Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington yielding me the time. It is always a pleasure for me to be on the floor with the two Representative Hastings who represent different parts of the country here. It's a pleasure. Mr. Speaker, when I was a young State legislator in my second term, actually I was still in my twenties, so you know that was a long, long time ago, someone once came to me with an idea of doing some PR by doing what everyone wants to do, and that is to eliminate useless legislation. I thought this is great. This is going to be a great stunt that I can use to eliminate some useless legislation. I picked a statute still in the Utah code still on the books which required the State of Utah to fund a summer encampment for every veteran of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and, since when this was written, it also said the Great War. Since there were no veterans alive, I thought this was an ideal situation to try to pass, and I introduced the bill. The unfortunate thing is, even though this bill was supposed to do nothing, when it went to the committees of jurisdiction, there was this impending desire on the part of legislators to make the bill actually do something. By the time it went actually through the process, this bill allowed for any veterans group, including Boy Scouts, to be able to use all the National Guard armories in the State of Utah free of charge. It got to the point where I killed my own bill, because all of a sudden something that wasn't supposed to do anything was now doing something. What it was doing was really, really wrong and not intended. Now the proponents of this particular bill say the greatest benefit from this bill is simply that it basically does nothing. It doesn't change anything. However, one of the proponents, when asked by his local newspaper if this would increase the cost and the regulations on these lands said, well, you establish the system first and then we go to step two. It is what that step two may or may not be that has the greatest amount of concern with this particular bill, which direction will we be going? This bill talks about establishing values for the management of this land, but nowhere does it ever talk about what these values actually are. We will hear amendments on the floor that we are talking about grazing and hunting and fishing and energy rights, as those are part of the values that should have been described and should have been defined in the very basis of this bill. But what is significant is what will not be allowed to be discussed on this floor with this particular bill. Specifically, how do you treat individuals with this bill? We had an amendment that deals with the concept of recreation, boating and shooting rights. There would be no net loss of territory. On these types of recreation activities, this is a perfect example to talk about is this part of the value of these lands? It's traditional, and yet it was denied the ability to even present that on the floor. We talked about the border security. There will be an amendment which will codify the status quo on border security, which is not what we wanted to bring up, because what we were talking about is not the status quo, which is bad, but changing the status quo. Those efforts to try and expand that opportunity on border security were denied discussion on this floor on the rule. Now, this particular entity, this national land conservation system, came from the fertile mind of Secretary Babbitt. It also did not have a specific definition of what the values were. There are two types of parks and monuments. Not all parks and monuments are created equal. Parks and monuments, run by the Park Service, talk about values and they are specified as to what those values are. What this bill is now trying to do is codify a new entity that will be talking about values of BLM, parks and national monuments. Now, when you talk to the Department of the Interior, one of the reasons they say they are somewhat supportive of the concept of this bill was because it would allow them to maintain the multiple use values that make a difference between park service land and BLM land. Yet when we tried to add an amendment to this bill, both in committee and again in the Rules Committee, to specifically say that one of the values must be multiple use, it was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Once again, the very essence of the difference between national park monuments and national parks and BLM national parks and national monuments is this concept of multiple use. Yet we are not allowed to even talk about that, which goes to the question, if people eventually take legislation and want it to do something, in what direction will this take us? What will they start wanting to do? If the core difference between national park land and BLM land is not specified in this legislation, where, actually, will we end up? This bill may, indeed, do something that we do not want to see happening, and this entity, which is nothing more than a $15 million a year boondoggle right now, a redundancy at best, could indeed end up to do something that creates real harm and real destructive elements.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I will be voting in favor of this particular amendment. I think this is actually a very good amendment. This is the issue we presented in committee that was rejected in committee. I am glad that someone somewhere, between the path of this bill from committee to here on the floor, found religion and is actually looking forward to this particular issue. It's a good one, even though we were told in committee it was just a shadow that we were fighting on the wall. I would recognize also that there were three amendments that were introduced that did the exact same thing that have now been incorporated in this particular amendment. Somebody once told me, well, when you steal you should steal from the best. I think this is stolen from the best simply because the ones that were not recommended were my amendments. Therefore, since we're saying the same thing, in the spirit of bipartisanship, what else can I say, other than this is the right thing to do, and I actually personally support this particular amendment. It is the right thing to do. Regardless of who gets credit for it, it is the right thing to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The amendment offered by Mr. Pearce is critical to protecting ranchers who produce our food from the negative consequences of this bill. Without the Pearce language, ranchers would be left to the whims of future Secretaries of Interior that will diminish ranching opportunities. Already, grazing rights are under assault on multiple fronts. There is a simple element out there that loathes grazing on public land. And our food supply is, indeed, worthy of protection and worthy of the use of our public land. Despite opposition to this amendment in committee, I hope the other side will now recognize that granting these small protections in the legislation is, indeed, our duty. We cannot abandon our responsibility to legislate by leaving to bureaucrats the opportunity to isolate bankrupt ranchers dependent upon grazing. We thank Mr. Pearce for his foresight and determination to protect grazing rights now and in the future, and urge support of his amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Do I have remaining time still, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Grijalva actually taking the lead on this issue. In fact, Republicans had two amendments that were introduced to the Rules Committee that dealt with this same specific issue. Again, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the two Republicans ones were not put in place but the Democrat one was, and at least we are addressing this particular issue. I do happen to have some objection to this one, because to me, what this amendment does, is put into statute or to put into language the status quo. Nothing in this act shall impede what we are already doing. I think this issue should be more forward thinking. We need to change what is happening in the status quo in this area that is simply now known as the trail of amnesty, where so much illegal narcotics work, illegal human trafficking and illegal gang activity has taken place. The article to which I referred actually specifies what that is there. That is why the amendments that were not made in order were superior to the one that is made in order here, and it should be recognized. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico 2 minutes of my time for discussion of this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I first ask uanimous consent to include an article from the Tucson Weekly that deals with the areas of this issue.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to one of the sponsors of this bill, our good friend and colleague from California, where obviously at this particular time both physically and intellectually we are on different sides of the field on this particular issue, but I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, again, as I was speaking earlier about the bill, one of the problems is simply the concept of some vague elements of what ``values'' may or may not be, especially as it applies to Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The language in question that I ask to be removed from this bill is language that comes specifically from the Organic Act that created the National Park System as well as the Redwood amendments. Those two concepts caused the National Park Service to administer park lands to the same standard. In the absence of any other definition of what Bureau of Land Management land should be in this system, it is essential that we not have to revert back to what the National Park Service uses as its values standard, and that's the fear that comes in here. Indeed, in the BLM land that has been put into this system, you have a multitude of different land, from Bureau of Land Management monuments to Bureau of Land Management parks, to wilderness areas, to wilderness study areas. If, indeed, the same language that has forced the Park Service to manage in the same administrative pattern is now imposed on the Bureau of Land Management, it would do irreparable harm to different lands that are specifically there so that they can use multiple use. Once again, we come back to that issue. BLM lands are supposed to be administered differently. That's why it's BLM lands in the first place. This language opens up the possibility of using the same kind of litigation techniques that force the Park Service to use all of their lands in the exact same manner onto the National Park Service. If you change it to simply do what we said earlier, establish a National Landscape Conservation System, without the other verbiage, you eliminate that potential problem. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, when I was first elected to Congress, my incoming class decided to concentrate on the concept of exposing waste, fraud and abuse in national government. I wish I was still doing that because with all due respect, I have struck the mother lode of waste, fraud and abuse. Tomorrow we will debate on this floor under a rule a perfect example of abusing taxpayers, fraud on taxpayers, and wasting of taxpayers' money. Less than 10 years ago, Secretary Babbitt established an organization called the National Land Conservation System. He said it was his idea, his hope, to move from what he called the ``Bureau of Livestock and Mining,'' which was actually his legal responsibility, to what he wanted to be, a bureau of landscapes and monuments. He wanted this organization to emphasize and recognize the crown jewels of the Bureau of Land Management. One has to ask: How does one actually recognize and emphasize the crown jewels of the Bureau of Land Management? In hearings, we asked the bureau spokesman if before this entity was established, was the Bureau of Land Management incompetent in handling these goals, or of emphasizing and recognizing these lands. And the answer was, obviously, no. So the question once again is: Why do we want tomorrow to codify and make permanent this entity which is at best redundant and is at worst simply a waste of taxpayers' money, because you see, this new entity doesn't appoint anyone. It doesn't fire anybody. It doesn't write or remove regulations. It doesn't administer or regulate. It doesn't do anything except cost the taxpayer $50 million a year to run it. The best argument that the proponents of this bill will have is that it doesn't change anything. In essence, it does nothing to an entity that does nothing; so why do it. Another of the great arguments is it won't cost us a dime, except when the sponsor was asked in his State newspaper whether this new system would have more funds and regulations, his response was, ``Well, you've got to establish the system, and then you go to step two.'' In what actually is being purported as something that doesn't really change anything, my fear is this bill might actually do something. The Department of Interior tentatively supports this proposal because it says it helps them to maintain the basic difference between a national park and a national monument on BLM land as opposed to a monument or park on National Park Service land. And the key element in the difference between the two is the concept in the BLM of multiple use on the public lands. And yet when our side tried to introduce an amendment in the committee to make sure that multiple use was one of the key values of this new system, it was defeated on a party-line vote. And when we went to the Rules Committee to try to bring this issue to the floor, it was once again defeated on a party-line vote. The only difference between BLM and National Park Service is this concept of multiple use, and yet this is one issue that is specifically eliminated from the bill that will be in discussion tomorrow. This bill is supposed to take the status quo and make it permanent; and yet all of the problems inherent in the status quo are not solved by this particular bill. We have great issue with private in holdings on these lands, none of which is addressed. We tried to make sure that those people who like to recreate on these lands, that no boating, no shooting areas would be diminished if this went into effect, and once again that issue was rejected on a party- line vote and not even allowed to be discussed on the House floor. We talked about potential border security, and an amendment will be granted tomorrow that says we will do nothing to change what we are doing on border security on these lands which are part of our border, and that is, indeed, one of the problems because it's not the status quo we want. It is change that needs to be done. This area is sometimes called sarcastically the Trail of Amnesty, where it's estimated that every year a quarter of a million people will go through, those who are most of the worst in the human traffickers, the drug dealers and some of our gang members. There is one ranch that is near this area; already in a short period of time has been burglarized 16 times even though he has iron bars on the window, a security system. When he's on horseback riding his ranch he finds needles, baby clothes, two skulls, four dead bodies. No Country for Old Men looks like a soap opera compared to this territory. It is not the status quo we need to do. It is change that is essential. And once again, nothing like this happens. When we write fuzzy and vague language we invite lawsuits against the Federal Government. We'll have an amendment tomorrow to try to eliminate or at least limit the kinds of potential lawsuits we have. We will see what happens because, once again, that was rejected in the committee. This national land conservation system should not be codified and made permanent; if anything, it should be eliminated as a $50 million example of waste, fraud and abuse. The dream of Secretary Babbitt is really an expensive millstone around the neck of all taxpayers in this country.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, it is certainly hopeful that with the passage of this bill we will have faith in NOAA to administer this territory, since we obviously with passage of this bill don't trust them to evaluate or make recommendations. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I rise in opposition to this legislation. This legislation would double the size of two of the marine sanctuaries off the coast of California, adding approximately 1,200 square miles and almost 100 miles of coastline, and with little or absolutely no public comment. Moreover, this is happening at the very same time that the management plans for the two sanctuaries are being reviewed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. NOAA could have considered this expansion during the ongoing process, but it did not because it considered the expansion to be complicated and something that would require effort, analysis, and public input. This legislation ignores the need for public comment on a very complicated expansion. The entire intent of this legislation could be accomplished through public process that already exists. But, unfortunately, Congress can't wait to hear from the people. It is sad that the citizens of California, who are most affected by this legislation, will not have the opportunity to comment on this expansion in the normal statutory public comment process. Again, I reluctantly oppose this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think the gentleman from Hawaii could have done it much more artfully than I did, but I will be happy to allow him to do that.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3651, the Utah National Guard Readiness Act, was cosponsored by the entire Utah delegation. There are only three of us, but we all agreed. So Mr. Matheson, Mr. Cannon, and I are sponsoring this bill, as requested by the Adjutant General of the Utah National Guard as well as the Governor of the State of Utah, in order to address the long-term growing pains of the National Guard at their Camp Williams headquarters. The Utah National Guard has run out of State-controlled land on which to expand and build and support its vital national guard and national defense missions. The lands transferred under this act are already withdrawn from military use by the Guard from the Bureau of Land Management. So placing the land in the State's name for use by the National Guard will allow for the consolidation of ownership patterns in the critical headquarters area, and allow the State of Utah to bond for future Guard facilities in a more streamlined and cost-effective manner. I thank the chairman of our committee, Mr. Rahall, and his staff, for working on this bill and moving it forward. I also thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Grijalva, for his assistance and that of the subcommittee professional staff. In this day and age, we are asking the National Guardsmen to do more and more heavy lifting for our Nation's defense and in deploying overseas in armed conflict. At the same time, we are asking them to also be on the frontlines in protect the homeland, and also to be there for our States and communities in times of emergency or natural disasters. We ask a lot of them, and they deliver. This bill will allow our Utah National Guard to support its future mission growth in meeting these challenges. It is a small thing for us to be able to help them down the road in meeting their obligations. I thank my colleagues for consideration of this bill, and I strongly urge its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate those kind words, and I will try to be as introspective as I possibly can here. Public Law 108-191 made it illegal to buy, sell, or trade certain large exotic cats in interstate or foreign commerce. These include cheetahs, cougars, jaguars, leopards, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my. The measure did not ban the private ownership of these cats, and specific exemptions were provided for qualified aquariums, circuses, sanctuaries, and zoos. In the 5 years that this law has been enacted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been unable to prosecute anyone because of drafting deficiencies; so, I would urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 4933. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2675, and we are pleased to support this legislation that will help the young men of Oklahoma by allowing the Boy Scouts of America to expand their summer camp within the forest to accommodate the fast-growing number of campers. This speaks volumes about the excellent organization that is the Boy Scouts of America, and we compliment Representative Boren on his efforts. Hopefully this land conveyance will ease some of the pain the scouting community suffered when Congressman Boren left the Scouts shortly before attaining the rank of tenderfoot. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and the professional staff for moving this bill along expeditiously, and thank my friend from Hawaii for his efforts on this particular legislation, and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for having a wonderful bill. I urge Members to support this particular legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3352. Hydrographic surveys and shoreline mapping activities provide data to produce accurate nautical charts. Many vessels from large container ships and oil tankers to the smaller commercial fishing vessels and recreational boaters rely on nautical charts to safely navigate U.S. waterways. There is currently a backlog in the survey work, making many nautical charts out of date. H.R. 3352 will reauthorize the program that supports hydrographic surveys and shoreline mapping activities, and continue the efforts to provide all users with accurate nautical charts. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3891. It does increase by five members the Board of Directors on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Since its inception, this foundation has financed more than 9,500 conservation projects to sustain, restore, and enhance fish wildlife population and their essential habitat. Under current law, the Secretary of the Interior may appoint 25 individuals to serve on the Board of Directors. These members have expertise in fish, wildlife, natural resources, and conservation. They serve as conservation ambassadors, and they approve projects submitted to the foundation, and raise funds for the operation of this successful organization. The additional five members will help to enhance that job description. I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on H.R. 3891. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular bill helps solve the conundrum that we face in the protection and conservation of certain species: For example, the bony- tailed chub, the razorback sucker, and the humpback chub. H.R. 2515, introduced by Dean Heller of Nevada and Harry Mitchell of Arizona, is an amended bipartisan measure aimed at protecting endangered species while keeping the waters running and the lights on for consumers in the Southwest. As amended at the committee level, this bill has been scaled back, but still codifies a very popular multi-species habitat conservation plan on the Lower Colorado River. I note that some water and power supply organizations support key provisions taken out by the majority. However, in the interest of moving this bill forward, they support the passage of this bill with the hope that the final bill signed into law will better resemble the original legislation. At a time when our water supply is being diminished due to a number of factors, this bill--although somewhat incomplete--is still a win-win for our water and power consumers. I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.