Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, a bill sponsored by the former chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert of California. Since Southern California is dependent upon imported water, many communities are pursuing ways to develop local water supplies through water recycling. This bill will help the Yucaipa Valley and the town of Corona in California reduce their dependence on imported water through water recycling. This bill, which is cosponsored by our distinguished colleague, Jerry Lewis of California, will also help protect these communities from drought and environmental lawsuits aimed at shutting off water deliveries. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2627, which designates the Edison National Historic Site as the Thomas Edison National Historic Park. Supporters of the park anticipate this redesignation will improve the visitation revenue to the Edison historic site. I would like also to recognize the critical contributions to this legislation made by Congressman Scott Garrett. Last year, Mr. Garrett successfully moved this bill through the Resources Committee in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this effort, and hopefully it will go all the way through both Houses at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 229, promoting the conservation and management of the Atlantic bluefin tuna. The United States has been instrumental in working towards a viable and successful rebuilding plan for western Atlantic bluefin tuna. Unfortunately, the countries fishing on the eastern bluefin tuna stock have repeatedly ignored the recommendations of the scientific committee and set quotas for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna at unsustainable levels. To add insult to injury, those countries have not even complied with these unsustainable quotas, having continued to fish at levels far over the unsustainable quota level. This concurrent resolution is very timely, within the 20th meeting of the Tuna Commission, occurring this week in Turkey. The U.S. delegation should continue its leadership role and propose additional conservation measures for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna. Moreover, the delegation should work to get the Commission to adopt viable compliance measures and, if necessary, sanctions for those countries that continue to ignore the conservation and management recommendations of the Commission. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this particular bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Could I ask the gentleman from California if he has other speakers.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Then I'll be the last speaker, and I think we're ready to move on with that. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume at this time. I think in closing on this particular issue, I would like to speak also in favor of the motion to instruct of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It's a wise motion. I don't think I or anyone else here objects to any administrator making an adequate compensation. But I also think that six figures is an adequate compensation, especially when the teachers in Head Start are averaging 25 grand a year. In 2005, the independent General Accountability Office did issue a report that warned that their financial control system in the Head Start program is flawed, failing, and it did fail to prevent multi- million-dollar financial abuses that do cheat children in this particular program. It is important that the resources that we have go to increasing teacher salaries, hiring more teachers or supplies that directly go to help the kids in the Head Start program. And it's important that in conference we make it very clear that our resources should be targeted to those who are simply in need. Sparky Anderson was once asked why he was such a successful manager, and he simply responded that baseball is a simple game. You have good players you keep in the right positions, and then the manager is a success. Even Earl Weaver once said that if you do the dull things right, extraordinary things won't be required. This motion to instruct may be one of those dull things, that if we do it right and do it right in this bill, we won't have to come back here and do the extraordinary things. The extraordinary things will be done by the teachers in the classrooms who are helping these kids who need this help in the Head Start program so desperately. I urge a favorable vote on the motion to instruct. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Yes, in it's current form.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As I am sure the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia knows, each and every one of the divisions within the Department of the Interior has different sets of rules and regulations. BIA land would not be a problem. A national park designation would be. So any of these heritage areas that were under the direction of the National Park Service, and there are some within this new bill, would fall under title 36. That's why this legislation desperately needs to be there, the same amendment that we actually did present at another time in one of our committees. So, yes, it's still significant. It's still important. It needs to be there to clarify specifically. If the intent is not to change what has been happening by the locals, this clearly sets in all these areas what has been local will continue and State and local regulations will have precedence.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 110 organizations interested in property rights who are opposed to this particular bill, including such groups as the Taxpayers Union, a supervisor in the affected area, Property Rights Foundation of America, Family Research Council and a mayor in my district. Coalition Letter Detailing Risks of National Heritage Area Designation The following letter--signed by a diverse group of more than 110 organizations, elected officials and citizens--was delivered on September 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici, House Committee on Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Don Young as well as all the members of the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees. Dear [Elected Official]: The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against government abuse of property rights. The ``bridge to nowhere'' and other wasteful programs triggered angry protests against the practice of earmarking National heritage areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one. National heritage areas are preservation zones where land use and property rights can be restricted. They give the National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many with histories of hostility toward property rights) substantial influence by giving them the authority to create land use ``management plans'' and then the authority to disburse federal money to local governments to promote their plans. As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on heritage areas states: ``[National heritage areas] encourage local governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their property.'' The proposed ``Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act'' provides a good case study on how heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and influence projects. The chief lobbying organization for this heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage area--an earmark that was granted before the organization was even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense of the rights of local landowners. We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle of representative government and this inherently local function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests the authority to develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance their efforts. Once established, National heritage areas become permanent units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion- dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAG, ``sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting federal funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received funding reauthorization from the Congress.'' Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights protections and less pork-barrel spending--not more earmarks to programs that harm property rights. Please do not support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas. Sincerely, David Ridenour, Vice President, National Center for Public Policy Research; J. William Lauderback, Executive Vice President, The American Conservative Union; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; Paul Poister, Executive Director, Partnership for the West; Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America; William Niemeyer, Mayor, City of West Alton, MO; Ryan Ellis, Executive Director, American Shareholders Association; Peter Flaherty, President, National Legal and Policy Center; Steve Snow, Supervisor, Loudoun County, VA; Carol W. LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of America; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government Affairs, Family Research Council; Jay Lehr, Science Director, The Heartland Institute; Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus Association; Bill Moshofsky, Vice President, Oregonians In Action; Niger Innis, National Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality; Gregory Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance. Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.; Linda C. Runbeck, President, American Property Coalition; Thomas K. Remington, Managing Editor, U.S. Hunting Today; Fred L. Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Matt Kibbe, President, Freedom Works; Mychal Massie, Advisory Council Chairman, Project 21; Steve Baldwin, Executive Director, Council for National Policy Action, Inc.; Caren Cowen, Executive Director, New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association; Randy T. Simmons, Mayor, Providence City, UT, Professor, Utah State University; Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association; Leroy Watson, Legislative Director, National Grange; Kelsey Zahourek, Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance; Roy Cordato, Ph.D., VP for Research and Resident Scholar, John Locke Foundation; Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center; Rachel Thomas, Property Rights Advocate, Huachuca City, AZ; Rose Ellen Ray, Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights Loudoun County, VA. Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise; Maxine Korman, Korman Ranch, Hinsdale, Montana; Gerald Hobbs, President, Public Lands for the People; John Grigsby, Vice President, Taxpayers for Accountable Government; Don Parmeter, Executive Director, American Property Coalition; Leo Schwartz, Chairman, Virginia Land Rights Coalition; Pat King, Anvil Ranch, Tucson, AZ; Tom Borelli, Ph.D., Portfolio Manager, Free Enterprise Action Fund; John and Connie Morris, Members, Tongue River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus; Brad VanDyke, Representative, Rural Utahns for Local Solutions; Jerry Hamilton, Environmental Coordinator, Formation Capital Corporation; F. Patricia Callahan, President and General Counsel, American Assoc. of Small Property Owners; Lew Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; Jon Caldara, President, Independence Institute; Dan Byfield, President, American Land Foundation; John Taylor, President, Tertium Quids. Susan Carlson, Chairman and CEO, American Civil Rights Union; Gary Palmer, President, Alabama Policy Institute; Lenore Hardy Barrett, State Representative, Idaho; Jonathan DuHamel, President, People for the West-Tucson; Jack and Patricia Shockey, President and Director, Citizens for Property Rights; Fred Grau, Executive Director, Take Back Pennsylvania; Mike Dail, Chairman, American Land Foundation; Chuck Cushman, President, American Land Rights Association; James Stergios, Executive Director, Pioneer Institute; Deneen Borelli, Fellow, Project 21; Marilyn Hayman, Chairman, Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights; C.J. Hadley, Publisher/Editor, Range Magazine; Elizabeth Arnold, Grassroots Consultant, Environmental Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK; Greg Blankenship, President, Illinois Policy Institute; Bill Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government; Jane Hogan, Secretary, Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc. Katherine Lehman, President, People for the USA Grange #835; Howard Hutchinson, Executive Director, Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties; C. Preston Noell III, President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com; Leo T. Bergeron, President, Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed Council; Eugene Delgaudio, President, Public Advocate of the U.S., Inc.; Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D., Charter Member, Virginians for Property Rights; John McClaughry, President, Ethan Allen Institute; Richard O. Rowland, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii; James W. Jarrell, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Bear Hunters Association; Erich Veyhl, Publisher, Maine Property Rights News; Dane vonBreichenruchardt, President, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; Mark Williamson, Founder and President, Federal Intercessors, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; Beth Machens, Board of Aldermen, City of West Alton, MO . Janet M. Neustadt, Board of Aldermen, City of West Alton, MO; William J. Richter, Board of Aldermen, City of West Alton, MO; Deborah Anderson, Treasurer, City of West Alton, MO; Susan Silk, City Clerk, City of West Alton, MO; Charlotte Meyers, Assistant Administrator, City of West Alton, MO; Ora B. Anderson, Jr., Planning and Zoning Commission, City of West Alton, MO; Ray Ponciroli, Board of Aldermen, City of Portage, MO; Army Ridenour, Director, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty; Bruce Colbert, Executive Director, Property Owners Association of Riverside County, CA; Randall and Ruth Lillard, Farmers and Landowners, Madison County, VA; Joyce Morrison, Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist, Fieldon, IL; Donald Castellucci, Jr., Councilman, Town of Owego, Tioga County, NY; Milari Madison, Property Owner, Loudoun County, VA; Robert L. Sansom, Farmer and Landowner, Madison County, VA; Mary E. Darling, Sonoita, AZ. James Vadnais, Port Angeles, WA; Floyd Rathbun, Fallon, Nevada; Steven and Peggy Breen, Boise, Idaho; Peggy Bogart, Access Advocate; Dan Goulet, Portland, OR; Susan Freis Falknor, Bluemont, VA; Harold L. Stephens, Member, Citizens to Protect the Confluence; Jerry Fennell, Chairman, Jicarilla Mining District; Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Center for Public Policy Research; Judy Keeler, Secretary, Bootheel Heritage Assoc. (Animas, NM); Alexandra H. Mulkern, Mechanicsville, MD; Lee Riddle, Brookings, OR; Stephen L. Ralston, Columbia, PA; Mark Pollot, Boise, ID; Billy Jean Redemeyer-Roney; D.J. McCarthy, Civil Engineer; Clifton McDonald, Needles, CA; Kirk and Jeri Hansen, Clayton, ID; Suzanne Volpe, Sterling, VA. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Then I'm prepared to close as well, if that's okay. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of this particular debate, on this particular bill there are elements of this bill that I fully support and I think are wise, good moves forward. There are some things in there that simply are not. We have talked a lot and heard a lot about some of the better parts of this bill. However, we're talking about heritage areas. And I'm sorry, in all due respect, a casino as a heritage area for Niagara Falls? Those are some of the stretches that we have in this particular element. When we had our committee hearing, there were several people that were talking about the need for these new heritage areas. One particular individual who was testifying told of the importance of having this Federal designation, so I tried to zero in on that and ask what it is specifically about this designation that cannot be done by the local levels, by State government, the local entity. Give me one thing that cannot be done that only the Federal Government can do. There was not one element that was given until somebody behind him simply answered that the correct answer is there are 15 million reasons why you have this designation, and each one has a portrait of George Washington on it. We have all been lobbied on this bill, even though lobbying is not allowed in this bill. We have tried to put amendments and provisions of these parts that would clarify, clarify that lobbying could not be used by this Federal money going to these entities, and yet the chairman's argument against this, well, it would be making it too difficult for heritage areas to then ask for money. Had we not had a closed rule, some commonsense changes as, for example, where the map actually is, should there be lobbying allowed, should there be real protection for private property owners, should we actually define what these are, they would have been allowed to be discussed and at least voted on this particular bill. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee cut out that opportunity, and now we're here with a closed bill. Many of my colleagues who do not serve on the Resources Committee may not be aware that the Department does not support these bills. On each and every heritage area that we've had recommended to the committee, the Department has asked the committee to defer action until a criteria for heritage areas is established. And I can see why some deferment makes sense. Perhaps we wouldn't be here debating heritage areas that have not yet finished their feasibility studies or had their maps prepared had we listened to that advice. A lot of good things, but this is still a classic Christmas tree with a lot of bad things that are hidden by the good ones. I urge my colleagues not to support this omnibus lands bill, this Christmas tree of lands bill, simply because there are too many bad things that need to be fixed before it moves on. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield an additional 2 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Do I understand you have no more speakers?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This particular motion to recommit ensures that the rights of State and local governments within heritage area designations will be able to regulate hunting and that it will be unharmed by this legislation. This bill currently provides that heritage area designations shall not diminish the right of States to regulate hunting, but it is silent on the issue including the right to carry firearms. The motion to recommit also clarifies that laws regarding fishing and possession or use of a weapon or trap shall be governed exclusively by States and localities. The second amendment is a critical right. We want to protect our constituents against consequences of this legislation that could harm that right. National parks have regulations that limit hunting and the right to carry or possess firearms even in States and localities where it is legally permitted. The text you see to my left is title 36 for the National Park Service Department, and this is the language that would prohibit in heritage areas those rights that even are currently allowed by State and local legislation. These regulations harm wildlife and the environment because even local wildlife management officials are impeded in their work. Before any attempt is made to restrict the rights of gun owners and second amendment defenders, this motion to recommit protects their legal existing rights now and in the future. It is important that it be said and be said clearly. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In closing, I will merely state I have appreciated this particular dialogue we have had, without the long colloquy we went through in this particular area. I would humbly submit that at least some of the times in the past when more than adequate time to consider a recommital has been given, the bill tends to disappear from the floor before the vote takes place. So we are happy this may not necessarily be the case today. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) very much wanted to manage H.R. 505 today, but he is on his way to an annual convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives, something that's very important to him as well as to that particular group. So I have consented to manage this issue, though there are few Members in this House who feel as strongly in favor of H.R. 505 as Mr. Young. The sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has done something that is very unique in this body. He's written a bill that only affects his own State. Recognizing the Native Hawaiian governing entity does not affect Native American tribes in my State, does not affect the lands or resources in my district. That is something that's becoming very unusual around here. Mr. Abercrombie, you need to be careful, you're almost becoming a Republican. Congress has already enacted dozens of authorizing laws and appropriations bills for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. This bill does not create a new source of funds, nor does it let Native Hawaiians seek funds through the BIA. This bill has the support of the Hawaiian delegation, Governor Lingle and the State legislature. Their judgment should be given some respect. Georgetown Professor Viet Dinh, who was the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy in 2001 to 2003, testified that ``Congress has constitutional authority to enact the Native Hawaiian Government Recognition Act, and to recognize a Native Hawaiian governing entity as a dependent sovereign government within the United States or, in other words, to treat Native Hawaiians just as it treats Native Americans and Alaska Natives.'' Professor Dinh explained that when Congress recognizes Native people, it does so in a political way, not a racial way, and he established two criteria that Congress must deem having met in order to exercise this authority. Basically, one, that people must have a native ancestry on lands that became part of the United States; two, they must be members of a distinct native community. H.R. 505 appears to have passed these two tests. This bill deserves a fair and open debate in this body, just as the native people who are seeking formal recognition from the government do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity you have given us to speak for awhile about public lands and about how the public lands are treated and how the future will and will not deal with those public lands. One of the facts that we have to deal with is how a government deals with property, whether personal property or public property, is a window to the soul of that government. Personal property is tangible and civil liberties are intangible, but both of them are at the center of the historic purpose of this American government, and the preservation of one is indeed the precondition for the preservation of the other. Sir Henry Maine once wrote a book called ``The Village Communities'' in which he said: Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled. The desire, the use of property, whether it is on land or whether it is the use of public property, that desire is what raises mankind from political slavery. One of the things that we do not often enough around this place is to consider why we are doing what we are doing. Indeed, one of the concepts that is there is that we do what we do because we have done what we always did; and sometimes when you take a moment to look back and reflect on that, in this particular Congress we have been inundated with laws and proposals which have huge and significant impact on personal and public property in the United States. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I would like to do is try to go through with several Members who are in the West, public land States who understand firsthand the responsibility and relationship of this, specifically what we are doing in these particular areas. One of the people I would like to address some of these issues deals with the public property in our forests. As you know, we are having major fires in this country, and the Speaker on this floor said now is the time we need to do what is right. I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and simply ask him to address that, of what can this Congress do to make it right, especially when we deal with our forests and our processes for the future of our forests to make them healthier or better.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Oregon. I especially appreciate his comments about our bipartisan bill that has been referred out of Resources. The Speaker of the House does have the ability of helping to move that bill along and can change the referral process to bring this one to the floor. And how significant this is, with these particular counties for the so-called secure rural schools, schools that are impacted by our policies in the passed-over forestlands. We need to have that on the floor now, and it has a funding source. It can be moved right now. I think I would probably join you in asking the Speaker publicly to bring that bill to the floor, let us vote on it, let us move the process forward, get it over to the Senate so we can solve that problem.