Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, though the structure of these resolutions require a Republican and Democrat both to present legislation, on this day when we deal with an issue of comfort, not on politics, this day we are all united as we honor these miners who were trapped and those who worked to find these men. We grieve with their families in our hearts, our prayers, our thoughts. The memory of these nine men will not diminish, and I urge all my colleagues to join with Mr. Matheson, Mr. Cannon, and myself in supporting this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join both of my colleagues from Utah, as well as, apparently, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee in expressing our profound sympathies for the Utah families who lost their loved ones at the Crandall Canyon mine. I'm not a miner, but I have been told that unless one has been a miner, it's impossible to understand the profession, the mindset and the courage that is displayed by those who work daily under dangerous conditions so that the rest of us can live in an element of comfort. Today, this body honors six competent, courageous men who labored to provide a better future for their families and all of us. On August 6, the Crandall Canyon mine experienced a shift in the Earth that registered a 4 on the Richter scale at the nearby University of Utah. This left almost 2,000 feet of debris between the working area of the mine and the last known location of these miners. Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, Luis Hernandez, Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips and Manuel Sanchez were lost in this catastrophe. In addition, three very courageous heroes sacrificed their lives to rescue their fellow miners. Only miners fully understand this commitment to those they consider brothers. Dale Black, Brandon Kimber, Gary Jensen, miners and a mine safety official lost their lives during this rescue effort. We cannot also forget the five other miners and the Mine Safety and Health Administration officials who were injured in this effort. Dozens of miners and officials put their life at risk by entering this mine to try and find and recover their colleagues, and over a period of 4 weeks the rescue efforts tried to reach these men through the working section of the mine, as well as horizontally, with seven bore holes drilled in a vain attempt to find the trapped miners. This self-sacrifice has been demonstrated throughout mining history. I have the firm belief that this life is not finite, and we shall all be reunited again; that these noble men who lost their lives will be reunited with their loved ones in the future. And though the separation may be short, it is extremely difficult for those left behind to bear that separation. I applaud our colleague, Congressman Matheson, for introducing this resolution, one which deals with the sympathy for those who were involved in this particular effort and as an effort to try and comfort them at this particular time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, allow me rhetorically, if I can, just to concentrate on one issue, the one at hand, which is the significant proposal, the motion to instruct made by the gentleman from Michigan. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Education Committee, I strongly support this extremely important motion that has been given to us today. On the day in July when my State celebrates the arrival of the pioneers into Salt Lake Valley, in a remote Pakistani town, the Pakistani police were closing in on one house that had been given as an intelligence tip that the top Taliban leader was inside. According to the Washington Post, this Taliban leader, Abdullah Mehsud, if I have pronounced that properly, was a short, round man in his early thirties, who had been an active Taliban commander in Pakistan for many years. Amazingly, though, this same man had been among the first military detainees at Guantanamo and had been released in 2004. Upon his release, what did he do? Go back to Pakistan, once again working with the Taliban, helping al Qaeda infiltrators coming into the rugged mountains area of Pakistan. But on this fateful day back in July, with the Pakistani police closing in, this top Taliban leader, who only the year before had been leading terrorist activities against mosques, had kidnapped a couple of Chinese engineers, and who knows what else, pulled the pin on a hand grenade and blew himself up rather than resubmit to the authorities. It's memorable and reminds one of the extravagances that took place in March of 2004 in Madrid when the subway bombings killed 200, injured 2,000 people. This al Qaeda-inspired terrorist activity and the leaders of that were tracked down by Spanish authorities; and as they surrounded the apartment where they were, the terrorists, the al Qaeda terrorists, had preplanned their own self-martyrdom by having wired their own apartment. So as the police closed in upon them, they pushed the button, not only blowing themselves up but also almost imploding the entire building, which would have killed hundreds of other innocent victims. Now, the reason, Mr. Speaker, that I present these two anecdotal stories is simply this: these people are not nice people. They're murderers of the worst sort. They're ideologically driven to kill. They would stop at nothing to try and kill as many men, women and children, if possible, in their goals of maximizing the amount of pain and destruction, especially those relating to us. They do not belong on American soil, nor do they belong to be released back to their own countries, where they can reorganize again, in this war, not just again on terror, but also the war against civilization and basic humanity. The motion to instruct asks this conference to accept the language passed in a similar bill in the Senate on an overwhelming 94-3 vote that rejects transferring a terrorist detained in Guantanamo to the United States soil. Our penal system, as we envision it, is one of rehabilitation. Obviously, these people have not been rehabilitated; and as we discuss what we will do as our options, as we discuss any kind of closure that may take place in Guantanamo, we should obviously say which options are not acceptable. Moving any of these prisoners to the United States is simply not acceptable. Returning them to their homes is simply not acceptable. Destroying the intelligence value we have at Guantanamo is simply not acceptable. This sense of the Congress resolution simply is one of those things that this body, the people's body, the House of Representatives, should overwhelmingly support. I cannot imagine anyone honestly believing it is a good idea to close Guantanamo and bring these individuals into our neighborhoods and into our backyards, nor to release them back to their country of origin where they'd be free to reorganize themselves. As Mr. McConnell said on the floor today, this is not a motion simply for the status quo. Flexibility of what our choices will be would still be allowed, but it does clearly say that the one option that is not acceptable would be a closing of Guantanamo Bay with the only option being of removing these people and bringing them back into our neighborhoods, back into our homes and back on American soil. For that, I appreciate what the gentleman from Michigan has done in bringing this once again to our attention so that we can join the Senate in making sure that this is very clear of what is not our policy option.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, the issue at hand today is not the 23 miles of wild and scenic river in what is called the Eightmile River. It is on the use of condemnation power to create it. It is sad in this situation that staff did not decide to work in a bipartisan way to try and come up with language accommodating everybody, instead, rejected in both the Rules and Resource Committees on straight party- line votes, simple and direct language that the Republicans submitted. We asked that it simply read that no Federal funds be used to condemn land to carry out the purpose of that act. Every Democrat, from the sponsor to the committee, said that was indeed their goal. That is simple language in section B. It is short; it's direct; it's understandable to any citizen, any attorney, any judge. That's what we need. Instead, the Democrats gave us a convoluted bit of double talk about zoning ordinances by some date in 2005, later on perhaps, willing sellers, all in the wrong section of the code, section C. It is nice, but it is a loophole. Simply because if you read, not the bill, but the act, read the entire act, you'll find that all of the language that is presented in this section, in this bill comes after this sentence in the law which says, nothing contained in this section, that covers what we're talking about and what they're talking about, nothing contained in this section shall preclude the use of condemnation. This supersedes everything in their bill. All the gobbledygook they want to do, it supersedes it. This is the language to which we object, and the Democrat bill does nothing to mitigate this power of condemnation. I don't care if we're talking about an Eightmile River in Connecticut for Mr. Courtney or 8 miles of road in Detroit for Eminem. This is still the issue that is at hand. In the district where the State and local governments tried to take the home away from Suzette Kelo, we don't want it to be replicated again. This language has to be changed. So all of us need to lose yourself in this language. Read it, for indeed our citizens will. The voters will. It is clear. This is what we need changed.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could ask the gentleman from Arizona how many more speakers you have.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) such time as he may consume.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I have had the wonderful opportunity, or privilege, I guess, at different times, of standing, sitting in this chair, standing at this mike either to present bills or to control time or to present rules. Oftentimes, I was perplexed at the discussion that went on, because oftentimes our side would be giving wonderful speeches and their side would be giving wonderful speeches but never on the same topic. We didn't even have the terms defined. That will not happen today with this particular bill, because there is but one issue, and the issue is clear, and it is precise. We do not have a problem with the creation of the wild and scenic river for this Eightmile area in the State of Connecticut. I am under the assumption that at the public hearings that were held in Connecticut, issues that could be of concern, for example, if you have a kid and want to add a bedroom, if you want to add a garage to your home, if you want to fix the roof to your house, if you want to repair a road that's been washed out or even ask to clear some of the brush next to the river, that not only could that possibly be prohibited, but it would probably be prohibited because there is precedent in other wild and scenic areas where that exact same thing has happened. But, with that, and I am sure it was covered in those public hearings, I am convinced a majority of residents in this area supported the wild and scenic area. I was somewhat disenchanted, when we were told in the hearing it was unanimous support. Later on, we found out it was not that and the record has been amended to illustrate that. In one city, in which one of the letters I received said only five people were opposed to it, in reality it was about a 400-person meeting with about a third, about 40 percent who were opposed to it. Still not a majority, so I am not opposed to the scenic river. What is significant, though, is there is a significant minority of individuals in this area that are fearful of what may happen to their homes in this area. Their rights and their fears should be considered and should be considered carefully. It is ironic that this happens to be in the district in which both the leaders of the State and local government turned their backs on Susette Kelo and brought about that infamous court case decision dealing with Kelo, imminent domain issues. We do not want that to be replicated, which is clearly why the Republicans presented language in both the Resources and Rules Committee to make it specifically clear what was the intent of this bill. The language we propose simply says, no Federal funds may be used to condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendment made by subsection B. Nothing would be done. It is puzzling to us why the Democratic Party would not support that language, when all the Democrats from the sponsor to the committee chairman say that is, indeed, their goal. If their goal is not to use condemnation, then you should say so. Why this wasn't accepted in a bipartisan way is, for me, puzzling. Otherwise, this bill need not to be here today; it could easily be handled by unanimous consent. The language that the chairman of the subcommittee gave you does not prohibit condemnation. It is based on zoning ordinances, zoning ordinances. It is unusual that, indeed, Federal statute should be contingent on local governments coming up with their zoning ordinance as of a specific date. What happens if they don't have those? What happens if they change those zoning ordinances, as has already happened? This is like a trial lawyer's dream come true in being able to take this language to a court and say, Look, Congress didn't specifically protect property rights with no condemnation language; they put their emphasis on local control. Ergo, local control should take precedence. They claim that the only land that will be taken will be done by donations or willing sellers. Another phrase, we have problems, simply because we have files that are bulging, of citizens who became willing sellers only after years of harassment put on them by Federal agencies. If you mean that you don't want condemnation, say it. Say it in logical terms that any citizen, any lawyer or any judge will clearly understand. If you don't mean it, then use double-talk, use loopholes. There is more that we need to talk about on this particular issue. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I said before, there are some significant issues that always take place on these particular types of bills. Indeed, there is no basic statutory structure for wild and scenic bills. They've gone all over the place, including the now infamous one in New Jersey, which I think was actually the last bill to go through during the last session. These are the issues that we've talked about before which can, indeed, take place under wild and scenic areas where people do not have the right to fix their roof, do not have the right to expand their garage, do not have the right to clear areas on their own property. It is not just a possibility; it is actually a probability. There is precedent for all of those. But once again, this isn't this key issue. We are willing to have 8 miles of scenic river in Connecticut. The key issue is defending those people in Connecticut and establishing a precedent that is significant the rest of the way. It's not simply a matter of reading the bill; it's a matter of reading the law. The language of zoning requirement, which once again is a conditional one. You mentioned the Attorney General from the State of Connecticut wrote a letter and once again he said the act flatly prohibits use of eminent domain if, and once again that's the conditional language, if the lands are subject to local zoning laws that conform to the purposes of the act. And once again the date that these zoning laws should have been in effect, the zoning ordinances have already been changed from that particular date. But the key element is that that zoning language, that willing seller language, is inserted into the existing bill and it comes directly after this sentence, and the sentence is very clear. Nothing contained in this section, which is everything we've been talking about in this bill, nothing contained in this section however, shall preclude the use of condemnation. Nothing that you add as far as zoning ordinances or willing sellers precludes the right the Secretary of Interior has in the rest of the bill and the rest of the section from condemnation, unless you simply adopt the Republican language, and that is why we hit over and over and over again on this issue. It is important that we stand up for property rights and personal property. It's important that people have some sense of security and safety in their own homes. And this bill doesn't take away this provision of the act which says, nothing contained in this section shall preclude the use of condemnation. That is to which we object. That is the problem with this bill. That is what must change. The Republican option was clear, simple and to the point. The Democrat option, whatever the motive was, is somewhat double-talk. It's a loophole. This language that we propose is very similar to what this body adopted by a voice vote with the Department of Interior appropriations bill. And in conclusion, Madam Speaker, I'm actually sad that we had this bill before us at all. There is no reason this bill should be before us with a closed rule. I wish that the Democrats had moved in a bipartisan way to work with us to meet what are legitimate concerns. And if, indeed, protection of private property is a partisan issue, I'm more than happy to be on the side of private property. That's the right side to be on in this issue. This bill may indeed sometime become a metaphor for this entire section where we can see how much muscle can be flexed to push through issues rather than sitting down and trying to solve problems. I truly hope that in the future we can work in a bipartisan way, that we can actually talk together to find language that is mutually acceptable to both sides of the aisle for these issues, because there's no reason that we should actually have to go through a closed rule on this type of a bill. But the issue is simply black and white or yellow and black, I guess. Will you actually ensure, by taking the money away, there is no condemnation, or do you leave the language in the act? It's clear. It's understandable. It should be clear to our colleagues. It will be clear to our constituents and our voters. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, with the exception of 2 minutes, which I reserve for tomorrow.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago I was in the position of the gentlewoman from Ohio managing some of the rules for the bills, and often I was chagrined and offended by people who would complain about amendments not being made in order when they had been fully vetted and defeated in the committee. I want you to know as I rise to talk about one amendment that was not made in order, this is not necessarily the case. Even though I had offered it in committee, I withdrew it in the committee in the spirit of comity to try to work towards a solution for this floor, not realizing that the Rules Committee would callously deny all amendments made in order on this bill. Reconciliation is already a procedural process that limits the right of the minority to have input. To further restrict their rights by not recognizing any amendments, and indeed taking out amendments that were passed in the full committee, is something that certainly is not the definition of open government. The issue I wish to address I will continue to talk about because philosophically I think it is larger than the bill we are actually discussing. The Department of Education drafted the language I presented, not to say they endorsed it, but to let you know this was not a cavalier but a serious effort at solving a problem. In fact, the amendment was passed last year by this body in the Higher Ed Reauthorization Act, but was one of the bills that the Senate refused to accept or consider during the last year. I want to publicly thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Kildee, for speaking to me about this amendment, Mr. McKeon, the ranking member, and his staff for talking to us at length about this amendment, and also the Department of Education. To the full committee chairman I wish to apologize. Part of my process with these types of amendments is to sit down with the ranking member as well as the chairman to explain my purpose and intent. Six different times since the committee met, I have made an effort to try to meet with the chairman of the full committee and each time those efforts were rebuffed. So I apologize to him for not doing what I think should be the normal process. The last time we did a reconciliation bill, there was a new entitlement that was inserted on the insistence of the Senate. That was the wrong process. But it did establish an increase in a new Pell Grant program which I like, and it required this Pell Grant to go to those who had a rigorous academic schedule, something else I like. But it also gave the Department of Education the right to establish criteria which would drive curricula. That is the part I cannot accept. In the charter of the Education Department, it was forbidden for them to have this power. In Federal statutes, it is forbidden for them to have this power. State constitutions forbid it; yet this program has opened the door for future abuse. In the committee it was asked: Shouldn't all States have common standards? To allow the Federal Government to establish those common standards gives the Federal Government power taken from parents and local school boards to drive curriculum decisions. It is almost like saying can't we be partially pregnant. No. If the Department of Education has the ability to establish some curriculum decisions, they also have inherently the ability to establish all curriculum decisions, even though the current Department of Education is trying hard not to abuse this power by still saying there are four broad areas that qualify. They themselves have admitted that it needs to be refined. And what the future Department of Education without this same kind of approach would have simply meant that there can be abuse of the system in the future. Most curriculums are always going to be driven, especially of electives, by a teacher. Other curriculum is driven by graduation requirements. But curriculum can also be driven by outside requirements. When the four colleges in Utah decided that students should have 2 years of foreign languages before they go to college, the enrollment in foreign language programs quadrupled. When the Federal Government can dangle out money for Pell Grants by taking specific classes, that will drive curriculum decisions, and it is philosophically wrong to give them that kind of power. In this bill there is much good. Much of the good has already been stated in forms of hyperbole. There is also much bad. In 2005 when this program to which I object was created, it was the wrong thing to do. This particular bill has nine different new entitlements which are also the wrong thing to do, so I am assuming this is probably about nine times as bad. It is a poor and abusive procedure when we deny amendments on the floor and you deny amendments that were passed in committee and remove them without having the chance to address them again. So I will vote against this rule because it is an abuse of the procedure that unfairly limits the rights of the minority.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the simple question I have is the picture of the polar bear that is down there, that is not, by any chance, new, is it?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the first chart that will eventually come up here, and I am sorry about this, indicates the States in the United States that have the hardest time increasing their education funding. This is where the funding is growing the slowest. You notice the common denominator with these is not an attitude towards education, it is that most of these are land-based States. The land has been taken away from us to develop a property tax base. Fortunately, God has given us resources underneath that to compensate for that. But any program that would retard the leases or the royalties that will come from those will harm education in Western States. My kids in Utah will be put at a disadvantage because of this particular amendment. There is collateral damage that takes place with amendments, and one of those deals with education. If you can look at this chart in the proper way, this chart shows the salaries that are given for first-year teachers in Wyoming versus the salaries on average for fourth-year teachers in Montana. Now, this should not be that way, because Montana has the fewest amount of public lands of any of the Western States. They have more of a property tax base. The difference is Wyoming has the resources that they have developed, which allows them simply to put more money into their education system. My colleagues who are still teachers deserve a decent salary, they deserve a decent retirement, we deserve the right to build our public schools. When you ask anything that shackles them from a brighter future, either by postponing or forcing to replow the data that the professional land managers have already established, it harms them. You have taken away our land for property tax benefits. Allow us to develop the resources so that we can have a future for education in the Western States that is on par with those in the Eastern States. It is important that we move forward. And I'm sorry, but there is collateral damage with this amendment that harms educators and education in the West.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me just say I appreciate the gentleman representing this picture of a polar bear. It's not Knut. Knut, of course, is the infamous polar bear cub the animal rights groups who support this amendment wanted the Berlin Zoo to kill as opposed to allow it to live in captivity. I'm glad it's not the same one. This amendment does nothing to preserve polar bears. It's not about preservation, especially when it cuts conservation funds in the process.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase the misquote of one of my heroes, Yogi Berra, this is ``deja vu all over again,'' this actually was the substance of an amendment that was offered earlier this morning. It was repealed because the numbers did not actually meet the necessities of some of our requirement. This now comes back to you with new numbers in there that I think will meet the necessity of the requirements for our accounting system that happens to be there. We did, obviously this morning, talk about the extreme necessity of dealing with border security with our public land system. We talked a lot about immigration, but we don't also indicate how this plays a part with our public lands. We talked about the 1,900 acres that was burned. We suspect it was coming from a campfire by illegals. The gentleman from Iowa has used some of my pictures to show the amount of trash that was left behind in this critical habitat area, once again by illegal immigrants. We have talked about areas in which it is unsafe. One-third of the national monument has been closed down because it is unsafe to go in there by the Park Service personnel without armed guards accompanying them. In testimony given to the Appropriations Committee, I know last year and perhaps it was replicated again this year, there was a discussion about the national forest area along the 60 miles contiguous with the Mexican border known as the Coronado National Forest. Once again, it has 12 different mountain systems, 203 threatened and endangered and sensitive species, eight wilderness areas that are in this particular area, and they were literally begging for the resources sufficient to address the adverse impact due to illegal border traffic. That is what this amendment tries to do. I appreciate earlier this morning the many comments, especially from the ranking member, of how significant this issue actually is. It is true we are moving money from a program, in this case, the National Endowment For the Arts, to border security. I would point out that we are not taking, as some amendments have and I am certainly not proposing that, all of the money from NEA to move into helping with border security. We are still leaving a $4 million increase above and beyond what was last year in the appropriated budget for the NEA. So we are trying to do that. Even though this program hasn't been reauthorized since 1992, we are still allowing that type of an increase. But what our comment is basically saying is whenever we have these budgets, we have to make some kind of prioritization. And my contention is that the committee misprioritized when they put some money opposite others and that this has a higher and more significant need at this particular time. Perhaps if we were starting over again, both these programs could be funded adequately. But at this stage of the game, there are only certain pots from which the money can be taken, and I still think that this is the effective way of making sure there is still an increase, once again to a program that hasn't been reauthorized since 1992, and at the same time putting a significant amount of resources to our land managers who desperately need those resources to do their job in protecting our southern borders and protecting the land that we have set aside for its sensitive nature and its specific qualities. That has to be there. With that, Mr. Chairman, that is the specific element of this particular amendment, to try to reprioritize to meet the needs of our southern border, which at this time, when we are talking about immigration, is such a significant issue.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. One of the issues with which we struggle in this legislature deals with simply the concept of prioritization. And what I'm talking about in this particular issue is money put into the budget above and beyond what the President recommended, but money put into this budget for new acquisitions, not taking care of what we already have, but new acquisitions. Now, I'm going to contend here that what we need to do is prioritize so that what we do is put our money in what we already have and make sure that we are doing the best we have with our parks and public lands. I have a picture right here of a facility that's not in my district, but it is in my State. Dinosaur National Monument is actually in the Second District of Utah. This particular facility is a beautiful facility. I was there before it was condemned. I was there. So you could go in there with all my kids and look at the dinosaur bones that are still in place in the mountainside as it has been scraped away so you can see the prehistoric history of this country. It's a wonderful place. It is a wonderful exhibit. It's a great learning experience, all of which has been closed because this building has been condemned and we don't have enough money to fix the facility. This facility should be fixed before we put 17 million new dollars into new programs somewhere else. This facility should be fixed before we expand what we are trying to do. We need to take care of what we have already identified as important and significant and make sure it takes place. And that, my fellow Members of this House, is the reason I'm proposing this amendment, that we simply reprioritize to do what's most important, and we fix what we have first and make sure that is functioning before we put any new additional money into acquisition of new land, new properties and new proposals.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of just saying a word on this particular amendment. I am also very grateful to both the ranking member as well as the chairman of the subcommittee for understanding the significance of this important amendment. Let me say that this is another map that is similar to the one that was already done, except this time I chose the blue color. Everything that is in blue is the amount of land owned and controlled by the Federal Government in each State. You will notice that there is a proclivity of this kind of blue color in the West. Some of those that don't live in the West don't really understand what the significance or the problem is in dealing with the Federal Government on so much particular land. I also want you to know that this was not necessarily the way it was supposed to be. When every one of these Western States entered the Union, their enabling act said the land would go to the Federal Government until such time as it shall be disposed and each State was supposed to get a cut of the amount of money gotten by the Federal Government. So this is not the way it was supposed to be. But it was changed in the 1970s when the Federal Land Management Policy Act was produced. The trade-off in that was for Payment in Lieu of Taxes. So this land would be compensated, in exchange for the Federal Government keeping those lands, without having to go back through the States to deal with it. Now, we would actually be more happy if we had all the lands. If indeed these Western States that have their lands controlled by the Federal Government could tax them at even the cheapest open value space, this is the amount of money that we would be able to accommodate for ourselves and solve our own problems. This bill has $232 million for PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes right now. So you look at it. If Idaho was simply able to put a tax on the Federal land in their State, they would create more than that money by themselves. Utah could get $116 million every year by ourselves, Nevada $118 million every year by themselves; and that is only for public education. It would be even more for general taxes. So the States could actually handle it themselves. What I am trying to say is I appreciate everyone finally realizing that PILT money is not free, it is not loans, it is simply not welfare for the West. It is money that was really owed to these particular States and that our goal should not be simply the $22 million more in this particular amendment, but to fully fund PILT, which should be $375 million in the first place, or allow the States to have the flexibility to actually go after the true value of these types of lands that happen to be there. So I appreciate everyone recognizing the significance of this, and I appreciate everyone realizing that this is money that is owed to the States so they can control and they can actually pay for the services they have to provide, even though they don't have the land resources to deal with it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word. One of the issues that we are dealing with this in this particular budget deals with the question that we have that deals with both immigration as well as the processes of that immigration. We are talking this time about immigration, and the devastating impact that it has. One of the things we missed is the impact on land of immigration. Our land managers have documented, pleaded their efforts before and in the past on some of the problems that we seem to be facing with immigration. We have illegal trails that are going across the desert that are leading to erosion. Literally our resources are being washed away. Where that is not happening, trash is being left behind by illegal border crossers. We are talking about plastic bottles, shoes, cars, even vehicles at some times. That is not necessarily the habitat of endangered species. We seem to be having devastating fires taking place started by abandoned camps. Even last week, 1,900 acres in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge was burned, and it is believed that its was started by illegal immigration cooking fire. The Coronado National Forest, in testimony last year before the Appropriations Committee, has 60 miles of contiguous border with the Mexican border. In this national forest, there are 12 separate rangers, eight wilderness areas, 203 threatened and endangered sensitive species, and the staff said that the resources are suffering significant adverse impacts due to illegal border traffic. Even livestock and closure fences, meant to try to separate livestock from endangered species, are being torn down. Probably the most specific and egregious of all those examples is given by the National Park Service. The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, one-third of that monument is closed to visitors because of the threats of assault by AK-47-packing drug runners is too great. Land managers and biologists responsible for the park must be escorted by armed personnel to do their work in the park. If we had machine-gun toting bandits or terrorists walking through Yellowstone or Yosemite, we would not tolerate that. But that is the reality that we have today, and the land managers are asking for tools to do their job. That, indeed, is an issue of significance that needed to be addressed in this particular bill. Perhaps at some point in the future we can actually address that particular issue and that difficult problem and see if we can move forward to a resolution of that and establish priorities that we want to have border security and the impact, the negative impact it's having on public lands, we need to make sure that we move forward as a government to stop that and suppress that.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will be happy to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chair, we just mentioned a few things that are significant to this particular issue and tried to mention some of the important points that we are making. We need greater control on the Park Service and BLM land on our border areas that is being devastated by illegal border crossing. The amendment that I am proposing goes directly to that goal and that purpose by committing $30 million towards law enforcement activities. Actually, it's $31.5 million toward law enforcement activities by agencies who are on our southern border. We, as a government, have a responsibility to prevent illegal border crossings. We also have a responsibility for land managers to be managing the land in that particular area. Now, this amendment that I have does move money around. I feel sorry for that. The particular area in which I am transferring the money is something that bothers me personally. I met my wife during a community theater. When I was in the legislature in Utah, I was the one that instituted a percent for the art programs so that 1 percent of all our construction monies went for arts to be considered. I have been a supporter of the Utah Arts Council. I also think it's appropriate that local dollars fund art programs so that local control can be there on the process level. With this particular amendment, it still leaves a $4 million, $4.5 million, roughly $4 million increase in the National Endowment for the Arts over last year's funding base, so there still is an increase. But in addition to that increase, there is $30 million that will go to enforcement of our borders, enforcement of our borders that is necessary to protect the land that is there. It is a matter of priority. Now, CBO has scored this one. I'm convinced there is probably no PAYGO efforts, but that may be one of the issues we want to talk about. But the bottom line is still this: We need to prioritize what we're doing with this budget. And this is a tremendous area that has been de- emphasized and needs to be re-emphasized. And I contend that this is the appropriate way to put that emphasis there. Point of Order

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, there is something that is happening in the Department of Interior that is disturbing. So-called nonprofits, many of them financed by wealthy individuals, are lining up with their hands extended, requesting and accepting government handouts in the form of grants. Then what do these nonprofits do with the taxpayers' money? They come back and they sue the same agents that wrote them a check. At the same time, these 501(c)(3)s complain that the agencies are then underfunded. Now it's difficult to see how land management agencies are ever going to have enough money to take care of their responsibilities and appease the nonprofits when a good chunk of their budget is siphoned off yearly by defending themselves against endless lawsuits. 501(c)(3)s have a great system. It's a very efficient business model for them. It does defy logic except in what we call the bureaucracy of the Federal Government. These nonprofits bite the hand that feeds them, and the hand simply can't stop itself from feeding them even more. After biting the hand, they then go out and find more money to continue the assault, line their pockets, all along touting their advocacies on behalf of the hand they had just bitten. My amendment provides a potential remedy to this disturbing and increasing trend. It would prohibit funds in this bill from being dispersed to 501(c)(3)s that are party to litigation against the dispensing agency. In other words, if you are suing the Department of the Interior, you are not eligible to receive money from the Department of the Interior. I believe, as everyone does, in the right to sue, but it defies logic that we would ask taxpayers to finance litigation against themselves. The taxpayer ends up paying twice, first in the form of the handouts to the nonprofit, and then when the government's attorney needs to be paid for defending it. Keep in mind, this also diverts money from critical needs on our public land. The maintenance backlog on our lands is well documented, reaches into billions of dollars, and we can't even say the taxpayers are even hit a third time when they try to access these multiple-use public lands only to find out that the particular activity is currently off limits due to ongoing litigation brought on by so-called nonprofit advocacy groups generously financed by the taxpayers. Now some may say that there are legitimate reasons to take the government to court. I would agree with that statement. But I would not agree that it's the government's responsibility to fund that complaint, especially the same government entity you are at the same time suing. This amendment is very simple. If a nonprofit organization can afford to finance elaborate fundraising campaigns to enrich themselves, certainly they can afford to sue the government on their own dime. Don't let these organizations sell you underchronic underfunding of agency X, Y and Z when they, themselves, are draining that agency from resources by the millions. This two-faced scheme must be stopped. It's time for us to show the taxpayers some respect and stop playing this type of a game with their money. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.