Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution that was introduced by our colleagues from southern California. The Orange County Water District has experienced rapid changes since it was created in 1933. It once relied on pumping ground water for agriculture, now it uses a combination of sources, including imported and recycled water, for its urban needs. Due to environmental litigation, the Orange County Water District will more than likely experience significant imported water cutbacks, leading to higher water costs that will be passed on to the consumers. These same water reductions are forcing family farmers to fallow ground and let their crops die. The situation is so dire the Governor of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, last week declared parts of California under a state of emergency. These same family farmers are experiencing higher costs of living caused by the high cost of water as well as the high cost of gasoline prices. It is almost a perfect storm, and yet we have done nothing to help them to reduce those gas and oil prices. This resolution is a nice reward to Orange County Water District for its hard work over the years, but Congress' time actually should be spent in devising energy solutions because, once again, real people are suffering and real needs are there. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlelady from Guam has adequately explained this bill. I'd like to commend congressman Denny Rehberg and his staff for their diligence in this particular bill; grateful for all for allowing the conveyance of this 10 acres of excess Forest Service land to the community of Jefferson County, MT to be used as their cemetery. I join the gentlelady from Guam in saying that I am glad that we can finally put this issue to rest in peace. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me yield myself as much time as I will go through here. We're now looking at a whole bunch of issues that deal from an Endangered Species Act that has few examples of success--this one happens to be one of those few--to an energy policy that we have developed over the last 40 years which can only be described as discombobulated. It seems there are a group of people who control this floor whose past policy towards energy development and energy independence was to blame Big Oil, and now that prices of gasoline are at $4 a gallon, $1.75 more than when this Congress started, it seems now we try to have an expanded policy which is to blame Big Oil and allow lawyers to sue OPEC to give us more oil. Simply, it does not come back to the reality of the situation that we have locked resources within this country, both onshore and in this country, that can produce our own energy independence. We have laws that already say if you have a lease, you have 5 to 10 years. The Secretary of the Interior has power already under law that if he thinks that is not being used properly, they have power to abrogate those contractual leases. However, for each one of those, we have 7 to 10 years of regulation, litigation and study, including an Interior appropriations bill that will be coming to the floor either this week or next week, which expands those restrictions and expands the moratorium that we have. The bottom line is 30 years ago this country was producing about 11 million barrels of oil a day, and our need was 17. We had to import. Today, we produce about 8 million barrels of oil a day, and our need is 20, which means we have to import more. We have a 22 percent reduction in production in this United States, and we're the only country in this continent that does that. Mexico has increased. Canada has increased. We have decreased our energy production, even though our needs have come up. The chart you were looking at is somewhat skewed because it deals with only the offshore, and there's a difference to land that's documented and open and not opened to lease. The bottom line is, offshore, there's 1.7 billion acres of area that we could do to produce energy. We are doing 68 million acres. That leaves 1.6 billion acres still undiscoverable, locked away, not usable. That's 85 percent of everything we have. The gentleman from Vermont was correct in which he said speculation is indeed driving the cost of oil, but the speculation is driving the cost of oil because the speculators believe this country will not continue to produce, that we will decline in our production. And until we have a policy that says we are going to increase our production, speculation will continue to increase, and those costs will increase. What this Congress has to have is a comprehensive policy that says we will do more for conservation and we will do more for production of all sources of energy, alternative as well as carbon-based, and we will come up with new and innovative ways of delivering that energy. And until this Congress actually sits down and says we will have a comprehensive energy policy, all the data, all the instructions, everything else we're talking about is nothing more than useless rhetoric. Interesting facts, totally irrelevant to the needs of the time. The needs are people are suffering now, and we need to do something to help those people who are suffering. And we have to have a comprehensive policy which does include increases of production of all sources of energy. The gentlelady from Guam will be happy to know, I'm the last speaker on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I inquire how much time is left for the bald eagle to discover oil?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may wish to consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for what time she may choose to consume.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise also in support of House Resolution 1247 which endorses the goals and ideals of the American Bald Eagle Day, or American Eagle Day. 226 years ago the Second Continental Congress decided to use the image of the American bald eagle on the great American, great seal of the United States. Since that time, the image of this majestic bird has graced our art, our culture, currency, stamps, headbands, and rubber things you put around your wrist. It's been the subject of more than 2,500 published books, making the bald eagle the most extensively studied bird in North America. While we estimate there were nearly 500,000 bald eagles on this continent, this species was particularly devastated by a reproductive failure. In response, Congress did enact the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the bird was listed on the Endangered Species Act. From its all-time low of 417 nesting pairs in the continental United States during the Lyndon Johnson administration, extraordinary conservation efforts have saved the bald eagle since that time, and we have witnessed a significant population increase. Today, there are just under 10,000 breeding pairs in the lower 48, not to mention to 30,000 bald eagles living in Alaska. By any objective stand, the recovery of the bald eagle has been remarkable and sadly, one of the few success stories of the Endangered Species Act, an act that obviously needs significant reform. The Secretary of Interior has removed the bald eagle from the Federal list of threatened endangered species, and there is no question that the bald eagle will continue to inspire millions of America, but it symbolizes fundamental values of this country: courage, freedom, patriotic spirit, and of energy development. Under the terms of House Resolution 1247, the people of the United States are encouraged to observe American Eagle Day on June 20, to provide educational information about the bald eagle and our Nation's wildlife resources. And I also urge a ``yes'' vote. And I want to commend and compliment the author of this resolution, Congressman Davis of Tennessee, for his effective leadership in proposing this celebration of American Eagle Day. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield, before I make my statement, to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), the sponsor of this particular resolution, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think I am ready to finish out here. One of the problems that we have had over the past is an effort, as we try to look at energy independence, is to find some kind of scapegoat, someone whom to blame, usually a corporation. The reality is that is not what we should be doing. What we should be doing is finding commonsense solutions to the problem. Oil companies already are putting billions of dollars into research, but for every one of those holes that are drilled, there is always a delaying concept that sometimes will last between 7 and 10 years for environmental engineering studies, permitting, and then even comes the litigation and the regulation on top of that. The bottom line is still, on our offshore coast, 85 percent and onshore 67 percent of all our land is permanently locked away where there is no way of getting to the resource assets that are there. That's the reality of what's taking place. May I also address this bill specifically as well. The gentlelady from Guam has given seven examples of situations and problems with nonhuman primates, monkey bites. Unfortunately, every situation that was given was already covered in existing law, and the bill before us would in no way cover any of those situations. This deals simply with transportation. It doesn't deal with the situations that were brought up. Once again, this bill does not fit the examples that have been brought up as to why the bill should be there. The bottom line is still the Department of the Interior is opposing this bill because they say it is new enforcement mandates. They're enforcement mandates in areas they have not been historically responsible because their area is in the area of wilderness and wildlife conservation. This does not meet it. And indeed, the Interior Department once again said that this bill is coverage that is duplicative of existing laws. And that's one of the reasons why we have a problem with this particular bill, in an area to try to expand what we're doing in an area which ought not be expanded because local governments and States have a better way and can easily, easily solve this particular problem without the extra expense to the national taxpayer. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield additional time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will yield as much time as the lady wishes to consume to the gentlelady from the State of North Carolina.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I do have a few other speakers.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield myself such time as I may consume and I would like to raise a few issues that give me pause. As a matter of full disclosure, neither I nor any member of my family own a pet capuchin, a howler or a spider monkey. However, I admit that I'm not particularly fond of those annoying rally monkeys that seem to show up during the American League baseball playoffs. This legislation would amend the Lacey Act to make it a Federal crime to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase a nonhuman primate pet in either interstate or foreign commerce. This measure contains the distressing trend of federalizing yet another issue that clearly falls under the jurisdiction of State fish and wildlife agencies. In fact, more than 40 States already either prohibit the ownership of monkeys or require a license or permit to own them. It also begs the question of why is there an overriding need for this legislation? According to the proponents, nonhuman primates attack people and spread deadly diseases. Yet there have only been 132 documented incidents over a 10-year period where nonhuman primates have injured a human primate. Of these incidents, 80 involved primate pets, not covered by this bill, or less than eight attacks per year. By contrast, man's best friend sends more than 100,000 people to the hospital each year, not to mention the numerous romps in the yard ruined by the discovery of a substance left by the neighbor's schizophrenic canine friend. Furthermore, we heard testimony before our committee that there is no documentation of pet primates being a threat to public safety. In fact, there have been no instances where a captive nonhuman primate pet has caused a disease transmission or human death. While I am not a betting man, the chances of being bitten by a pet nonhuman primate in this country appears to be about one in 38 million. Since this is hardly a public safety issue, I wish to address this body--or direct this body if there are any Members of the body actually here--to the cost of this legislation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost $4 million a year for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who opposed this bill, to hire additional staff to conduct inspections and investigations to enforce this act. On a per incident basis, this represents about a half million dollars in U.S. public taxpayer money per bite. At that rate, I hope I can apply for the job. At a time when our national debt is approaching a staggering $9 trillion, certainly it is legitimate to ask whether this is a wise use of taxpayer money, especially in light of the fact that the States have been and are quite capable of regulating the nonhuman primate pet trade now and in the future. Maybe we should actually spend more of our time with the human primates' energy issues instead of the nonhuman primate pet trade nonissue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, gas prices have finally hit $4 a gallon. That's $1.71 higher than when we first met as a Congress, and the Speaker said she had a secret plan to lower those costs. Yet rather than talking about energy issues, we are talking, spending time to find scapegoats to blame for those costs, not realizing that for every dollar that goes up in energy costs, jobs are lost, income is reduced, our social programs are harmed and people simply suffer. We should be fighting for these issues, for the 1,100 people that worked for American Airlines but were fired because they couldn't afford the gas for 100 planes; for the Washington, D.C., cabbie who, for the first time in his life, cannot greet his kids at home when they come home from school because he has to work 2 hours a day longer for the same amount of money; for the Virginia father who can no longer attend his father-and-son outing because he can't afford the gas to go there. People are suffering, and, instead, we are here on the floor dealing with congressional minutia. We must be dealing with legislation to improve conservation, improve production and improve innovations of how we deliver those fuel sources to the people. Otherwise we will become, as John Adams said, one useless man is disgraced, two are a law firm, and three or more become a Congress. The people have had this Congress.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We have about 20 billion board feet of new death a year.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is my understanding that in the natural forests of the United States, owned by the United States, we grow about 40 billion board feet of new growth a year.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It's my understanding the Forest Service is only removing about 2 billion, not 20 billion, but 2 billion board feet a year. Is that not a potential plus for it, and is it also not true that this Congress prohibited any new development in that area?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have to join with Representative Kildee in thanking you for being here and being part of the system and for the service that you have rendered. I hope it has been profitable for all of you as it has been profitable for us as we benefited from your particular system here, and I hope it also spurs you to have a continued interest in government and in politics. I realize that is not the norm. When I was born, my father was mayor of the community. I always saw him involved in politics. I thought every family did that. What I found out, quite frankly, is that it is atypical. But what I hope for you is it is not atypical, and this spurs you on to continue to want to study, to participate and be a part of government. The brilliance of our system of lay government is that common people can come together and you don't have to be trained to do this job. I know the way we do it, you think probably we should be trained. But, at the same time, common people can talk about issues and can make decisions for themselves. We are both old teachers. As a history teacher, I now get to talk about F-22s and F-35s and public land policy and can do that because that is the way the system is designed. And through all of the flaws and the bumps and the grinds, the bottom line is still our system works. I encourage you as you go back there to finish your education, become involved in your communities, become involved in your political parties, become involved in the system, and keep that encouragement, that interest alive. The future of this country depends upon you doing that. So thank you for being here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate one more time the opportunity of talking about this. It is one of the fundamental elements that we have as the concept of good government that Congress should exercise its right of oversight on programs. Even if we authorize a program, however good it should be, there still should be at a regular basis an oversight. It is not threatening to a program. It is the responsibility of Congress. We do have a bunch of programs that simply run without that kind of oversight. Some programs whose authorization has lapsed still function on. That is not the concept of good government. We have things especially in our area, Coastal Zone Management, Endangered Species Act whose reauthorization has lapsed, still functions on under their authorization by the appropriators, but it needs to be reviewed by the Appropriations Committee. That is its purpose. We have some programs that are permanent, that have no oversight whatsoever: Defense, food stamps, child health care, school lunches. But, once again, in each of those areas what Congress should be doing is exercising our responsibility, and simply saying there is nothing that we should pass that shouldn't ask Congress to relook at a bill and relook at a program, and evaluate the essence of that program if it is still the most significant thing we should be doing. Or perhaps our priorities have changed. That should not be seen as an attack on the bill, it should not be seen as something that is negative or unfriendly. It should be seen as something simply as reauthorizing and re-recognizing what we are supposed to be doing. That is our job as representatives of the people, is to constantly be looking at what we have authorized, reevaluate, and reappropriate. And we are doing something in this particular amendment in an effort to do that at a 5- year basis. That is not illogical. In fact, that is the norm. That is rational. That is what usually happens in these particular situations, and it is what should happen in this particular situation. Again, it is nothing again to try to harm the bill in any way; it is simply an effort to try to move us forward to make sure that Congress does its job, and does its job on a regular, appropriate level. That is why we are here. We should not abrogate that responsibility. We should accept that. We should embrace it. And we should try to move forward from that position. I apologize for trying to elongate this in some particular way. I think I have said repeatedly what the crux of this issue is. This is not a proposition from Liechtenstein; this is simply the concept of, do we periodically review what we authorize. It is a plus thing that we should be doing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, before I give my opening statement, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one more time, if we can try and emphasize the point of this. This is still a decent bill. There are a few flaws, but it is a decent bill and I support it going forward with this particular bill. There are still some changes I would like to see in that bill. Also, we must realize, though, that if we are talking about the overall use of this bill, we are taking time on the floor when we should be talking about much more significant and vital issues than this particular bill. Having a rule on this bill is a strange use of the time of Congress, especially when there are much more significant issues that need to be debated and discussed at this particular time. And even though I plan on voting for this bill, it is one of those things that is still sad that we are as a Congress not addressing the core issues for which the people have sent us here and not looking at what should be the core issues for which the people have sent us here. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.