Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Shelley Clarke, the president and CEO of Goldenwest Credit Union, headquartered in my district in Ogden, UT, on her recent election to the board of directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU. For the past 30 years, Mrs. Clarke has been a part of the Goldenwest community, having started her career as a teller, working on the front lines helping customers with day-to-day transactions. She now leads more than 220 employees as CEO of Goldenwest Credit Union. As the president of Goldenwest she has focused on the personal and professional development of her employees, as well as providing helpful and personal service to all Goldenwest's members. This combination of member and employee satisfaction has been instrumental in Goldenwest's growth in recent years. This dual commitment has also garnered much recognition for Goldenwest including distinction as Utah's ``Best of State'' in the credit union category for 2008 as well as the ``Best company to work for'' by Utah Business Magazine. Mrs. Clarke operates Goldenwest under the mantra ``credit unions are organizations of people, not dollars.'' This belief is displayed in the community outreach Goldenwest provides through their sole sponsorship of the annual ``5k For Schools'' fundraiser as well as being the highest corporate donor for the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life. Mrs. Clarke's personal commitment to the community is also reflected in her chairmanship of the Ogden/Weber Chamber of Commerce. It is because of the good work of Mrs. Clarke and others like her that credit unions enjoy the success they have today. Such service is the hallmark of our Nation's credit unions and I know that she will bring this dedication to her service on the NAFCU Board of Directors. I wish Mrs. Clarke the best.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I guess I stand as someone who also voted against that infamous bill, happily so, because it did not solve the problem. One of the things we should be here to do is try to solve the problem, regardless of whether there is some archaic rule that prohibits that solution from taking place, which is exactly what happened on that particular piece of legislation. There are two numbers that I want to once again reiterate, talking about what Mr. Walden from Oregon was saying, 52 and 4. This chart, everything that is blue in this chart is the amount of land owned by the Federal Government in each State. The 52 refers to those of us who live west of the Rocky Mountains. Fifty-two percent of everything west of the Rocky Mountains, the Speaker understands this very clearly, is owned by the Federal Government. You will notice that Montana and California don't have a whole lot, so the rest of us pick up that slack, my State about 80 percent, Nevada about 90 percent. Those of you who live east of the Rocky Mountains have 4 percent of your land owned and controlled by an absentee landlord known as the Federal Government. It becomes more insidious. If you were to take the 13 States that have the most difficult time in funding their State education programs, the slowest growth in their State education programs, you will find 11 of those 13 States also are in this infamous blue block found in the West. The East, in all due respect, does not get this situation, they don't face it, and neither does the Democratic Party. The two solutions that we have right now, the best solution would be to give the land back, but the best solutions we have are PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, for county governments and Secure Rural Schools for the school sections of these particular areas. This program, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, was started when Nixon was president and was flat-lined in payments of 100 grand a year until 1994 when the Republicans took over. Every year since that time, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program has increased its percentage and increased its actual amount of funding, not ever reaching the full authorized amount, which it should have been, but it increased every year until this year. Secure Rural Schools has found the same source of problems. This year, there has finally been the problem of facing it. Now, this is essential to us. Schools are running in the West because of this money. Counties are functioning in the West because of this money. A gentleman from New England took recreation in my State, went down kayaking in Black Box, which was a mistake. Three weeks later the county was able to recover his body. In this tragedy, unfortunately, it also consumed every dime they had set aside that year for their emergency funding processes. Now, the problem for those in the West, when it comes to our schools and our counties, is we don't have a tax base to get this money back. It is controlled by the Federal Government, which is why PILT and Secure Rural Schools are essential for those of us who are in the West. That's where the frustration of yesterday comes in. The Senate passed a tax extender, I think it was 93-2 was the vote, which does fund Secure Rural Schools and PILT. I want that bill over here so I have the opportunity to vote for it and solve the problem. But we were told it could not be added to the House version, because it did not have an offset. It violated PAYGO. Now, here is where I become confused, because before us right now we have another bill of all sorts of spending that also does not have offsets and violates PAYGO. Now, that's okay. Those of us in the West are simply saying, this is important to us, and it should be done. I have another problem in, as you mentioned, the Green Schools Initiative in this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the consideration that has been done. The issue is solving the problem. This vehicle would solve the problem. The Senate bill would solve the problem. Unfortunately, the bill to which the gentleman refers only has Secure Rural Schools and did not have PILT even though it was supposed to. Now, we have two problems. We need both of them solved. They both interrelate.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That's why those of us in the West are confused and complaining. This program is essential for us. Those of you living east of the Rocky Mountains don't understand the significance of it. It could have been included in this bill, and should have been included, and it's not. At least let us vote on the Senate tax extender, which does include it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, consistent with House Republican Earmark Standards, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure and certification information for 14 individual project appropriations requests that I made and which were included within the text and/or report to accompany H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009.'' I certify that neither I, nor my spouse, have any financial interest in these requests, and certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this request is (1) not directed to an entity or program named or that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) is not intended for a ``front'' or ``pass-through'' entity; and (3) meets or exceeds statutory requirements for matching funds (where applicable). Please note that while publication of this disclosure information prior to the floor vote was intended, such was not possible because House Democratic Leadership chose to circumvent regular order under the House Rules requiring a 24-hour layover period between the time of filing of the report and a floor vote on the same. Instead, they chose to file the report disclosing which projects were funded along with the amounts late last evening, and have scheduled a floor vote today on the bill. I look forward to the day when House Leadership will adhere to their earlier promises of open and fair debate, adequate review periods for legislation, and following the House Rules under regular order. Requesting Member: Rob Bishop (UT-01). Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009. Fourteen total projects were included at my written request which qualify as earmarks under Republican Conference guidelines as follows:

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a unique situation as I rise to speak on something that I consider to be extremely significant, and it seems as if it has almost bipartisan and bi-House support for doing this at the same time. We throw around a lot of numbers in this floor, and I think there's only two that I would like to emphasize right now, 52 and 4. 52 and 4. Because one of the situations that we have in this particular issue is that if you live east of the Rocky Mountains, only 4 percent of all of it is owned by the Federal Government; and 52 percent of those of us who live west of it is owned by the Federal Government, which creates a unique and significant problem. Mr. Speaker, if I could, for a moment, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, there is a song in a Broadway musical that reads ``there's a fine, fine line between reality and pretend.'' That signifies, I think, what this House has been doing this last week. There is a real energy crisis that's harming people. There was a real energy solution, an all-of-the-above, that was not allowed the courtesy of an open debate. Instead, we passed a pretend bill that pretended to open up the offshore when it did not, that pretended that the oil in ANWR does not exist, that pretended that coal and nuclear is not a part of our solution, that pretended that there is enough money to develop alternative sources when there is not, that pretended to be a serious solution, but all it did is allow anybody, whether they voted for or against it, to go home to his or her district and say, ``I did something on energy.'' We were on the cusp of doing something great, but instead, the reality is all we did is legitimize the cynicism people have of this particular body. We could have done so much more. The fact that we did not is a sad indictment of the process of this Congress.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, when I was a young legislator in Utah, I was told that oftentimes the process we use in creating legislation is more important than the actual words of that legislation. Thus, here in Congress we have established a concept of regular order so that fair and competent legislation is brought forth that eliminates unintended consequences of poorly written provisions. So we in Congress review. And yet, by mutual understanding, the bill we have before us has had no public hearing, no committee work, no review, no amendments by Republicans or Democrats, rank and file, no reading of this bill since it was printed after everyone had left last night. It's not a comprehensive solution. It has the appearance of competence but is not a real solution to meet the needs of real Americans. It does not work. Let me give you one small example. The section on oil shale I originally thought was one of the bright lights in an otherwise dismal bill. And I'm sorry that my colleague--no, my colleague from Utah is still here. I congratulate him on his work. It removes the prohibition of oil shale development that this body callously placed in last year's appropriations act, despite a chorus of bipartisan opposition to do such. But rather than simply remove the prohibition and move forward, it replaces it with a mandate of States' actions to pass a law to allow it to take place, something I personally like, something I think the industry would support, but which also has potential of constitutional implications. There are other areas of this bill which have even more constitutional implications. And since this act has no severability clause, it simply means if one part of this bill goes down on constitutional issues, the entire bill goes down. Rather than just take out the prohibition, it's almost as if we put in the margin a big sign that says, ``Look here to sue,'' so that outside agencies can do in court what some people have said they would like to do on the floor, which is not have a real solution. I am saddened because we could have done so much more. We could have done so much better, and instead, we will vote on a hollow shell of a bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I may, once again; I appreciate the remarks that have been given. I am fully supportive of this particular piece of legislation, I urge my colleagues to do so as well. But I also realize that, in the words of the Broadway song, ``It's a fine, fine line between reality and pretend.'' I certainly hope that when we come to this floor and actually deal with the issue of energy once and for all, we have the ability of dealing with the reality of the situation for a real solution. That's the crying need.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6889, a bill to extend the authority of the Secretary of Education to purchase guaranteed student loans for an additional year. And I do want to thank my friends, the senior Republicans, Mr. McKeon and Mr. Keller, as well as the two significant chairmen, Mr. Miller and Mr. Hinojosa, who introduced this extension. We have been reading about the instability that still exists in the credit markets, and, in fact, it has gotten worse. Through this extension, Congress is assuring students and families that they will be able to receive the Federal assistance they need to pay for school. The steps in the underlying bill are modest, but they make a real difference for students and families. I appreciate that this bill carries no cost to taxpayers, proving that we can use a creative approach to respond to economic difficulties without bloated spending that will drive up taxes. Since the implementation of H.R. 5715, we have seen at least 10 lenders take advantage of the program that has been put in place. Without this relief, these lenders could have dropped out of the program altogether. Up until this point, we have seen over 6,000 employees laid off as a result of the cutbacks lenders have had to make. In addition, 106 lenders have suspended their lending service as a result of the credit crunch and the cuts made in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Without this extension, students could attend college this year without knowing whether the financing would be there to attend college next year. In difficult economic times, many Americans turn to higher education. That's because a college degree continues to be one of the single best investments an individual, and our Nation, can actually make. College graduates have higher lifetime earnings, lower unemployment rates, greater civic involvement, and exhibit numerous other qualities that help enrich our society and keep our Nation competitive. With all the benefits of higher education, it's concerning that amid these economic uncertainties many current and prospective students are worried about whether they will be able to access student loans. And as more and more students look to higher education to help get them through these difficult economic times, we cannot allow market turbulence to limit college access. This extension signals our unwavering support for the Nation's largest source of financial aid, the Federal Family Education Loan Program. It is a crucial step that will help protect students and families and restore market confidence. Mr. Chairman, I know how important it is that higher education be made affordable and accessible. This is particularly important in our turbulent economy. For the same reason, it's important that we come together to pass an all-of-the-above energy reform package that will help bring down prices and free us from our costly dependence on foreign oil. Mr. Speaker, I believe that stabilizing our loan program will have an economic positive yield, just as solving the real problems of energy will have an economic yield. Our energy prices and energy problems are not just affecting those who stop at the pump, they affect those who will be trying to heat their homes this winter; they affect those who will be trying to buy food; they affect not just commuters, but all of us. Students as well as parents need real solutions to the energy crisis that is confronting us. They need to be able to make the commute. They need to be able to make those heating payments. They need to realize the cost of food will not keep spiraling upwards simply because farmers cannot afford energy to put into their tractors to grow the food and truckers cannot afford the energy to take that produce and send it to the markets where we can then buy it and enjoy it. We have to realize that the solution to this problem has to be an all-of-the-above approach, that we are not doing enough to encourage conservation by small business or by citizens. But even if we did the maximum amount of conservation efforts, that still does not solve the entire problem. It's estimated that if the most stringent efforts of conservation were put in place, only about half of the foreign imports that we bring into this country would be eliminated; the other half would still have to be there. We also have not done enough over the last few years to put in infrastructure so that we can move energy from one part of this country to the other. There are bottlenecks all over this country in which energy cannot take place. There is plenty of pipeline for natural gas going from the Gulf of Mexico up north, but it cannot get to New England because there is a bottleneck that we have yet to solve in that particular problem. That infrastructure problem needs to be addressed. The lack of refinery capacity needs to be addressed. The lack of electrical corridors needs to be addressed. We also have to recognize that we do not have a successful payment plan for alternative energies for the future, not only for our immediate problems, but for the long-term problems of this particular country. We need to recognize that this is a supply and demand issue, and that that supply can only be satisfied if we have an all-of-the- above strategy. There is not a single source of energy that does not have some detractor. I was amazed to read in the local paper the other day about a detractor from a wind farm who said that the noise of the blades kept him up at night, and that they chopped up too many birds, which violates our Migratory Bird Treaty. I was amazed to find out that somebody was opposed to a solar energy plant down in New Mexico because it would consume too much of the desert land. There is not a source of energy that doesn't have someone who will jump up and complain about it and potentially bring a lawsuit about it. That is why if we start to take any of those resource potentials off the table, we might as well take them all off because everything drops one after the other. The only way to be fair and the only way to be equitable and the only way to make sure that we have a real solution is to make sure that every source of energy known to this country, every source of energy in this country is on the table and is part of the real solutions. Our students, for their future, require that. The parents, for the present, require that. The citizens of this country demand an all-of- the-above approach and that it be talked about in committees, in public hearings, and here on the floor. Nothing else solves the problem. And our goal and responsibility should be to come to this Congress to solve the problem, not try to create a political atmosphere so that we can take credit for what may or may not happen, but simply to solve the problem. If we do not fulfill our responsibility, the students who will benefit from these extensions will have a short-lived benefit and will not look at us in kindness for the generosity when we help them get their education, but refuse to allow this economy to sustain them post- education. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything that Ms. Bordallo just said in her comments, that we should have an energy policy that comes in a deliberative fashion, which means that the bills should be allowed to have committee process. They should be allowed to have public hearings. They should be allowed to have an open rule so that Members can amend them in committee or here on the floor. That is the deliberative process. Those are the rules that these people try to establish. That's the concept of the rules that these people try to establish so that we can go through this process. Everything she said is exactly accurate, except we're not going to do that. We're going to have a bill written in secret and unveiled on the floor. And if it, by chance, has an open rule, I'll be the very first one to be surprised and will probably apologize. But she is right. That is exactly, that is exactly what needs to take place. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I again yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation authored by our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Heller) seeks to resolve the water claims associated with the Duck Valley Reservation in Nevada. This bill has undergone many changes. It reflects intense but good faith negotiations between the administration and staff on both sides of the aisle. The Democratic bill manager is correct in stating there is a need for consistency in waiver language, and while this bill's waiver language has been resolved for now, we have received commitments from the Democrats that they will work together on applying consistent waiver language in all Indian water right settlements in the next Congress. I actually support this bill as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I also yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger) who understands this issue completely and who understands the need of a real solution to the real problems facing real Americans.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, once again, our opportunity to talk about the many needs we have dealing with the environment and dealing with the energy situation that is so critical to Americans at this particular time. I appreciate the gentlelady from Guam bringing up a problem that is, indeed, a problem, that we have known about since 2006. I am glad that the majority party has finally decided to hold hearings, after 2 long years, on that particular issue. I would hope that this week we can actually get to the bottom of that and make sure it never happens again. But the issue of that has nothing to do with the fact that we are still rationing, through our actions, the opportunity of dealing with the resources that we do have. Why, in Chukchi Sea, in February of 2008, were 487 leases allowed and immediately there were 487 lawsuits that took place? Why, in New Mexico in the spring of this year, were onshore drilling leases allowed, and immediately they were stopped because of lawsuits that are going forward? Why, in my State, where we are ready to move forward with oil-shale production on private lands, was it stopped because of actions by this House that denied any funding going forward to move that process to its completion? It is our actions that have actually been the regulatory stranglehold on moving this Nation forward, and those are the things that need to be completed. Hopefully, in the bill being written in secret that will be presented at some time, these actions will be addressed, these problems will be addressed. These roadblocks will be addressed, but so far in the talking points that have leaked out, none of that seems to be even a topic of conversation. Yet if we indeed are going to solve all of the problems with an all-of-the-above solution, it has to be part of our discussion. I have no additional speakers on this bill and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I once again commend the author of this particular bill. I think this is a good bill that has worked its way through. We have one of our Members, Representative Drake, who is on her way up here, from her district which is on the coast of Virginia, driving up in a very crowded parkway trying to get here as well, illustrating several of the problems that we face in this country, one of which is what do you do with that land off the coast of Virginia, as well as the entire coast of the United States, to try and help solve the problem of our parkways and driveways and highways, our freeways, as people are trying to go from one destination to another, especially with the overwhelmingly destructive high cost of gasoline that we have now. A lot of people talk about these things as if what the Republicans have been saying is we simply want to drill now and drill everywhere, as if that were the only solution that we present to the situation. It is not the only solution. In fact, there are many who have said that you can't drill your way out of the problem. We have found already by past efforts that you can't tax your way out of this problem of energy. We can't regulate our way out. We can't ignore our way out. Drilling is not the only solution, but it has to be part of the real solution if we, indeed, are going to find something that helps the people of the United States. We have lived, after 30 years now, and have seen the results of this much time of government regulation of our sources of energy. It is government rationing of our resources that has caused us to be in a situation where we are today, to the point that some people even seriously talk about having gas stamps again, which once again illustrates how the government truly is the cause of the problem, because it is the government that is doing the rationing and the regulation. Drilling is an essential part. Drilling off the coast of Virginia, drilling off the entire Outer Continental Shelf is an important part, but it is not the only solution to our problem. We must have revenues that can be available to build alternative forms of energy. The royalties that could come from those offshore drillings, as well as onshore drillings, could be that solution if they were tied together into one comprehensive approach to it. We failed to realize that the infrastructure we have in this country does not meet the needs of energy for its citizens. We do not have the capacity for moving energy from one part of this country to another. We have forgotten for too long our refinery needs, our electrical grid needs, our corridor needs, to the point that we now are in a significant problem. That has to be solved if, indeed, we are going to meet the needs of American citizens. We need to start reemphasizing conservations and rewarding Americans, not forcing Americans and mandating Americans, but rewarding Americans for their effort to help meet this problem by means of conservation. But none of the issues I have just mentioned, ticked off by itself, is a solution. All of them have to be there at the same time, which is why, if we really are going to meet the needs of Americans in this problem of excessive cost of energy, it has to be an all-of-the-above solution. We must drill in all of the Outer Continental Shelf, as we must drill in Alaska, as we must explore the trillions of barrels of oil found in oil shale in the States of Wyoming, Colorado and my home State of Utah. We must look at clean, coal technology, nuclear technology, oil shale, natural gas. We must ensure that States are a partner with us. The idea that the United States can actually do any of this without sharing the royalties is an insult to the States of this Nation. Already, we have insulted them in this particular Congress when we took the existing split of royalties, which is 50/50, and decided unilaterally, without their consent, to change that to a 52/48 so that we got to keep 52 percent, and we allowed the States to have 48 percent, taking away millions of dollars that they had been counting on, that they had been using, to meet the needs of their citizens. All of those issues have been there. If we now decide to come up to this floor with a solution that is not all of the above, that only looks at drilling in one part of this country and not all, that does not look at the infrastructure needs, does not look at the alternative needs, does not look at the other kinds of fossil fuel needs. It does not come up with conservation requirements that we have to have. It is going to be the same heavy hand of government, which has already brought us to the situation we have right now, where it is the government that is causing, by our actions over the past 30 years, nothing short of rationing of the resources that we have. There are three great bills that have been presented, one we have asked a vote for on this floor, the American Energy Act. I have to admit there is another one the western States representatives got together, the Americans for American Energy Act. There is a bipartisan act sometimes called the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, 20 Members of this Congress, a bipartisan group, have all asked to be discussed on the floor. All three of those are a comprehensive all-of-the-above approach. None of those have been allowed to have a hearing, to have a markup, to have discussions, or to have a vote on this floor. Yet today we are told that sometime this week the bill written in secret will be brought to this floor, like Moses coming down from Mount Sinai, and will be given to us as the law. That process is a fraud. That resulting bill will be a fraud. Anything that takes anything off the table will be a fraud. Anything that does not allow an all-of-the-above approach will be a fraud. We will not do what we are supposed to do when we come here to this body, which is, in addition to passing good bills like the one in front of us, but also solving the problem of American citizens. We are not doing that. We are derelict in our responsibilities, and we need to change that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill manager has I think sufficiently explained the particulars of this bill. I understand the parties involved in the land sale or exchange and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the City of Norfolk support the bill and its passage today. I think it is also an exceptional bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I want it to be very clear that I respect extremely Mr. Nunes and Mr. Costa who have introduced the bill that is before us. I also respect Mr. Salazar on the bill about which he was just speaking, because all those bills are very well written bills. They have gone through what we call regular order in this body so that the details have been worked out in a fair and equitable process. They are good, decent bills. But we meet together on this day of suspensions in a unique concept. As we enter into this Hall, there are symbols placed throughout this building. And those symbols are there to remind us of certain concepts that we should be emulating. Around the top of this room, you see the faces, the side views of the icons of law, the great lawgivers of the history of this world, with Moses, obviously, who is the greatest of all, being the only one with a full face view looking directly at the Speaker. They are here because it reminds us that law, even though it sounds sometimes counterintuitive, is that factor which allows us to be free. Law sets the standard, the example, so that we know where we are going and what we are trying to do, which is why we are so offended when activist judges are creating law based on their whimsy, not on the record of the verbiage itself, why sometimes we also are offended in this body when we create wilderness or we create trail systems without maps, or we create wild river systems that violate the definition of those particular laws and we decide to do so on the whimsy of a simple majority vote. The gentleman on the right side of the Speaker, when he was Vice President of the United States and thus also the President of the Senate, designed a set of rules by which the Senate would operate. This House has taken those rules, modified them slightly, but uses that as the basis of the rules of order for the way we conduct business here. And we often refer to that as regular order. But bills have concepts that they are supposed to take. If we indeed have a bill coming up later this week which has gone through no public input, has had no hearings, has had no committee reviews, will possibly not have the ability of being amended on the floor or in committee, being written in secret and then presented to us at the last minute, a pattern that has been pervasive during this session, it violates the message of their presence. It violates the concept of what we are trying to do. It says to us it is the wrong way to conduct business, because the basis when we conduct business out of regular order, when we do things behind closed doors and then bring a finished product to a take-it-or-leave-it vote here on the floor, is to basically produce a wrong-headed policy. That was what these people feared, even though most of them had no concept of what a democratic republic was supposed to be, nor did they care. They always established what the process should be. We are looking at the most significant issue to be faced by this Congress this year and have begun in secret, with no hearings, no input, no public. It suddenly appears on the floor out of regular order. To do so dishonors the memory of each of these individuals who have fought so hard to allow us to have a structured way of coming to common solutions to real problems. And it is one of those things we should not allow ourselves to sink into during this coming week or even the next week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill, H.R. 2535, introduced by our California colleagues, Devin Nunes and Jim Costa, is the first step towards improving the water supply situation on the Tule River Indian Reservation. This bill authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study to capture more surface water on the Reservation. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure. I reserve the balance of my time.