Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 849 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 849 provides for a structured rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for one motion to recommit. This rule also makes in order, as a structured rule, every amendment brought forward to the Rules Committee, so by anyone's standard this resolution would be designated as being very fair. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, H.R. 5521, funds the legislative branch of our Federal Government, including Congress, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and the Government Accountability Office. As one wise Member of our body said, the $3 million provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies under the jurisdiction of the House seem straightforward and fiscally responsible. I think if we overlooked this appropriations bill, which was passed in a bipartisan way, the two words you would say are an increase close to the cost-of-living adjustment and always less than what was requested. We requested a fiscally responsible bill. For example, the overall budget is $230 million less than the President's budget. The House of Representatives is funded at $19 million less than the budget request. The Capitol Police gets $12 million more than last year, but $36 million below the request. The CBO is $1 million more than last year, but $1 million less than the request. The Architect's Office is $5 million more, but $114 million below the request. The Library of Congress is $15 million more than last year, but $18 million below the request. The GPO is $9 million more, but $21 million below the request. The Government Accountability Office is $10 million more than last year, but $14 million below the request. There are a number of other changes made within the bill that I think are also positive. One of the changes will be for the Members' allowances. If they are unspent, they will be used to reduce the budget deficit. For someone who has regularly returned back at least 10 to 20 percent of my budget allocation, it is nice to know that it is also going to a worthy cause. In addition, this bill provides provisions for increased congressional oversight and accountability on the completion of the much-anticipated Capitol Visitor Center, as well as some very specific report language and an amendment that dealt also with the Architect's Office and the Government Accountability Office until the new Architect is provided. The underlying bill provides for full funding of staff COLAs and transit benefits, it bans smoking in the Rayburn cafeteria, and I understand on page 35 it says that the gentleman from Massachusetts will voluntarily give me his salary for the next year, or until my personal debt has been retired, whichever comes first, which will be the year. It also provides for 50 new investigators in the General Accounting Office to conduct increased oversight on government contracts issued in the wake of hurricane devastation in the gulf coast as well as in Iraq. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I think this underlying bill is fiscally responsible, provides modest increases in the essential legislative branch functions, but still provides less in almost every major category than the President's budget requested. So I urge adoption of this rule and its underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 835 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for the purpose of talking about, once again, this area set aside by the Carter administration for future oil exploration, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I would just in deference to the Rules Committee defending their actions note that there was only one amendment that was sent as a potential amendment to this rule, and that was nongermane. It is very difficult to put amendments in order that have never been submitted to the Rules Committee in the first place. Madam Speaker, with that, maybe even to verify that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). MR. HERGER. Madam Speaker, my constituents in northern California are paying some of the highest gas prices in America. While prices continue to rise, ironically, the single-most promising untapped source of American oil in gas, ironically, remains off-limits to production. This restriction does nothing to protect the environment. It simply ensures that Americans will continue to rely on foreign sources of oil. None of these foreign countries share our commitment to the environment, and many even have ties to terrorists. Madam Speaker, America has the most stringent environmental laws in the world, and we have the most advanced technology ever invented. This legislation combines our commitment to the environment with state-of-the-art technology to produce a commonsense plan for a secure energy future. I urge support of the rule and for H.R. 5429.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I don't want to try and change any kind of factual data, especially from my good friends from the Pacific Northwest, but actually this is the 12th, not the 13th time we have voted on this issue. And, unfortunately, the Dulles Airport is actually five times bigger than the area we are talking about drilling. That is 11,000 acres. This is only 2,000 acres. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman also from the Pacific Northwest from the State of Washington (Miss McMorris). Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5429. America deserves and needs American energy, and this legislation is an important step in achieving that. The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act would open, as we have heard, just 2,000 acres of nearly 20 million acres. If it were a football field, it would be equivalent to the size of a postage stamp. If it were the front page of the New York Times, it would be equivalent to the size of a lower case letter ``a.'' This leaves 99 percent of the land in its natural condition. However, these 2,000 acres would recover 10.4 billion barrels, more than double the proven reserves of Texas, increasing America's total proven reserves by almost 50 percent. This legislation is even more important in lessening our dependence on foreign oil and establishing a safe domestic supply that will entirely go to Americans. No longer should we rely on oil from countries that are not necessarily friendly or democratic. In fact, ANWR has the possibility of delivering an amount of oil equal to the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. A strong domestic energy supply, both oil and renewable, is vital to our economic and national security. Right now, we face the challenge of high oil demand. To meet that demand, we need to establish a supply to meet it. Energy is important to Americans. Fifty years ago, America was an exporter of oil. A lot has changed, and today, we import over 60 percent of our oil. Yet since the 1950s, little has been done to prepare for our country's current or future energy needs. When it comes to energy, we need a U.S.-based system that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation. Just as we brought the best minds and innovative companies together to put a man on the moon, we need a national organized effort to explore ANWR in an environmentally safe manner. Twenty-first century technology and advanced engineering now exists that allow us to explore for oil and natural gas with minimal impact on the surrounding environment. Our energy policy must include a broad mix of options: From clean coal and natural gas to nuclear energy and hydroelectric power, to wind power and solar power to biodiesel. Drilling in ANWR is just one component of this comprehensive strategy.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 835 provides for a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for one motion to recommit. This rule allows this body to, once again, consider important legislation which is a key component of moving our Nation further along towards greater energy independence. H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act is appropriately titled. It highlights the fact that the United States has within its borders vast untapped natural energy resources which have been locked away largely because of surreal political rhetoric battles, not based on reality, and it highlights the fact that developing this energy would provide many new jobs to our national economy and support our existing domestic economy. We drive. We use plastics. Our agriculture uses fertilizers. 90 percent of our food is trucked to us. This is indeed talking about our economic health. I know in the rhetoric that will take place there will be some emotional consideration that will happen. But I think also in the rhetoric, we will find several facts that will emerge. Fact number one is there is oil in this area. The U.S. Geological Survey, our own researchers have stated with the probability that is higher than any of the pollsters who will be using our campaigns will say, that there is a minimum of 4.2 billion barrels and a mean factor of 8 billion barrels of oil. They have clearly stated this is the largest on-shore source of petroleum we have in the United States. If this were the only source of energy that we were using, my good friend, Mr. Hastings' State, could go for 29 years of energy needs in his State of Florida just with this source alone. My State uses far less air conditioning. We could go for 218 years just from this source alone. A second fact that will come through. The purpose of this land is for oil exploration. When I first came here, there was a campaign to try and discredit drilling up in this area. They showed pictures of mountains, lush conifers, forests, lakes, meadows. It was a good PR campaign. It would have been a perfect PR campaign if it was true. They were actually using pictures in this area. Secretary Norton said in the congressional committee in March of 2003, this is a coastal plain. It is called a coastal plain because it is a plain. There are no mountains, there are no deep water lakes, there are no trout streams. The only trout you will find in this area is frozen. When Jimmy Carter and the Democrat-controlled legislature of Congress at the time created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the size of South Carolina. They also created the section known as 10/02. That is not ANWR. When we were having 10 percent inflation and 10 percent unemployment at the same time, they created an area the size of the State of Delaware if you include the water for the purpose of oil exploration. It was stated at the time that this is where our future energy supply would come. Well, the future is now. What we are talking about is a million and a half acres, the size of Delaware, with a displacement potential of around 2,000 acres to capture the energy in this particular area. That is roughly the size from the Capitol down to the Air and Space Museum on the lawn, out of an area the size of the State of Delaware. Mathematically, that comes to about .13 percent of the land that is available. Those are like finger clippings that we are talking about. Fact number three: The locals who live on this land, who know the land and who love the land, are almost in unanimous support of this proposition. Fact number four: When we created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and this 10/02 section for oil exploration, we also made other decisions that increased our oil dependence on foreign sources, specifically from countries who do not like to play nice. What we have done by doing that is limit our diplomatic options. We have limited our independence. We have limited our freedom of action, and the only way to reverse that is to by creating clear oil independence, and that is an important step to do it. So, for 11 times since 1995, we have passed in this body with a bipartisan vote of support drilling in this 10/02 section of land, and that was when the price of gas was cheap. We are now coming together for a 12th time with, once again, I hope bipartisan support to pass this effort. After all, it took Jacob 12 times to produce Joseph. I am convinced that we today on our 12th try will produce something as noble as that. Now, there are some reasons for some people who do not want to do this. I consider it somewhat of an attitude issue. Sometimes we oversimplify our life. We think of the world as either black and white, yes or no, right or wrong, left or right, and do not recognize the shades of differences that are in between. What our constituents want us to do is to reach across the aisle and in a bipartisan way try and solve an energy problem, understanding there are shades. There is not one right or wrong answer, and understanding also there is no silver bullet to solve our energy needs. Jed Clampett will not go out there, shooting at some food, and up through the ground will come a bubbling crude. We need conservation efforts. It is good. It should be encouraged, but that alone will not solve our problems. We need alternate energy sources. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. We need oil exploration in this country. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. But if we do not do the oil exploration, there is no hope of ever satisfying our problems. It has to be part of the equation. There are some people who will also oversimplify the fact of saying you cannot have energy exploration and environmental protection. That is another attitude situation there because indeed you can have both. We have produced the technology to accomplish that. What used to take 60 acres to produce can now be done in 6 acres. The simple fact is God has given us the resources to solve our problem. He has also given us the intellect to come up with the technology to solve our problem. Now what we must do is move forward in both areas to solve our problem, rather than sitting back and cursing the darkness. When I first came here, there was a concerted effort to send e-mails to legislators, congressmen, in an effort to try and say not to do any kind of drilling up in this area set aside for that drilling purposes. I am perhaps different than my predecessor because I called those form e-mails back, and I just talked to many of them, realizing many of them had absolutely no clue about this area or what it was doing. I remember specifically talking to a woman in Centerville, and in the course of the conversation saying that the people who live in this area and know it and who love this land are almost unanimously in favor of it, and her response was simply: Of course, they are. They do not know what is best for them. It is that elitist, paternalistic attitude that has frustrated our efforts to solve this particular problem. It is now time for us to learn from our mistakes in the past and move forward and at long last do it with this particular legislation. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule. I urge adoption of the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am always sometimes amazed or reminded by our friends from the oil- or energy-consuming States that don't understand the size of those in the West. It is true that ANWR is a small percentage of Alaska, but I would remind you that the wildlife refuge of ANWR is still the size of South Carolina. The 1002 land we are talking about, which is not ANWR, which was set aside for exploration, is the size of Delaware; and that is still significant in that process. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I would like to make just a couple of points in closing. One of the issues that was brought up at the last moment was on a potential court challenge based on a potential 90-10 demand by the State of Alaska rather than 50-50 in the bill. Such an issue is a question. However, on a separate piece of legislation in a separate court system, the Federal court has rejected the 90-10 argument, so even if there is anything, 50-50 will be the reality of it. That is the precedent that has already been established. The gentleman from Colorado, who was speaking towards the end, talked about the need to diversify, diversify on his agricultural endeavors, diversify on what we are doing with our energy needs, and I agree totally. As I said earlier, it is important, it is sufficient that there is not one sole silver bullet to solve our energy needs. We need conservation programs. We need alternative energy programs. We also need to drill the oil that is available in the United States to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It is true that we cannot solve our energy problems if we do not do that other leg of the situation. It is important that we can do this also in an environmentally sensitive way. Once again, don't take my word for it, but once again the Energy Department, during the Clinton administration, in their Report on Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technology, established an entire chapter to the fact that our technology has advanced to the time where we can do this production and maintain environmental sensitivity at the same time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No, let me just finish. I apologize. Let me finish, if I may. That was in 1999. In the year 2000, once again, the Argonne National Laboratory study dealing with an area just 80 miles from the proposed drilling site, once again, concluded there were no impacts on any wildlife species that have ever been documented in that particular area. We are not dealing with the wildlife refuge, the so-called pristine area. That has already been set aside, as well as 100 million acres of other pristine area within Alaska and the Lower 48. But this ANWR, the wilderness refuge, is still the size of the State of South Carolina, which will not be impacted. What we are talking about is potential drilling in the 1002 lands, the size of the State of Delaware, that was set aside by the minority party when they were in power back in the 1980s as an area for future exploration. That was its purpose. That was its goal. We are asking that simply to fulfill the purpose of this particular land and do it in the proper way, and do it in a way that will be smaller than Dulles. Actually it is more like the size of Reagan Airport, which is far less encompassing than the Dulles Airport. We can do this. We need to do this. We need to move this country forward. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 5429 pursuant to House Resolution 835, the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on a motion to recommit as though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Finishing my time here, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary procedures that my good friend from Florida knows and does extremely well here. It is true, that was part of the amendment deemed nongermane to the issue at hand. And, once again, I think the precedent is there that that problem is solved and is a moot issue. With that, Madam Speaker, I would urge our support of this rule, I would urge our support for the 12th and final time of passing this needed piece of legislation as a significant part of our energy independence in this country. Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a joy to be able to join you here on the floor tonight and hear the report from the gentleman from Georgia, which clearly illustrates that we have done much good in recent days here in this Congress, and to outline what we will be doing that is very positive in the coming weeks when we return. I also wish to be able to at this time piggyback on the comments of my good friend from New Jersey, who is talking about some of the issues we have and the overall approach to funding that we have here in Congress. I would like, if I could, to focus my comments on a few things that we have in relationship between States and the Federal Government with money. A former majority leader of this House once said that if you want to get out of the trap, sometimes you have to let go of the cheese. Well, in the relationship we have between Federal and State governments, sometimes we have to let go of the cheese and emphasize what I think the gentleman from New Jersey was saying, the Tenth Amendment. In the 1860s, flush with money from heavy protectionist tariffs, the United States for the first time passed the Morrill Act which, was a significant grant of federal money to a State for a specific purpose, in that case Land Grant Colleges, which have done a great job, I have one in my State, my kids went to it, it is great. But a century later, in the 1960s, that changed somewhat, as the Federal Government started dangling money out and States, cash starved, accepted that money. What happened, like any good addict, once the States were hooked on the money, they could not let go. And the Federal Government, as any good supplier, as soon as they were hooked, started changing the rules of the game with mandates, with strings, with attachments to those programs. I don't find anyone even wrong or evil in this process. The Federal Government has all sorts of people coming to us with problems they want help on, and we as a people simply want to help. The States, I spent 16 years in the legislature of a State, are trying to build services without extended costs to the States, and that federal match hanging out there is extremely tempting. But what we find eventually down the line is the Federal Government has a budget we would like to control in some way, and the States are hooked on the money we keep giving to them, with the fear if they lose the money, they will also lose control of the programs, which they don't have right now in the first place. David Walker wrote a book called The Rebirth of Federalism, and in it he said from the period of 1964 to 1980 there was something that he called creeping conditionalism that came into this country. As he wrote, ``There was a perennial Congressional tendency to impose strings and the more recent habit of adding regulations and mandates. The tendency even among block grants was and is to acquire conditions.'' We can see that in some of the programs like Safe Streets, CETA and CDBG. In addition to that, there is a cost that is developed by the States for this Federal programming help. For example, in his book he also talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1986, which now impose estimated costs of $2 billion to $3 billion annually on public water systems. That is money that must be raised by local taxpayers to pay for mandates and requirements of the Federal Government on this program, that was originally supposed to be a sharing concept. The Education For the Handicapped Act, passed in 1968, now averages $500 million annually of additional costs to State and local government. It has been estimated, he said, from 1983 to 1990, additional mandates that the Federal Government imposed upon State and local governments, somewhere between $8 and $13 billion in additional costs. Which simply means, as the old adage says, the only thing that is worse than an unfunded mandate is actually a funded mandate. Now, is there blame to go around? Yes, on both our sides. Blame on the Federal Government because we become too involved in too many projects in a kind-hearted effort to try and help people. There is also blame for the State governments, who take this too much, become too entrapped and need these programs and these funds to continue on. And though both of us are unhappy with the situation, we keep lumbering on with the same concept and the same program. Both of us, the Federal and State governments, find ourselves in a trap, and both of us, if we are going to improve, have got to some day realize we have to let go of the cheese.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the rule for the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. I wish to commend Chairman Hobson and the subcommittee for crafting in a very bipartisan way an excellent bill. This bill does contain funding for water and resource-related projects in my district and my State, and I think that it is very wise of them, but it also deals with one specific issue I wish to address this evening. Chairman Hobson has recognized in this bill the importance of having a very strong nuclear power program in the United States. As Americans continue to face the increasing costs of energy, nuclear power is an important part of our overall energy policy. Chairman Hobson has craftily connected the concept of interim storage with reprocessing of fuel rods, recognizing that spent fuel rods really are not spent at all. The overwhelming majority of the rod is still fuel that is available, and through reprocessing of the spent fuel rods, we can not only create greater energy, but we will significantly reduce the problem of a waste stream. During last year's debate, I engaged Chairman Hobson on the floor in a colloquy on this issue. He said at that time: ``I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites.'' I appreciate very much that his subcommittee has taken these words to heart and has crafted in this bill a process which ensures that the interim storage of nuclear waste will be done in conjunction with willing partners. Specifically in this bill, there are some additional criteria for interim storage in the report language. It talks about the department, and it says they will ``explore consolidation of spent fuel within States with high volumes of spent fuel. The Department should conduct a voluntary, competitive process to select interim storage sites.'' The key word here obviously is the word ``voluntary.'' Chairman Hobson added this important phrase and clearly understands that it is far wiser and better to voluntarily work with States than to try to impose mandates on States. That not only protects the rights and positions of States in our Federal State, but it is clearly a wiser policy of choice. This bill reinforces the statements and the commitments that the chairman has made on this issue, this year, last year and repeatedly in other venues, and I appreciate him doing that. State and local officials in my State, military in my State, environmental groups and citizens in my State are encouraged with these particular words. Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Hobson and the entire subcommittee, both sides of the aisle, for protecting what I consider to be in an important way the citizens of my State and ensuring that State and local interests are paramount in this particular process. I think you have done a fine job, and I am proud to speak in favor of this particular bill and especially the rule which will put it before us.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 818 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 5386, the Interior Appropriations Act for 2007. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for certain legislative provisions which are specified under the text of the rule. For purposes of the amendment, the rule provides for priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to stand and introduce this rule as well as the underlying legislation. I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that have been done by the subcommittee members, specifically Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Dicks, as well as the full committee under the leadership of Chairman Lewis and many others who have played a essential role in putting this budget together, which actually comes in at $145 million less than last year's enacted levels. This important measure provides funding for the entire Department of Interior, except for the Bureau of Reclamation, for the U.S. Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture, for the Indian Health Service within the Health and Human Services Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other programs. At the same time, this measure provides for a moderate increase over the President's proposed budget for the Forest Service, for the National Park Service, EPA, Environmental programs and management. This budget provides for $5.9 billion to programs for Native Americans, including three new health centers in underfunded and depressed areas. It provides for a fully-funded National Fire Plan, eliminating duplications, which will result in the stopping of wildfires from getting out of control and becoming more expensive and damaging to both people, as well as wildlife and the environment. There is land acquisition, which has been reduced to $60 million for in-holding, which is significant and important to do, but it is significant that it does not add inventory to our public land policies that are above and beyond what we can already afford. There is one particular note of significance to me I wish to address, that this bill provides $228 million for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program at the Department of Interior. This figure is $30 million above what the President requested, and I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Taylor, ranking member Dicks and the entire committee in providing the restoration of funds. However, it is still below the $332 million that was provided for in last year's budget, and significantly below the authorized level of $350 million, which would be there today. If one were to draw a line from Montana through New Mexico on the map, everything west of that line has 57 percent ownership by the Federal Government. Everything east of the line is 4 percent ownership by the Federal Government. When the western States, which I live in one, entered this country under their enabling acts, there were legal commitments that were made, that in the 1950s the Federal Government unilaterally changed and since that time have been repeatedly changing. In fact, there are several amendments that have been threatened to be only the floor today which would increase that change in commitment. No one who does not live in that area understands the significance of Federal ownership of that particular land. Chairman Taylor though, having a significant amount of Forest Service land in his district, is one of those that is empathetic to this situation, and we are appreciative of all his efforts in this particular area. I wish the administration were the same. In dealing at one time with an administrative official, he asked me why I was so concerned about all this Federal land; it was simply useless land and no one lived there anyway. It has to be realized that half of the West is essentially tied up in Federal lands and is controlled by it. Payment in lieu of taxes is not charity, it is simply rent on land that is due to compensate for economic problems created by the Federal Government, created by Federal Government actions, and in contradiction to the deals that were made when these States originally came into the Union. The Department of Interior took the concept of payment in lieu of taxes from the BLM as an effort, in their words, ``to ensure appropriate emphasis,'' and that it would be a benefit accrued to both Congress, the Department, BLM and to the counties of the West as well. Since that time, that has not been the case. In fact, in each of the last 2 years, the administration and the OMB have actually cut this particular program, only to have it restored by Congress, which once again I thank Chairman Taylor, his committee and his staff for their efforts in that area. In like contrast though, it is unusual that even though the overall funding for the Interior Department has been around 7 percent over the past 5 years, if my math is correct, the Department of Interior's administrative budget has increased 100 percent in that same time, from $64 million to $118 million today. While I may disagree with this portion of the bill, we will be joining with other western Congressmen later on today to try to present an amendment through regular order that will address this one particular issue. I am appreciative once again to Chairman Taylor and the ranking member from the State of Washington who have been understanding of this situation, empathetic of this situation, and very helpful to us, as we move forward to try and find some kind of redress with this particular situation. Mr. Speaker, while I have a few disagreements obviously that I have just stated, overall that is only one aspect of this important underlying bill that will be presented by this rule. We will be trying to address that agreement at some other time. Still, the overwhelming majority of this bill is very positive and it does move us forward, and it was a responsible result of a lot of bipartisan work done on the part of this particular subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve.