Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), also a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. 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. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005, and provides a structured rule for consideration of 28 different amendments, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the minority. The rule provides for the offering of the 28 specified amendments according to subject areas as designated in the text of the resolution, and with a cumulative total of an hour and 40 minutes of general debate to be divided equally by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. Madam Speaker, with 28 amendments in order, to poorly paraphrase Winston Churchill, never will so much be said by so many about so little, in this case, just a single subject act. It is fitting, though, Madam Speaker, that this bill be named after our esteemed colleague to my right, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who has served and is serving with such distinction and integrity and has been a stalwart in these halls for the past 30 years. He is to be commended for putting together a well-thought-out, comprehensive measure aimed at helping to bring about real and needed reforms within the United Nations. I commend also the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, as well for the long-standing cooperation and dedication to bipartisanship in the area of U.S. policy and diplomacy which is evident in many important aspects of this legislation. In fact, Madam Speaker, when these two distinguished gentlemen were testifying before the Committee on Rules on this bill, I was struck by the fact that the House, and indeed the entire Nation, is the beneficiary of decades' worth of their collective wisdom and firsthand experience. We spent the last few weeks discussing DOD authorization and appropriations, Interior, State and Justice appropriations, and these acts have a wide range of topics and generated a multitude of amendments. This specific act has generated 28 potential amendments on a single topic, and, Madam Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to love listening to all 28 of those amendments, but let that not overshadow the reality of this bill. This bill is unusual in the bipartisan unity of the content. When it comes to the issue of United Nations reform, I was also impressed that both gentlemen, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), seemed to be of one mind when it relates to the necessity for reforms in the wake of continued scandals within various United Nations functions. There was also a unique, bipartisan unity in supporting the need for a penalty to follow failure of reform. There is a small disagreement on who should trigger that penalty, which differences I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will bring forward, but there can be no doubt as to the underlying need of this penalty phase. That is telling. To put it in a nutshell, Madam Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It would require 39 very specific reforms within the areas of U.N. budgeting, oversight, accountability, and human rights. It provides clarity and a reasonable timetable under which the U.N. must act. With the U.S. footing the largest share of dues of any Nation, a share consistent with our voice, this act should provide some real teeth and real incentives to get the job done. To not require such withholdings would only create a paper tiger. As an old teacher, I learned that I never made a threat that I was not willing to carry out. If students ever thought I was not seriously going to follow through on my disciplinary commitments, I would lose all credibility and lose both the respect and the cooperation of the kids. It would create an atmosphere of weakness and chaos. No learning would take place. Such an atmosphere of distrust cannot be part of our foreign policy. We have seen that too often, and such a potential cannot be ignored. There are indeed precedents for what we are trying to do both in the 1980s and 1990s when actions by Congress ensured change within the United Nations. It is regrettable, Madam Speaker, that this bill is even necessary. It is regrettable that the United Nations would not undertake to clean up its own act in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal, irregularities in the accounting and uses of its funds, misconduct by entrenched U.N. bureaucrats, and the deplorable state of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. We all witnessed the appalling lack of resolve and consistency in the U.N. when it failed to live up to and enforce the 17 different resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. When I am at home in my district, some of my constituents will say to me that we ought to pull out of the United Nations entirely. It is hard to argue with many of them who say that the U.N. is merely a haven for corruption, waste and, frankly, anti-Americanism. We must do all we can to try and rectify all these problems, and to not act would indeed be irresponsible. This act sends an unmistakably clear message that specific reforms must be enacted or face real consequences. If these reforms are not enacted, the future looks bleak and will only increase the calls to replace the United Nations with a more updated handling of international disputes. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this rule is a good and fair rule. It made every single amendment in order, all 28, which were filed before the Committee on Rules. In short, the only complaint that one may have with this rule is that is may be somewhat parsimonious in its general debate, and we will provide in those 28 amendments a long and wide-ranging debate of all of these important issues. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2745, the United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The bill was introduced on June 7, 2005, and referred to the Committee on International Relations which ordered the bill reported yesterday and is expected to file its report with the House tomorrow. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on International Relations. Members are advised that the text of the bill will be available for their review on the Web sites of both the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is with a combination of perhaps resignation and frustration with which I stand here. Will Rogers once said, in explaining the length of a political platform, that it takes a lot of words to straddle an issue, and I have every intention of using a lot of words here this morning. I think, like many people, like most of us, we have no fear of free trade, that the United States, playing on a level playing field, can easily compete in the world market, and I do not ascribe to some of the statements that I think have been somewhat overzealous or vitriolic in describing policies here. I also agree that in some respects moving out of the policy we have right now without a substantial alternative would be chaotic. Having said that, this is where the ``but'' comes in. I intend on either giving a symbolic vote or maybe a symbolic speech in place of that vote with concerns of sovereignty issues that are dealt with here and that some of those voices that are concerned about sovereignty issues are not just simply those fearful of the dark but there are legitimate concerns which require a periodic reanalysis of what we are doing. I speak specifically about a case which has sent the Attorney General from the State of Utah to join 28 Attorney Generals from other States in protest of the situation in which the World Trade Organization has thrown State statutes in jeopardy. Antigua, with which we had a policy dating back to 1993, has complained that laws prohibiting Internet gambling as well as gambling and betting paraphernalia, which have been for about 100 years the social policy of Utah, violate trade organizations; and the trade organization ruled in favor of Antigua. It is inherently wrong for any adjudicative panel of any organization, internationally or trade, to put in jeopardy the kinds of State laws that we have in place, especially when they deal with social policies that have been there for almost 100 years. Whether this is simply a glitch in negotiations that can easily be worked out or whether this is a systemic problem or whether, as the Attorney Generals are arguing, that the States need a greater voice in the organization and the application of these trade policies, especially if it is going to relate to State law, that is the discussion that needs to take place. My State may have lucked out because a clerical error in this particular case did not refer specifically to the Utah State law; and, therefore, it may not be applicable. But the fear factor is still there, that in the future State efforts, State regulations and State policies may be put in jeopardy not only by our trade policies but also by Federal regulations that affect those trade policies when they ought not to be. That is the issue that needs to be periodically addressed. I recognize that this particular resolution is very narrow in its application. It may not be specifically on that point, but it does at least give us the opportunity of saying not only is that an issue and a concern for the future but it is an issue that we should take seriously and we should discuss seriously and we should address seriously so that these particular problems, especially as it deals with State issues and State rights, will not be put in jeopardy with the future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So the gentleman does not see any reason the Secretary would consider a non-DOE site for interim storage?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from Ohio included in the committee report a provision directing the Secretary of Energy to begin moving commercial spent nuclear fuel into interim storage at one or more Department of Energy sites. I want to be sure that your intent is for the Secretary to focus his attention on existing DOE sites and not go looking for private sites that might be used for interim storage. Is my understanding of the gentleman's intent correct?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his hard work and his courtesy.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H.R. 810. The bill shall be considered as read; the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) or their designees; (2) one motion to recommit; and during consideration of H.R. 810, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again with this particular rule being open, it allows any Member who wishes to, to bring an amendment to the floor. It is the wonderful prerogative of the Members to do that. It is also very nice to note that the Committee on Appropriations which is tasked with trying to prioritize needs and fund those that are truly significant in that prioritization, and in this particular situation, the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in a very collegial way have done just that, and have presented a good and balanced bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. 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. This resolution provides for an open rule on H.R. 2361, the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006, and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. For the purpose of amendments, this rule provides for priority recognition to Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and the rule also allows for certain points of order to be raised in the course of consideration of this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with filibusters in the U.S. Senate. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it does not, but until you say that magic word the media does not send its attention to the fact that the House is actually continuing on with the input of good government in our processes, so this bill actually, for which I am pleased to stand before the House and support the rule on the underlying legislation, is the Interior Appropriations Act. I appreciate the hard work and the hard choices that the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and many others have put into making and putting this essential funding bill together, which does live within the budget discipline, and in fact reflects the priorities of this Congress. At the same time, it reflects important committee priorities within the budget itself. We realize that this Congress, this Nation, does not have the money to do everything. But what we decide to do we should do well. By prioritizing the needs, this provides, for example, an increase in six of the eight EPA programs for the environment. It provides for a $118 million increase for Indian health services, a $25 million increase over last year's funding level for restoration of the Everglades. These are simply examples. A few others. Provides for National Heritage Area grants and historic preservation, something that to an old history teacher I appreciate. This bill provides important resources to help manage our Nation's public forest resources and our national parks. It includes, for example, a $70 million increase for the national parks base funding, but at the same time $440 million to help reduce the backlog of national park maintenance. That is how these bills and these monies should be prioritized, to help preserve and enhance these unique national treasures. It also provides for a record amount of funding to the national fire plan, and gives the Department flexibility in these accounts to help prevent and fight the annual onslaught of raging fires on public lands in the West, which have plagued many areas, especially California in recent years. I am also pleased in particular that the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has been diligent in funding the vital Payment in Lieu of Tax Program, or PILT, which so many western and rural counties depend upon for these vital public services. Since this is an open rule, any Member will be allowed to offer germane amendments. This is a good rule. I think it supports a good bill. I strongly urge their adoption. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 287 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the opportunity coming here and discussing this particular open rule that allows for us to discuss the prioritization which is the key element of what we do in every appropriations issue. The gentleman from Wisconsin is free to come here on the floor and talk about whether he believes the prioritization of this committee is accurate or not, whether he believes the Democrat approach would be a tax increase or not. But the same discussion also takes place in another area and it takes place in the committee process before it ever comes to this bill. I am here to still contend that the committee, both Republican and Democrat, did a good job in coming up with a prioritization process. When the gentleman from Wisconsin talks about the desire for having new land, I do not dispute that nor do I oppose it necessarily. What we are saying is it is part of the prioritization. I would support acquisition of new land once we finally fully fund and take care of the lands we have. This committee has looked into that. This committee put significant new money not just into national parks but to maintain the backlog that we have of maintenance in our national parks. That is prioritization. This committee recognized by putting PILT up to at least the level it was last year that there is a prioritization that takes place there at the same time. I was saying with PILT, and I will say it again, that what we have to do is fully fund it because it has been looked at for too long, especially when the minority party was in charge here and there were basically no increases in PILT funding, it has been looked at for too long as welfare for the West. It is not. It is rent that is due on that land and if you prioritize the budget, you prioritize those programs first before you expand anything else. I have to commend this committee for actually doing that. I think there are some areas in which I think they could go ahead and move forward in those particular areas but once again prioritizing those commitments we have already made and fully funding those first. That is what this committee has tried to do. Whether you like or dislike their end product, they should be congratulated for coming that close. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate the fairness of this open rule and urge its adoption because of that along with the underlying appropriation legislation. No bill is perfect. I am sure we can all come up with issues here and there in the appropriations bill or, for that matter, in any other bill we have where we would like to have it come out differently had we had our way, but in judging this bill as a whole and the process that has been through it to get to the point, I believe it is worthy for Members to support this particular piece of legislation. And then I do want to talk to my good friend from Florida about what we really did with education in Utah. He is summarizing the New York Times, not reality. But other than that, we will forget that point right now. I will talk later to him about that. Again, I urge Members to support this rule. The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 287--Rule for H.R 2361 FY06 Interior Appropriations At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in order without intervention of any point of order and before any other amendment if ofered by Representative Obey of Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for a division of the question in the committee of the whole or in the House. Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: Amendment to H.R. 2361, as Reported Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. (a) The amount otherwise provided in this Act for ``Environmental Protection Agency--State and Tribal Assistance Grants'' (and the amount specified under such heading for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) is hereby increased by $500,000,000. (b) In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $1,000,000 for calendar year 2006, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-16) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 1.562 percent.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and I commend the gentleman for the one statement he asked us all to do which is to go to our State and local leaders and find out what their priorities happen to be. I would like to do something unique so far in today's debate and talk about something that is actually in the bill, and something about which we will be debating later, and preface it with the comment of why, when we try to prioritize, should we spend new taxpayer money for new recreation areas and programs when some of the existing programs, long- time recognized, long time in the bill, are not totally and fully funded. If I could, Mr. Speaker, I come from a western State that has a great deal of Federal land. In fact, 67 percent of my State is owned by the Federal Government. If we add military lands on top of that, it is almost 80 percent owned by the Federal Government. And, unfortunately, my State is not the worst situation. There are States that have more of their land owned by the Federal Government. Oftentimes I have Members come to the floor and say these lands belong to all of us, but the cost of maintaining those lands is not borne by all of us; it is borne by the citizens who happen to reside within those particular States. Now I am an old teacher, and as I look at the situation of education, I find a unique phenomenon that the area of this country in which education funding is growing the slowest, the area of this country where the classrooms are the largest, the area of this country where the student population is increasing the fastest, and the area of this country where State and local commitment in tax base is being paid by their citizens all happen to be found in the 13 States of the West. And the common denominator for all is the amount of public lands that happen to be in these particular States. Those Members east of the Rocky Mountains sometimes do not comprehend the concept because there is very little of your land owned by the Federal Government, and you can maximize the amount of input, but you cannot do it in the West. One of my counties has an area known as the Black Box, something that no one in Utah would ever try to raft down. One of our good constituent friends from another State decided to come and raft in the area of the Black Box; and, unfortunately, he lost his life doing it. The problem is my County of Emery had to expend its resources and have their rescue team risk their lives to retrieve the body. All of the money that was budgeted for that year's critical rescue missions was expended on that one individual entering from the east using all of these public lands. All of the cost of that was borne by the citizens of that particular county, which means once again these lands belong to all of us, but the expense attached to these lands do not belong to all of us. There is a program that we have long had called ``payment in lieu of taxes,'' which recognizes the burden placed upon the West and the burden that should be funded. From the mid-1970s until the early 1990s, virtually no new money was placed in this program. It was flat funding for almost that whole period of time. This Congress put $1.4 million of new money into the burgeoning problem of trying to pay for the Federal lands in the West. Under the direction of the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and others on the subcommittee, that has increased significantly, almost doubling. They have recognized the need, but they have never fully funded the cost imposed on western States through payment in lieu of tax funding. This last year, this program, traditionally run through the Bureau of Land Management, was taken over by the Department of the Interior with the idea of prioritizing it. They did not. Instead of prioritizing this program, they recommended a cut in this program and increased funding to the administrative overhead of the Department of the Interior. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for recognizing the unfairness of this and by increasing the payment in lieu of taxes to last year's level plus $3 million, but it is still not close to full funding. I am confident and hopeful that we will discuss that particular issue because it is a well-established program. It is not new, and we should be funding those well-established programs fully before we launch into new endeavors. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for zeroing out the land acquisition budget except for necessary administration costs because it comes up with the same policy: we do not start buying new land until we fully fund those lands that we already own. We have an opportunity of expanding this in conference. This is one of the issues in this free-flowing open rule that we will be discussing later on. This is an issue where I commend the chairman for doing what he has done in this bill and urge him to continue on, because the citizens of the West, the kids in the West, the education system of the West have been harmed too long by policies that all of us in Congress for over 30 years have been implementing. It is an unfairness that must be dealt with. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the committee for moving the first step forward. But I hope that we can look at other amendments as this debate goes forward that would look at funding the programs we already have that have been there for many years that desperately need to be fully funded before we launch into others, and that is specifically what an appropriations process should do. It should prioritize our needs. Once again, we can go back to the concept that we cannot fund everything, but what we fund, we should fund well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate this opportunity because the reauthorization of the Perkins vocational funding is a fundamental part of the educational funding of this Nation, as well as American competitiveness. This bill will help provide both the public and private sector of our economy with an educated, capable, highly trained skilled workforce, which is essential for our economy to grow and be competitive in our environment. This is a good, well-balanced and bipartisan, I emphasize that word ``bipartisan'' bill that deserves its vote on final passage. I am appreciative that the words that were said here today, talking specifically about this particular bill, have all been positive. We may have differences on other educational concepts and issues at other times, that will be the point at other times and other places, but for this particular bill it moves us forward. With that, I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) who spends much time working in this particular area, is very knowledgeable, and has a great deal of respect for the education system in all the States, including my own, the chairman.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have two more speakers.

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