Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, do you also agree that all funds provided for Minuteman III modification in this bill may only be used to support the current Minuteman III system and that no funds have been either requested in the President's budget request or provided by this committee to begin a new start program for a future, currently unauthorized Minuteman III follow-on capability?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As the chairman is aware, the Air Force has proposed to terminate the Minuteman III Warm Line Solid Rocket Motor Sustainment program beginning in FY 2012. The Air Force has not presented this committee a viable plan to sustain this strategic weapon system beyond the year 2020 as these motors age out, and the program of record now requires the system to be deployed until 2030, which does leave a 10-year gap of vulnerability with no Minuteman III-specific industrial base to support this weapon system. Would the chairman agree that it is vitally important that the Air Force undertake what is called a smart closeout of this program to include taking definite steps to preserve the essential tools, the uniquely skilled workforce, suppliers, equipment, and production facilities needed to continue to produce and support the readiness of Minuteman III motors through their current operational life cycle through at least 2030?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote by which amendment No. 61 offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) was adopted be vacated to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who is also a member of the Page Board.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, once again, we thank the pages who will be having their graduation ceremony tomorrow and then leaving us. We wish you very well on your further endeavors. Thank you very much. Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Fellow Members of the House, if you would turn your attention to the back rail there, you will see the pages who have served us for this past semester. Thank you. You are supposed to applaud after I speak. These are the kids who still get up in the middle of the night--at times which I thought was only a rumor--so they can go to an accredited high school in the Library of Congress and complete a full day of studies before they are here at 10 o'clock to serve us. They have learned the process of government by watching us, which is a scary thought, but in the process of doing that, they have gained a healthy respect for our system, and they have learned lessons that they will take with them and made friendships they will take with them through the rest of their lives, and they have served this body well. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It sounds nice on paper, but it doesn't work in reality. You do not know where that money is being spent. The mitigation money is not going to the area where the mitigation needs to be done. Once again, I will tell you, if you care about that environment and you want to solve the mitigation effort, put the money into the Border Patrol, not into this slush fund to move money from Homeland Security into Interior for the acquisition of land and property. It is unrealistic.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, I will try to do this as quickly as I can. That should be the role of the Interior appropriations, because there is no oversight that takes place here. We have already been berated on how little we are spending on Homeland Security. Spend Homeland Security money on Homeland Security. Do not create a slush fund that we have created in the past so money goes to Interior. If you want to do it, go to Interior, where the money should be spent in the first place, and do it the right way. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, most people are clearly not aware that national security on our borders is compromised on public lands by Federal land managers who have the authority to deny the Border Patrol access to those Federal lands. Most people are not aware that we put money into this budget thinking it is going for Homeland Security, only to see it mysteriously transferred over to another agency without Congress ever understanding or authorizing where that transfer is or what that transfer may be. It is estimated that we have had direct transfers of at least $9 million, although the numbers are not clear. If you add up what the Department of Homeland Security spends on their own part that is not a direct transfer, we may be in the neighborhood of $50 million that is spent on this particular program. This money can be used for land acquisition. If we really want land acquisition, we put this money in the Interior budget, where it belongs, so we know what it is, we know why it is there, and we can track for what it is used. This becomes simply a secret slush fund from Homeland Security to Interior, and Congress has no idea or clue on how this money we are putting into Homeland Security's budget is being used. Let me give you a specific example. Border Patrol wanted to put surveillance towers on a strategic location on the Arizona border. Unfortunately, the land manager would not allow them in a particular area, so they had to be moved at least 4 miles away, creating specific blackout areas on that particular land situation. Security gaps. It was 4 miles of heavily trafficked area. Then, because there happened to be a bat in that area, of their own sources Homeland Security still had to monitor the amount of bats who may accidentally fly into those towers for 5 years after those towers were put in there, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to monitor and count bats. And if they came across a pronghorn antelope while they were doing it, Homeland Security had to back away, without turning its back on the pronghorn, at a speed no greater than 15 miles an hour until it was a certain distance away from that situation. We have already been told of situations where mitigation funds have been spent on a species that has not existed in that area for the last decade. What we are trying to do is spend our money wisely. We need to curtail this practice until at least Congress has the ability of completely understanding where this mitigation money is going and can approve it ahead of time. Madam Chairman, most of the environmental degradation that is taking place on our southern border, especially in the State of Arizona, is not being done by the Border Patrol; it's being done by illegal immigrants the drug cartels, the human traffickers, potential terrorists who are coming in here with no design and no care about the ecology of the area, or endangered species, or anything else. If we truly want to improve the ecology and improve our environmental quality on that border, you put every dime you can into Border Patrol, you let the Border Patrol have the access that they need to do their jobs, because stopping the illegal bad guys coming across is the only way, the only way we will ever have a true environmental solution on that particular border. So far we do not know how this money is spent. It is wrong. This is indeed the right approach to take on this particular problem.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Okay. You got 30 seconds. Go for it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

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

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

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The following discussion we have just had on the floor is certainly enlightening and interesting. There is much that I think is significant to what has been said by the gentleman from California. However, Mr. Speaker, if you would forgive me, I need to talk directly to the point of order itself. The question before the House is, should the House now consider House Resolution 276. While this resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee is not aware of any point of order. The waiver is prophylactic in its nature. Specifically, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor has the Congressional Budget Office identified any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentlelady from Guam, and on the Resources Committee where that bill still is, I will work with you on that, but I do object to unanimous consent.