they implement it. This is a good bill, it is a very good rule, and I would urge adoption of both. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 406 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have to admit that in a prior existence, when I was a debate teacher in high school, one of the things we taught our kids--because every team did it--was, regardless of what the bill was that the affirmative presented, to come up with a series of problems. In every instance, the negative team would always end with this plan, whatever the plan was, resulting in a melting of the polar icecap, which would trigger a thermonuclear war. It didn't matter what the affirmative plan had. One of the negative arguments was it will melt the polar icecap and trigger a thermonuclear war. Sometimes when we're here on the floor, I feel that we're doing those same kinds of debate cases, because it doesn't matter what the bill is; it's going to do all sorts of things. This bill simply says that, before you implement a rule or regulation, you're going to study everything, including its impact. One of the speakers who came to the floor said there are two rules that are going to be prohibited in this bill. Now, there are two rules specified in this bill that say, before you implement them, see what they will do to the jobs and the economic cost. I mean, these rules could increase the electricity costs for everyone, rich or poor, by 3, 4, 5 percent or more. We don't know. Study it first before you do it. There was a rule that was passed in my State dealing with particulate matter. In my area, in one of the very remote rural areas, we do testing on solid rocket motors. That testing could violate this rule. No one knows for sure because the EPA didn't do that kind of analysis. One of the private sector groups said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disturbingly admitted that the impact on American jobs is not a consideration in rulemaking, even while the United States continues to struggle through the recession and unacceptably high unemployment. I'm sorry, that's one of the things that should be considered in rulemaking. Is there an executive order that mandates it? Yeah, but it's not being done. So what we want to do is to have a law passed that says, yeah, what is not being considered should be considered. It doesn't stop the rulemaking, it doesn't stop the rule, it doesn't roll back anything, it doesn't kill anybody, it doesn't melt the polarized cap, and it doesn't start thermonuclear war. It simply says we will have a commission, interagency, together to look at specific things; and we will consider it. So before you come up with another rule or regulation, you know the total impact, what it does to the environment, what it does to the economy, what it does to human beings. Studying is something we should all recognize and we should all want. This is what the bill does. It doesn't destroy anything, it doesn't cut anything, it doesn't stop anything. It just says before you proceed, you know what you're doing, and that should be common sense. That should be what we were doing in the first place. And if it takes a piece of legislation to make sure we do what we should have been doing in the first place, let's pass this legislation, this bipartisan legislation with Republican and Democrat sponsors that was passed with Republican and Democrat votes--and actually one Republican voted against it as well. This is a bipartisan process, this is a bipartisan bill, this is a good piece of underlying legislation, and it is an incredibly fair rule because, remember, 12 of the 14 amendments, every one that could be made in order, was made in order to be discussed and debated on this floor, which is the way we should be doing things at all times. It's a great process, and I look forward to listening to the debate on all 12 amendments as well as the base bill when we finally get to the position of debating this bill on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman for not demonizing me or my colleagues and our motives on this bill. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the official Record the page summer class. I ask this body to please recognize the pages for the services they have rendered. 2011 Summer Page Class Alexa Abbott, MI, Garrett Adair, CA, Eric Applegate, IN, Sara Ballou, NY, Caitlin Belcher, WV, Eyvana Bengochea, FL, Michael Berkowitz, FL, Cameron Bias, VA, Elizabeth Birkman, TX, Grant Bradley, MI, Sophia Bucci, MA, Jasmine Sky Burnett, GA, Clark Cali, CA, Thomas Cirone, NJ, Briyana Coleman, VA, David Crane, NJ, Christina Cuellar, TX, Collin Czilli, IN, Leesa Danzek, CA, Mary DeStefano, OH, Hannah Eaton, KY, Sydney Everett, MO, Zachariah Frederic Ewen, VA, Christina Fischer, VA, Jordan Fox, IL, BreAnna Fraser, NV, Joseph Geiger III, PA, Taylor Gillespie, NY, Meredith Godfrey, VA, Jessica Going, CA, Kevin Goshorn, NY, Austin Heckemeyer, MO, Peyton Hilford, FL, Savana Hodge, TN, Elijah Jatovsky, CA, Reid Jeffries, OH, Heber ``Nathan'' Johnson, UT, Mary Gray Johnson, VA, Charlotte Kanyuh, WI, Caleb Markward, OH, Erik Martin, MD, Jake Mattox, OK, Claiborne McCrery, LA, Brian McKeon, OR, Grant McKown, GA, Grace Mehta, CA, Adam Mittman, NY, Thomas Moakley, MA, James Park, FL, Elisabeth Parker, SC, Jenna Pickering, AL, Caroline Schube, OH, Arthur Sellers, AL, Paarth Shah, NY, Abigail Shriver, MD, Nicholas Pritzker, CA, Michael-Joseph Richardson, OH, Amelia Santiago, TX, Michelle Sauer, TX, Samantha Smith, MI, Stetson Spencer, AR, Michael Stocker, PA, Benjamin Strawbridge, MA, Samantha Swartz, IL, Genevieve Gray Taylor, NV, Ashley Tomasello, MI, Matthew Ullman, NY, Andrea Walton, IN, Grayson Westmoreland, TN, Sarai Whittington, NC, and Victoria Wilbur, IL.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, we don't very often get these opportunities. The kids who are at the back that you can't see because you're standing in front of them, this is the first time that we have ever had pages here not in two small groups but one summer group. These pages are going home this week, and they have had a chance to be here to see history in the making on several different fronts. The Page Board consists of Representative Foxx of North Carolina, Representative DeGette, and Representative Kildee, and me. I yield to the gentlelady from Colorado.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 682, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Is it not true that the ability to designate and study and do these inventories comes under FLPMA regulation which is not changed by this amendment?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate very kindly the gentleman from Virginia and his explanation of this particular provision that's in the bill. Unfortunately, it's not quite that way. Your recommendation of this is that in June the Secretary asked for our input as to wilderness, which is indeed exactly what he should do if he wants to obey the law. That is the proper course. Only Congress has the ability to designate wilderness areas. You said that the provision that's in the bill would foreclose that process. In fact, you're arguing the exact opposite. This provision in the bill does not allow the Secretary to go around that process but insists that he does come and work with Congress to do any kind of land designation as it is written in the law. Secretary Salazar and Deputy Secretary Hayes and BLM Director Abbey have all assured us that they have no plans to implement this ill- advised policy they established just before Christmas, a Secretarial order that usurped congressional authority and congressional responsibility. I'm going to take them at their word. Unfortunately, though, the order has never been withdrawn officially. It has been superseded. The Solicitor General's opinion to clarify the legal status of that superseding of the opinion has been promised us. It was promised to the chairman, promised to the chairman of the authorizing committee. Yesterday at a hearing we asked where that was, and we were told once again, well, it's on its way. What was said at that hearing, obviously, is what they will do is nothing contrary to the provision that was placed in the CR. Therefore, if we are going to take their word for it--in the old Reaganesque form, ``Trust, but verify''--continue this language in here and make sure that what they claim they will do will be done and there is no legal way of getting around it. Now, I say that legal process for a purpose. Even if I trust the word of the Secretary--and I do--if this provision is in some way legally in doubt--now, once again, until the Solicitor General's opinion is clear with us, it is in doubt--in a litigation-prone society like we have, any kind of radical activist may ask a renegade judge for political purposes to contravene what the policy states it's supposed to be. That's why I support Congresswoman Lummis' inclusion of this language in here. It would oppose any kind of roundabout process of going around Congress and allowing the administration to go around NEPA and around FLPMA, which is actually what the original order did. It is not that we don't have confidence in this process; it's simply that we want to make sure it is very clean. And if, indeed, we all agree and believe what the Secretary is saying, then this language in here has no impact whatsoever. It should be accepted by all of us. If, though, you want to try to have some kind of dangling aspect out there so that somebody can sue someone somewhere and maybe change the entire process, then create doubt and actually withdraw language that was in the CR that was approved by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. What we're asking for is consistency so that what the gentleman from Virginia said will indeed happen, that if wilderness is designated, it will be done by Congress--it is our legal responsibility to do it--and that no one can do these evaluations, which are legal under FLPMA, with only one criterion. That, once again, was admitted by Director Abbey in our committee that that is not the way the law is written, and indeed if you do that, that is abrogation of the law. Now, once again, you have a process here. If you leave the language in there, it's no harm, no foul. It is consistent with the law, and it is consistent with what the Department of the Interior said their policy will be. You take this language out, and all of a sudden you have created a doubt. Find somebody who has a good attorney, and all of a sudden that doubt creates a major problem for the Department of the Interior, and especially for us in Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I didn't want it, but thank you. Let me just simply try and come up with this one last time. The idea of inventory is covered in FLPMA; that doesn't change. The Secretarial order that established wild lands is a new policy. That has been superseded by another Secretarial order. It doesn't have an impact on this, which is one of the reasons why the administrative policy says it is unnecessary, given the Department's policy that includes collaboration with stakeholders, to identify public lands that may be appropriated. The administration is not fighting this thing; they're on board with us. All we're saying is the reason you want to keep this language in here--until the supersession has taken place and the entire thing is repealed and you go back to FLPMA--is in case someone wants to litigate outside of it and try and force the Department of the Interior to do something it has said it will not do. That's what we're about here. All these other arguments are extraneous. Its relationship to other legislation. It does not have any impact whatsoever. This is simply saying what the policy is, and the policy they're going to continue will be substantiated in the statute in case someone else wants to play around with it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This amendment only deals with the category that was called wild lands, which is a made up category that has nothing to do with any kind of law. Is it not true that the Secretary and the Interior Department can still do inventories on any consequence, but they are not allowed only to do inventory for one characteristic. They can inventory for all characteristics they're supposed to, and that comes in FLPMA.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I rise to support Mr. Dicks' idea but not the process he is using to get there. It is one of the amazing things as you look about the debate on this particular amendment. It's like ships passing in the night--getting close but never actually touching because everyone who has spoken so far is saying the same thing: that we want to have an Endangered Species Act that works. This needs to be fixed or amended and changed in some way to make it work better, to involve the entire process so that everyone is working towards the same goal; but for some reason, it flat out is not happening, and it's not happening because we have violated the process. Everyone has said this is not the right place to try and fix the Endangered Species Act. That's also true, but it's the only process that's allowed because we have violated our own intent. Appropriators are supposed to appropriate funds to programs. Authorizers are supposed to create the programs and then every so often reauthorize those programs to make changes based on the need or to make sure that we are moving in the proper direction. Let me introduce you, or at least remind you, of John Gochnauer--one of my favorite baseball players at the turn of the century with the Cleveland Indians. He was good enough to play regular shortstop for Cleveland, although the first year he played he committed 48 errors, and his batting average was 187. He was still good enough to stay around for the next year when, this time, his errors were just slightly under 100--he had a hard time hitting the first baseman when he threw-- and his batting average was, once again, 187. I say that specifically because the most inept player ever to put on spikes and play Major League Baseball had a batting average of 187. The Endangered Species Act has listed over 2,000 species and saved 21 for a batting average of 10 if you round up. It's actually .009. That clearly indicates we can do better, and we need to do better. So the question has to simply be why aren't we doing better? Why can't we fix this problem and have a better success rate? The answer is very simple: For 23 years, we have put riders on this particular appropriations act to fully fund the old program, which has prohibited the authorizing committee to ever get people together to make the program better. Chairman Hastings has simply said his goal is to provide a process that improves the system--and there is room for improvement of the system--but to do that, you've got to get the players to sit down in the authorizing committees where this is supposed to be worked out. The Endangered Species Act needs to be expanded, needs to be fixed, needs to zero in to create people working together for a common goal. I am actually grateful for Representative Dicks and Representative Simpson and what they have done in this bill. This amendment in the underlying bill does not destroy the Endangered Species Act. It doesn't even cut the funding for those species that are already being worked on. All it does is provide a change in the process to insist that people have to do what we should have been doing for the last 23 years--going to the authorizing committee and fixing the act, not just kicking the can down the road by funding it year, after year, after year, after year, while only 21 species have recovered over the 2,000 that could have and should have been. I'm sorry. That's what everyone is saying. We all want species to be preserved and recovered, but we all are failing in the process, and after 23 years, we should have learned what we have been doing in the past doesn't work. Maybe if we went back to the way the system was intended to be and was designed to function, we could actually move forward in this entire issue, which, oddly enough, is what everyone is saying. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.