Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 363 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I think we've also proven in this bill that we are moving in the right direction to try to control the excesses that continuously take place here and still maintain the core responsibilities that have to be there, and we have done it in a rule that is adamantly fair. It is an open rule that will allow anyone to bring anything down here to the floor until we do a UC agreement that stops it. It is a good rule, and I urge adoption of that particular rule. In closing, I will once again reiterate the fairness of this open rule. I urge its adoption, and I urge the adoption of the underlying legislation. 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. May I inquire how much time actually remains.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I know that what we do here on the floor is often riveting drama for those who are watching on television. Let me, in some respects, not try to add to that drama and go back to facts, something we don't necessarily like around here. We've already talked about this so-called uranium issue showing facts. The chart that we just saw from the gentleman from Massachusetts was an interesting chart. The area of the United States that was colored on that chart is the area that there are those in this administration, indeed, on this floor, want to be owned by the Federal Government here. Let me talk to you just a moment--and I'll even grant some time to the gentlelady from New York if she could actually answer this one--and talk about what some of these issues do to those of us who live under what Nelson Rockefeller called the ``deadening hand of bureaucracy'' because, once again, in the East you don't have to deal with these situations; in the West we do. Let me talk about simply the Environmental Protection Agency and some of the brilliant things they do in the name of trying to clean up our water and our air and make life more livable for us. One of the suburbs of my community--and I call it a suburb simply because my community only has, what, 18,000 people in it; so I like calling it a suburb--has no rivers, no creeks, no streams, no anything. It does have irrigation ditches. Starting at the top of the mountain, the irrigation water flows down so it covers all the fields, as normally you would want to do. We passed legislation for the Clean Water Act allowing the Federal Government, especially the EPA, to come in and monitor water that is navigable water systems on interstate commerce. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is all confined in the State of Utah. There are no outlets. That's why it's salty. There is nothing more intra-navigable than the Great Salt Lake. But because in the 1880s some of the pioneers used to ship sheep over there for summer grazing on the islands in the Great Salt Lake, it is now part of the interstate commerce system and part of the navigable water system of the United States, therefore controllable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, let's see what they did in my particular community. In this community where there were irrigation ditches, the overflow from the irrigation ditches ran down, and the Environmental Protection Agency said the runoff from those irrigation ditches would eventually go into the Great Salt Lake; therefore, that runoff from a ditch was part of the navigable water systems of the United States and controllable as wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency, even though that irrigation runoff to get to the Great Salt Lake would actually have to run down the mountain, through a culvert for the city road, through one for the train tracks, through one that was the side road of the freeway, through the northbound freeway, through the barrel pit, through the southbound freeway, through another one of the adjacent roads to the southbound freeway, up a 3 percent grade to an area that had been previously determined to be not wetlands area, and eventually into the Bear River system which was stopped from going to the Great Salt Lake by the Bear River Bird Refuge. They claim that could happen. And because of that, the water from the irrigation system was navigable waters of the United States and the Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over it, which meant that the citizens of that community could not expand their sewer system. Instead, they had to take money out of their pockets to ship their sewage either to Brigham City or Willard because the Environmental Protection Agency now controlled the navigable waters because we gave them the power to do that under the Clean Water Act. One of the things I am talking about here and one of the frustrations we have illustrated by this bill is, unfortunately, time after time these agencies funded in this bill do not consider what they do to real people. Real people in my community are being harmed time after time by decisions made from bureaucrats sitting here in Washington, and then we wonder why we rail against these environmental groups, why we rail against these agencies, and why we don't want to have some kind of control over this process. And the only vehicle we seem to have is the appropriation bill. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is used to buy more land to get more control; if it were not, we would not complain about it. The EPA is used to get more control over people's lives, and they hurt people in the process. If it were not so, we would not complain about it. The withdrawing of uranium mining on the Arizona strip was done, despite all the scientific testimony, for political reasons. Were it not done so, we would not complain about it. This is a decent bill, which moves us a step forward to try to control our spending habit, dealing with what is really the core issue and core responsibility of our agencies and trying not to harm people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am once again appreciative that data from newspaper articles were put into the Record, because the newspapers have a tendency of quoting one another and also quoting environmental groups. Unfortunately, the data still says the same thing from those who know, the scientific community, that actually knows what they're talking about, who said: ``A few environmental groups claim, without providing any scientific supporting data, that the groundwater in the Colorado would be contaminated with uranium mining. We conclude that even the most implausible accident would increase the amount of uranium in the Colorado River by an amount that is undetectable over those that occur there normally.'' Another said: ``I continue to view such activities as posing no credible threat of environmental harm to either the Grand Canyon National Park or the Colorado River that flows through it. I can see no credible justification for a 1.1 million-acre withdrawal from mineral entry of lands to the north and south of the park.'' Another said: ``It is important to note that the research conducted by the United States Geological Survey and the preliminary findings by the University of Arizona confirm uranium exploration and mining pose no threat to the Grand Canyon watershed or the park.'' This is the study. This is the scientific data. It would be nice if, for once, we used this data instead of quoting one another and quoting things that have no basis in science. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To the gentlelady from New York, I have a brilliant 11-minute speech welling within my bosom; but if you are willing to close, I will be willing to close as well.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We find that this particular bill is a great illustration of one of the problems that we have here in the House of Representatives and, indeed, with government. Our land policy in the United States is one historically that had no purpose or organization to it. It simply happened. But what happened happened disproportionately throughout this country, which is why 1 out of every 3 acres in America is now owned by the Federal Government. I defy anyone on that side to find for any a constitutional provision that would allow that ownership; but, nonetheless, it is. The unfortunate thing is it is disproportionate. One out of every 2 acres in the West is owned by the Federal Government. That means 52 percent of the area west of Denver is owned by the Federal Government. Four percent of the area east of Denver is owned by the Federal Government, much of that in military installations. As I said, the State of New York has 0.3 percent of its land owned by the Federal Government, 0.8 percent if you include military. The State of Virginia has 8 percent owned by the Federal Government, almost all military. The gentleman from Massachusetts, who will be here as well, 1.1 percent of his State is owned by the Federal Government. And so it means different issues for my State, which is 65 percent owned by the Federal Government; Alaska; Nevada, which is almost 90 percent owned by the Federal Government; Idaho, which is over 60 percent owned by the Federal Government. Things take place differently. That's why, for example, things like the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a nice fund if it were used to preserve what we already have. Unfortunately, that fund is used to buy more territory, with an administration decision and mindset that no land should ever be given back or given up; more should be accumulated. That's why it's the ability of this appropriations bill to try to put that money--not simply to cut it, but to move it into preservation as opposed to access to buying more land, which makes sense to us in the West because we recognize this heavy-handed tyranny that takes place. Let me just give you one simple example that was brought up here that deals with uranium mining in Arizona, one of the so-called ``riders'' in this particular appropriations bill. It takes place in what is called the Arizona Strip, which has led some people to mistakenly think that we were going to be strip mining around the Grand Canyon. The Arizona Strip is the size of the State of New Jersey. That is the area between Utah and the Colorado River. In that area in 1984, Morris Udall, who was at the time the chairman of the Resources Committee here in the House, created a wilderness compromise in which a wilderness area was to be created in the State of Arizona. In that, 56 percent of the State of Arizona was put off limits to any kind of mining endeavors whatsoever. In exchange, certain areas were put specifically for those types of mining areas, including areas in the Arizona Strip, this New Jersey-sized piece of the State of Arizona. The unfortunate thing is it was always intended to be used there for mining purposes because there is a great deal of uranium ore there. Unlike other kinds of mining, this ore is found in little pipes, strips within the ground that go up and down. And what you need to do is simply bore into the pipe, find the ore in the middle, take it out, and then replace all the stuff back in. So once you are done with that mine, no one ever sees that it was there in the first place. The ore that is taken out is not left in Arizona. It's actually going to be shipped for processing somewhere else. So there will be no tailings. There will be no wind pollution. There will be no dust issues whatsoever. Certain special interest groups said, well, it could change the water quality that goes through Colorado and then would eventually flow to Las Vegas and do something strange in Las Vegas, as if that were ever possible. Unfortunately, as stated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, their mines and mining groups, there have been certain interest groups that have inferred, with no substantive supporting data, that groundwater in this particular area of the Colorado River may be contaminated by uranium mining. That simply won't happen, and it won't happen because of where the ore is. The ore is found 100 feet below the surface. There is only 12 inches of rain a year there. There is no particular kind of any runoff that will take place. It is also found 1,000 feet above the aquifer with clay underneath, so there is no way there can be any kind of leaching that goes into the aquifer. The bottom line is there will never, never be any kind of contamination on this water, which was the excuse used to justify a political reason for taking this land that had been part of the '84 agreement off the table, and it could not be used again. Unfortunately, the EPA gets involved in this one again because they have determined that if the uranium--or whatever they call the uranium--gets into the water and it's more than 30 parts per billion, that's unsafe. Unfortunately, there are uranium pipes within the Grand Canyon itself which already erode into the water, and it creates a situation where, naturally occurring, there are 4 parts per billion. So they did some testing at existing mines up in the Kanab Creek area to find out what would happen if actually some of this uranium were to leach into the water, and it would increase that 4 number to 6 parts per billion. In essence, what they are saying is: You could take all of the tailings that could come from these potential mines and dump them into the Colorado River, and you still would not reach the level set by the EPA for drinking water. In fact, the uranium that naturally occurs in the Colorado River, even if you had a catastrophe, is still lower than uranium levels found in freshwater lakes in the desert area. Now, why isn't all that considered? Because the decision to withdraw that area from mining was not based on science. If it were based on science, then the Department of Environmental Quality of Arizona would not have testified that there was no scientific basis for it. The State of Arizona would not have passed a piece of legislation decrying the withdrawal of that particular area. The guy who was actually part of the National Parks Conservation Association as well as the Audubon Society and the Save the Redwoods League, who was actually the one that did the scientific study in '84 when the original design by Mo Udall was made, simply said there was no legitimate evidence to say there could be any contamination of that air, which basically means the withdrawal of this land was done for political purposes, not scientific purposes. So to put a provision back into this bill saying that if you're going to do this kind of stuff, it had darn well better be on a scientific basis and not a political basis makes sense. It's one of the right things to do in here. I realize we have some other speakers here; so I'm not going to take all the time yet, but I would desperately like to talk about the clean water provisions, the navigable water provisions and what EPA does with those because it has a different impact on those of us in the West, where almost all of our land is controlled by them, versus those in the East, where almost no land is controlled by them and they have a great deal of freedom to develop the resources on their own. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2584. It allows any Member of the House to offer amendments which are germane and comply to the House rules. The rule allows priority recognition for the amendments that have been preprinted in the Congressional Record. I am pleased to support this resolution, which continues the record of our Rules Committee in this Congress of providing for as open and fair and orderly a process as possible. I commend our chairman, Mr. Dreier, for continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this rule, which is in contrast to some rules that we have had in past years. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2584 provides $27.5 billion overall for programs within the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, and other agencies. But it is a bill that strikes a fiscally responsible balance between providing funds for ongoing Federal programs while also saving the taxpayers 7 percent over last year's enacted levels. It puts us back roughly to the 2009 levels. There are some who will claim that there are certain programs that have been hurt heavily. It is true, for example, that the Environmental Protection Agency has an 18 percent reduction in funding in this bill. Please remember, though, that this was made possible simply because of unprecedentedly high record appropriations for EPA in 2009, of which $3 billion remains unobligated. In an era when 42 to 44 cents of every dollar that we spend goes for interest, it makes no sense in continuously overappropriating line items where money is not needed, not used, and sits there vacant. This is a bill that oftentimes for those of us who live in the West has been full of riders year after year after year. It probably makes no difference here, but I realize that some are going to be very sensitive to this issue. I know the gentlelady from New York is very concerned about these potential issues that may be on this bill. And why should she not be? If you include the military, 0.8 percent of New York is owned by the Federal Government. I will contrast that with my State, which has 64 percent owned by the Federal Government. And we're not the highest. This is an issue and a bill that is very important to those of us. And, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill; it is an extremely fair rule. It can't get any fairer than this one. I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman 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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have said, we do not have a revenue problem, and we don't have just a spending problem. We have a doing problem. The Federal Government for several decades has expanded beyond our core constitutional responsibilities and, in so doing, we have created the financial crisis in which we find ourselves today. A balanced budget amendment would be a great addition to the Constitution, in conjunction with and for the 10th amendment. For, indeed, what we refer to as federalism is a solution to our problems and the salvation to this country. And this bill before us today is an excellent first step on our way to that ultimate salvation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 347 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Colorado and the way he has conducted the debate so far in this rule. I have to admit, in closing on this particular bill, that as someone who as a State legislator worked on a complex that dealt with the largest undeveloped river in my district that went through and crossed six different State boundaries before it found its way to the Great Salt Lake, the idea that only the Federal Government can actually solve issues that happen between States or across State boundaries is somewhat almost insulting to the idea of the States. It may be true that in every issue there is always some catalyst that brings it about. The issue in Florida and West Virginia--to which I responded--was a catalyst, but it is not the only situation that has provided the basis for this particular bill. We have a letter from the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, which has written in support of this bill simply because Louisiana is currently facing a similar threat from the EPA. The Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes several amendments to this piece of legislation, but they also wrote: ``The Clean Water Act grants States the primary responsibility for protecting water quality. However, recent actions by the EPA upset and supplant this partnership with arbitrary Federal power that is being exercised even over States with effective delegated regulatory programs. Individuals and firms that meet the requirements of, and obtain permits from, State regulators ought not to be left exposed to the enforcement whims and caprice of the Federal Government,'' which is the reality. Finally, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also talk about this bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing regulatory overreach, and that it allows the basis, if we pass this bill, for States and the Federal Government once again to be able to work together. I have stated repeatedly that one of the problems we do have with the provisions of the Clean Water Act is the concept of accountability. Where is someone allowed to kind of comprehend against what the Federal Government does when it overreaches? Let me give you one specific example, since the gentleman from Tennessee did, and it states the same concept that happens to be there. I will call this guy Gene, because that's his first name. But he was a farmer on a family farm, a sugar beet farmer--which I would remind you is a root crop. You try to have a sugar beet crop in a wetland and you come up with just rotted vegetables. But one Federal bureaucrat from these agencies, driving by his property one day, seeing it flooded, declared it to be a wetland, even though the farmer said the only reason the water is here is because we have a pipe from the creek that goes over to the land. And when the farmer removed the pipe from the creek to show that the water was not naturally flowing into that area, he was threatened with a jail term if he actually moved that pipe one more time. Now even though they took core samples from the water conservancy district to prove there was too much clay in that land to ever have any kind of water bubble up from the underground aquifers, this one bureaucrat from these agencies still maintained this was a wetland. When asked how long would it take to determine--even though the science is against him--that he is wrong in his determination, his response was, well, 6 to 7 years because I want to go through a wet and dry cycle to see if maybe per chance water may not come up again on this person. Now the issue, and why I'm so passionate about this is because, for Gene, this farm was his heritage. More importantly, it was his retirement, and it was his legacy for his kids. And what one bureaucrat, using the broad powers given under the Clean Water Act, was able to do is basically impose a taking on this person's property without ever compensating him for it, because they didn't take the land away; they just told him what he could do with it and--more importantly, because of that regulation now on his property--for what he could sell. He was able to finally unload his property at a quarter of the value that a neighbor, which this one bureaucrat did not see, was able to sell his exact same lot on the exact same road with the exact same type of land. That is the unfairness that has developed with a bill that is so loosely written. Two Supreme Court decisions have criticized the bill and implored Congress to go back there and do our jobs and to tighten it up so that you don't have conflicting strategies and conflicting patterns and conflicting rules and regulations in different parts of the country. That's what we're attempting to do here. There is a pattern of abuse. It hurts people. It is time to respect the idea that States care as much about their own States as the Federal Government would care about their States. And you can make the presumption that they probably care more. That's why this is a good bill, and that's why this is an issue of Federalism. This is going back to what the original Clean Water Act was supposed to do, to encourage and indeed control and ensure that there would be bipartisan cooperation between States and the Federal Government. And unfortunately, as the years have progressed, the role of the States have been diminished by arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of the Federal Government. That can no longer be. That is the status quo that is unacceptable. That needs to be changed. That is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. In closing, I would like to reiterate the fairness of this structured rule and urge its adoption, as well as urging the adoption of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 10 specific amendments that were received by the Rules Committee. Nine of those were offered by Democrats; only one amendment made in order was offered by a Republican. So the vast majority of amendments that were received by the Rules Committee which are in compliance with House rules were made in order under this resolution, with most being from Democrats. So this is a very fair rule and continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which conform to House rules. I commend Chairman Dreier for continuing the record of fairness and openness in the formulation of this particular rule. Likewise, I would also like to commend the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica, for bringing this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this legislation which seeks to restore just a little bit of balance between States and the Federal Government when it comes to implementation of Clean Water Act mandates. The Clean Water Act was originally intended by Congress to restore and maintain the integrity of our Nation's waters, which is a noble goal. Who can be opposed to that? We all support the idea of clean water in our Nation and our communities. But the Clean Water Act was originally intended to be a partnership between the States and the Federal Government and allowed the States to be authorized as the lead authority for water quality programs and permits. Unfortunately, the bill was written in a very careless and sloppy way, and so the time has come when it can be re-altered or reinterpreted as time goes on. It doesn't matter that the Constitution does not allow that. The Constitution clearly says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress. What we have seen is an agency of the Federal Government start to expand beyond their responsibility because the legislation itself, the core legislation, is somewhat vague. John Marshall once said that agencies should have the power to fill in the details. We're not talking about details. We're talking about where agencies of the Federal Government have expanded their power and responsibility far beyond what was ever intended, specifically when it relates to the value and the priority of States. For example, the State of Florida had previously obtained EPA approval for its statewide water quality and nutrient criteria development plan, and even though the State of Florida is well under way in developing its own nutrient standards based on those earlier Federal approvals, the EPA, in 2010, decided to step in and, with what Nelson Rockefeller used to say as the deadening hand of bureaucracy, imposed its own new water quality standards for nutrients in the State of Florida; violating the implicit State and Federal partnership established under the original Clean Water Act and stomping all over the good work that Florida had been doing when it was completing its tasks based on those earlier Federal approvals. In other States, the same thing has happened. In West Virginia, the EPA retroactively vetoed permits previously issued for coal mining operations by the Army Corps of Engineers. These examples of overreaching by an administration, specifically the EPA, have upset the longstanding balance between Federal and State partners in regulating our Nation's waters and has undermined the system of cooperative federalism that was supposed to have been established in the original Clean Water Act. The EPA's actions have pulled the rug out from under the States in a very capricious and an extremely arrogant manner, have created an atmosphere of regulatory uncertainty for businesses and local governments, which now have to plan and rely on clean water permits as they think they might be used in the future. This new uncertainty has an extremely negative impact on businesses both large and small, and has most certainly contributed to the negative impacts on the Nation's economy and the inability of this administration to create jobs and reduce employment below 9 percent in spite of massive record spending and crushing debt. This bill is indeed common sense. It is a targeted approach at correcting some of the abuses. It is not about distribution of water. It is not actually even about the quality. It is about the process in which we are involved as to who gets to decide. And it also restates that the people who live in the States logically care about their own States and do not have to rely on the largess of the all-wise and all- important Federal Government to make decisions for them. Passage of H.R. 2018 will not in any way gut the clean air regulations or endanger citizens into drinking dirty water. The EPA retains its ultimate authority. However, the bill has been narrowly drafted to preserve the authority of States to make decisions about their own quality standards without interference or retroactive second guessing by those inside the Beltway, bureaucrats who have little or no local knowledge of the conditions or qualities that are under their consideration. The growing excesses of the EPA in second-guessing the States and retroactively revoking previously granted approvals must stop. The status quo hurts people, and it does not help the value or the quantity or the quality of our water. This bill is a good start. It is not completion of the issue, but it is a good start in trying to provide balance and rationality back into the public process that we have and, more importantly, allowing people to know that when decisions are made, they are not going to be arbitrarily taken away and changed in the future. No government can operate that way. No business can operate that way. This should not be the policy of the United States. This is a good bill. More importantly, this is an extremely fair rule, and I urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 purposes of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have no further requests for time, and I am ready to close as well.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would ask the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Young, if he would enter into a colloquy regarding the Minuteman III Warm Line Solid Rocket Motor Sustainment program.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his kindness and his answers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert