Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I called Lisa Pittman, who is the counsel for our committee, to make sure we had somebody covering us for floor time. She chastised me then, saying that under my condition, I need to ask about calling a doctor first, not calling a lawyer. No, Lisa, we call you not just for legal advice but for all sorts of things. For 38 years, she has been a true public servant, with 33 consecutive years here in the House where she has served with poise under pressure and always brings an air of stability. We ask opinions of a lot of people, but we always double-check by going to Lisa because she understands it all. She served under 17 Republican leaders in Natural Resources. I still think I am her favorite one--trust me. But even yesterday, she still told my chief of staff that she gets choked up when she looks at the Capitol dome or hears the Pledge of Allegiance. It is still magical to her. As our committee mom, when she brings cupcakes to everyone on their birthdays and special occasions, her kindness is magic to the rest of us. So, when I leave at the end of the month, no one is really going to care. When Lisa leaves at the end of the month, it is going to take decades to replace the institutional knowledge that she brings to this place. Lisa, we thank you. And, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, with apologies, lions and tigers and bears, oh my. I have to say that before somebody else does it. But we also have to realize, as we are going through the kleinigkeiten of this day's efforts, that this is one of those kleinigkeiten coming again here. We should also realize that Oz was not reality, it was a movie, and that reality TV is not that of which should be the basis of public policy. This bill, contrary to what I have been hearing so far, is not about protecting the public from big cats. It is about hurting small, family- run zoos across the country. It is a power play of some kind, which is one of the reasons why the Zoological Association of America expressed their grave concerns with this bill in a very pointed letter addressed to the committee chairman, that this represents an unwarranted Federal intrusion into the rights and responsibilities of wildlife exhibitors and will have significant negative impacts on federally licensed zoological facilities. Madam Speaker, the issue is that, under current law, anyone who has one of these exhibitions must obtain a class E exhibitor license, and that is given by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act. So a licensee under the Animal Welfare Act has to abide by all the rules that govern housing and keeping and care of the animals and are subject to unannounced inspections under the direction of the Department of Agriculture. And it is doing its job. It is doing its job effectively and efficiently. Madam Speaker, this bill ignores all of that under the guise of animal welfare, denying responsible Federal license facilities and predicating these class E exemptions on animal rights ideology, not necessarily the policy of what has been taken during the past. What happens now is that this particular bill has, special interest groups having drafted it, now amends the Lacey Act--not the Animal Welfare Act, but the Lacey Act--and now has the Department of the Interior being the ones who are responsible for what is going on here. So what is illegal now under the Lacey Act changes would be legal under the Animal Welfare Act, which is still going to be on the books. If nothing else, we should actually ask those people who are responsible for this bill just to come clean and try and make sure that they write the bill so there is consistency so you don't have conflicting acts, because you have conflicting policy with this. And this bill also provides some huge loopholes for big, well-funded zoos and will crush those small but well-regulated private facilities. That is not the way we should be running that particular policy. Madam Speaker, the smaller facilities are well-regulated. It is done by the Department of Agriculture. There are specific rules and guidelines. The laws are specific and they are there. What this bill will do is put conflicting guidelines, which means, pass this bill, if you wish, but--well, very little chance of it actually going all the way, but even if you want to pass this bill, you are going to have to come back and fix the two because you have, now, two bills that are still on the books that are in conflict. So at least do it the right way. This bill was pushed by special interest groups. It is poor policy that is not backed by science but is backed by radical ideology, and it does not fit the reality of what is taking place. The Department of Agriculture is doing their functions properly and effectively and efficiently, and we should not pass this bill. Madam Speaker, with all the significant things we could be doing in a lameduck session, with all the stuff we can do with the pandemic, with both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate agreeing on so many things, so much low-hanging fruit, we could easily pass something that would have a major impact, something that would be real, or actually put the NDAA on here and do something that is real, or actually come to an agreement on a CR, at least, if not the resolutions of all our appropriations. That would be big. That would be sufficient. That would be worthy of us actually coming back here to the floor today. But instead, we are coming here closer to 8 o'clock at night dealing with the small stuff, the insignificant stuff that is not going to go further throughout the process, which I guess is one of the reasons I think we should be happy. At least we know this will be the last time that this will be discussed here in the Capitol building at any time. Madam Speaker, as a Congress, we can do much better. We ought to do much better. We ought not to spend our time coming up here dealing with the kleinigkeiten. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Twenty years from now, come back here, and we will tell the gentleman we told him so. Madam Speaker, I have no objections to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Is the gentleman sure he really wants the Federal Government having a forest in his place?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a good bill, and we obviously have no problems with this particular bill. When I started, I talked about kleinigkeiten on the small stuff. As good as this is, it is still small stuff and, actually, it is taken out--it is a portion of S. 886, which deals with Indian water rights settlements and extensions. That entire bill, if you really want to help out Native American populations, if you really want to solve some of these problems for them, especially during this time, with the pandemic going on and hitting those areas even harder than some of the others, that entire Senate bill should be taken up and passed. Now, the fact that you have taken a small portion of that out and put it here as a separate bill still makes this a decent bill and I am supportive of it. But if we really cared, and we were really important with what we did, take the entire Udall bill, bring it over here and pass the damn thing so that we can get it signed and get it enacted into law. That is really what would help people and that wouldn't be kleinigkeiten. That is a big deal. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again I appreciate the comments that are made in defense of this organization, but as I said before, this is a 30-year- old problem. Unfortunately, NOAA Corps is not part of the military. They don't do military-type functions. The National Health Services, the other uniformed corps, they don't get these same kind of benefit. The gentleman is right; there is a provision, and there has been, on the ability of expanding this corps if there were appropriations for it and if the Secretary of Commerce would justify it. The problem is this bill removes that. So it will now be up to the corps to decide what their size is and what their justification is. It is the wrong thing to do. This is the wrong approach. This is not the right way of doing it. And I am sorry, the studies have shown that repeatedly over and over and over again. If, indeed, there are some people who want to do this, it is wrong. It is simply wrong. This is not a military. To insist that they get military benefits is an abuse of the system. It doesn't happen anywhere else. It is only with this. So I am sorry. With that, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to play this game of reserving. I would be happy to, but I think we are the only ones left on this topic on the floor. No one else actually cares. So, if the gentleman is ready, I will yield back, urging a ``no'' vote on this particular bill because it is the wrong thing to do and it is not--not--justified. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The NOAA Corps is a very small, underutilized but uniformed service group. It prevents questions with this type of group, with their history that they have, first of all: Why should they exist in the first place? But more significantly, why should they greatly expand and grant unprecedented benefits that this legislation gives to this group? Congress, the administration, and even Vice President Al Gore all slated this NOAA Corps for elimination. In part, it was because the corps' higher expenses because of their military-type benefits, even though they perform no military-type activities. The Government Accounting Office, GAO, determined that the functions of the corps could be less expensively given using civil servants or private collectors. More seriously, the GAO said that the corps itself is a major impediment to more efficiently and effectively accomplishing its missionary statement, which is to collect coastal data, to conduct fishing surveys, and to produce nautical charts. Now, why is this the case? Well, in one part because the corps insists that it must use their own ships, which are failing. They are resistant to ever contracting with qualified contractors like the Army Corps of Engineers does and the Navy does and even the EPA does. Even this bill recognizes that problem. If you go to look at section 501, it mandates that at least two private-sector charting and surveying contracts must be given. They recognize that what is happening right now is not effective, it is not efficient, and it is a failure. The fleet for this corps has gone from 21 down to 15 since 2008, and the GAO also noted that the NOAA fleet plan is to mothball half of their ships by 2028. Congress has only partially funded a single vessel since 2016, but the money that has been gone is still in the millions, and it goes to line officers, not for Naval vessels or for their leases. If one looks at the recent billet roster, you would find that the NOAA Corps has 94 of its 321 officers assigned to ships. Only 94. That includes the dry-docked ships. The vast majority of their officers are desk-bound, providing, as NOAA says, mission support like having a whale photographer. Now, giving the sinking number of the NOAA fleet, the increased cost of the NOAA officers, the most troubling aspect of this particular bill is a 55 percent increase in the size of the corps; not in the amount of work to be done, but in the size of the corps. The corps now is restricted to 321 officers. It can be raised to 379 officers only if there is appropriate funding from Congress. Most importantly, the Secretary of Commerce will justify organizational needs for the commissioned corps for that particular year. Not only has the corps failed to justify an increase--this massive increase, but this legislation strikes those reasonable requirements of ever going forward in the future. And it does conduct and create an all-time high of 500 billet spots in there whether it is needed or not. It is no surprise that there are those in the administration that do not support this personnel increase. The NOAA Corps' roster illustrates why the average corps officer is far more likely to face a paper cut than any other kind of accident in their careers in this corps military function. Which means if that is the situation, if these are desk jobs in the first place, why are there multiple military and veteran benefits extended to the corps under this bill? During World War II, this corps was temporarily commandeered and put into the Navy service. Unfortunately, today, the Department of Defense has no plans whatsoever to commandeer any of the NOAA Corps or their officers. However, the corps still uses that history, that example during World War II when they were desperately needed and used to justify claiming military and veteran benefits that are normally given to our Armed Forces. I don't think there is anyone here that has any doubt or would have any kind of grave problem giving benefits to those who fought for our freedom, but the corps is not that type of a group. They do not fall under the Code of Military Justice. Their appointments are not reviewed and approved by the Senate. They aren't even subject to physical fitness requirements of the military. Moreover, and what is really problematic, is there have been serious allegations of sexual assault and harassment that have plagued this NOAA Corps, resulting recently in the enactment of a corps sexual harassment law and targeted funding for sexual assault prevention. Is this the kind of group, in all sincerity, that deserves mandatory Federal hiring preferences? That would require student loan repayment at the same rate as you would any military, like a military doctor? Is that the same requirement that would have a 3-year paid sabbatical or free graduate school for post-employment work or even pocket money for their admirals? All of you, if you were serious about this, should sign up for these. The benefits are great, and all you have to do is photograph a couple of whales. This bill, finally, was not transmitted to Congress by the administration. No, no. Perhaps it is coincidental that there are two NOAA Corps officers who have been detailed to our Natural Resources Committee staff, one of whom was previously assigned to the Senate Commerce Committee staff where this bill originated. Given that concept, given that connection, we need to have serious measures put into effect to maybe prevent these conflicts of interests in the future that have created this NOAA Corps dream bill where they get all the benefits but don't have the responsibilities and they don't do the same work. When I said we were dealing with kleinigkeiten today, this is the smallest of all the kleinigkeiten. This is not a good bill. This is not something that we should forward on. We do need to look seriously at this corps in the future. And this is not something that is new. There are those who have been working on this issue and dealing with this corps for the last 30 years and still have not come up with the proper solution to it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two documents. The first document is the dissenting views that Republicans filed on this bill in the committee. The second is the summary of problems that the Department of Commerce Inspector General, the GAO and the NOAA itself have found with the corps, which included a conclusion that the corps does not meet the criteria for military benefits; converting officers to civilians would result in a net savings; that a NOAA Corps officer using a government computer onboard a NOAA ship was accessing child pornography; purposeful violations of the Clean Water Act by NOAA Corps-operated vessels; and a very damning observation that ``insufficient oversight and circumvention of statutory requirements as institutionalized organizational behavior and culture'' within this NOAA Corps. Dissenting Views H.R. 2406 No doubt the members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps of Commissioned Officers (NOAA Corps) are hardworking men and women who are honorably serving our Nation, especially those who pilot into the turbulent hearts of hurricanes. However, there is no justification that this small, underutilized uniformed service should continue to exist, much less be greatly expanded with unprecedented benefits under this legislation. We are not the only ones who agree with this assessment. The House of Representatives reported or passed (by voice vote) multiple bills that eliminated the NOAA Corps; the Administration itself attempted to shift the Corps into civilian status; and none other than Vice President Al Gore slated the NOAA Corps for elimination as part of his reinventing government initiative. In part because of the Corps' higher expenses for its military- and veterans-type benefits, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that the functions of the Corps could be accomplished less expensively using civil servants or private contractors. More seriously, GAO identified the Corps itself as a major impediment to more efficiently and effectively accomplishing its primary missions--to collect coastal and geodetic data, conduct fishery surveys and produce nautical charts--because of its continued insistence that it must use its own ships to accomplish these goals and its reluctance to schedule time on other, newer vessels like the University- National Oceanographic Laboratory System ships or the new $127M National Science Foundation regional class research vessel. Moreover, the Corps is greatly resistant to creating private-sector jobs by utilizing equally qualified contractors--like those hired by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Navy and the Environmental Protection Agency--to command and staff NOAA ships or conduct coastal surveys. In 1990, the Department of Commerce Inspector General concluded that NOAA Corps members assigned to shore-based duties were 59% more costly than equivalent civilians. If H.R. 2406 is enacted, that cost differential will be even higher. The Corps recognizes its life-line connection to the NOAA fleet of civilian ships, which has fallen from 21 to 16 since 2008, noting that if NOAA does not invest in recapitalizing its fleet there will be ``significant'' personnel impacts. The most recent NOAA Fleet Plan (which conveniently omits any costs) notes that half of NOAA's ships are due to be mothballed by 2028. While the Plan calls for the replacement of these ships, Congress has not supported greatly expanding this expensive fleet, providing partial funding for preliminary designs for only a single vessel to date since 2016. Instead, Congress has worked around the Corps, supplying millions to NOAA line offices to conduct fisheries surveys through vessel leases while admonishing NOAA for endangering the lives of those aboard the NOAA vessel Hi'ialakai which apparently suffered hull failure. In fact, because of their age, many of the NOAA vessels spend considerable time in dry dock (4 in the most recent NOAA Fleet update) or are otherwise home in port. Perhaps this explains why the most recent billet roster for the 321 NOAA Corps officers show only 94 assigned to ships (including dry- docked ships), while the vast majority are deskbound providing ``mission support'' or rotating short-term through civil service positions (like ``cetacean photo specialist'') in NOAA program offices. These latter positions could otherwise be filled by less expensive civilians with expertise in the subject matter area and with a longer-term commitment to the program. These numbers illustrate why the average NOAA Corps officer is more likely to face a paper cut than an IED, which begs the question why multiple military and veterans benefits are extended to the Corps under H.R. 2406. During the world wars some NOAA personnel were temporarily assigned to the armed services; this has not recurred, and according to GAO the Department of Defense has no plans to commandeer NOAA Corps officers. However, the modern Corps has used this potential assignment authority as a justification for access to military benefits, like burial at Arlington Cemetery or the G.I. bill. We hope that the House Armed Services and the Veterans Affairs Committees, which received referrals of this legislation, will take a hard look whether these benefits gratefully provided to those who have fought for our freedom should be extended to persons who are not under the Code of Military Justice, whose appointments are not reviewed and approved by the Senate and who apparently aren't even subject to a physical fitness requirement (see section 104 of the bill). Again, we recognize the special case of the NOAA Corps aviators, and would support their transfer to the Coast Guard or another armed service so that legislation like this would be unnecessary. Giving the sinking NOAA fleet, one of the most troubling aspects of H.R. 2406 is the 55% increase in the size of the Corps and the removal of the legal constraints on the number of officers and certain flag officers. These numbers can be increased even further because the legislation allows the Corps to rehire retired officers or to designate officers serving in ``positions of importance and responsibility'' who don't count against these caps. In addition, the Corps can have an unlimited number of paid officer candidates to populate the Corps ranks. Under current law, the Corps is restricted to 321 officers and this number can be raised to 379 only if appropriate funding is available and, most importantly, the Secretary of Commerce has ``justified organizational needs for the commission corps for each such fiscal year''. Not only has the Corps failed to justify this massive increase, but this legislation strikes these requirements while inflating the Corps officers' count to an all-time high of 500. The Corps already struggles with funding its handsome benefits and generous retirements, as witnessed by several budget bills to revamp their retirement and benefit system (there are more retired Corps officers than those currently serving, and because Corps officers can retire with as little as 10 years of service, more will join these ranks). Moreover, serious allegations of sexual assault and harassment have also plagued the NOAA Corps, resulting in a recently enacted sexual harassment law specifically targeted to the Corps and Corps funding for sexual assault prevention. The NOAA Corps should get its house in order before recruiting three to six new platoons into its ranks. Apparently, even with these issues, the NOAA Corps has apparently had no problem filling its current recruitment quota if it needs such a large personnel increase. Understandably so--it is a great gig with almost all the benefits of a military career with few of the risks. Despite this and with no justification, H.R. 2406 creates lavish and expensive new perks and extends even more existing armed forces benefits to current, future and retired Corps members: Paid three-year sabbatical with travel and transportation allowances and continued medical and dental care; The ability to opt out of promotion boards. The Corps is supposedly an up-or-out organization but based on a GAO decision analysis, it appears that an officer who failed to be promoted twice can be retained on staff until the officer can qualify for early retirement; Every single benefit provided to retired or separated armed services members, including employment preferences and assistance, medical and dental care, and commissary and exchange access; All benefits relating to armed services family programs, including free admission to national parks; An elaborate student loan repayment program of up to $60K a year (currently the limit for military doctors and other armed forces health professionals) for as little as one year in service; A student pre-commissioning program for tuition, fees, education materials, monthly subsistence allowance, and a clothing allowance, where repayment can be waived by the Corps if the student fails to be commissioned and where any obligation can be discharged in bankruptcy under certain circumstances. Payment for advanced degrees (tuition, room and board) as well as professional credentials for employment post-Corps; Eligibility for special payments (up to $60K), including personal money allowances; Mandatory hiring preferences in federal agencies; Certain senior officers allowed to retain their higher rank and pay while not serving in those positions if approaching retirement; and Repayment for failure to satisfy service requirements for appointments, training and promotions is discretionary with the Corps, and any obligation can be discharged in bankruptcy under certain circumstances. Finally, we note that this legislation was not originated or transmitted to Congress by NOAA and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget only after the markup of the bill. During the Obama Administration, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee contemplated slightly less generous NOAA Corps bills in the past, albeit without any hearings. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that a senior NOAA Corps officer was recently detailed to the Democrat Natural Resources Committee staff who was previously assigned to the Senate Commerce Committee. Given the Committee Democrats' focus on Trump Administration ethics, we hope that appropriate measures have been put in place to prevent conflicts of interest with this assignment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am assuming I have the traditional 15 minutes remaining?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the dean of our Congress, so he can speak on this bill, and then I will correct the Record afterwards. (Mr. YOUNG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, is there any time remaining?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hice for everything that he is doing on this particular bill. He left already. He is the one who has the accent. But I have to admit, back where I live, this would be called Kettle Crick, not Kettle Creek, so if you can make that change. But the problem is, obviously, battlefields are disappearing. What Mr. Hice has done is try to go about this the proper way, by doing the study that sets the parameters of what we need, and with a great deal of concern and consideration for the other people who are living in that area, for private property in that area, for the other concerns that take place in there. So, I am proud of this because Mr. Hice is doing it the right way. This is the way all of our studies should take place. This is the way all of our concerns should take place, and it is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), who is the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate this opportunity. This bill has got one thing that I think is going for it very heavily in that it authorizes the opportunity of having the Federal Government being forced to actually deal with the local community on management practices. That is something we have been trying to get in all land management policies in the United States. This does that, that is why we support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, once again, I have no objection to this particular bill. I do have objections to the process we are going through. The House has already passed a bill. It went to the Senate. The Senate passed a bill. It came back here. Now, we introduced a new bill to go up there with different changes in it going back to the Senate. We should have fixed it the first time. But having said that, go with it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With that mask, it is a lot easier to do that, too. I appreciate the offer to be involved in this lameduck session here today. It is one of those things that you have to take in some kind of stride. One assumes that if you are coming back here for a lameduck session, there are major issues that need to be done before we actually go back and the next session of Congress can actually take up. Although, I do remember the first time I was elected here, we were voting in January on the budget from the last session of Congress that they had failed to do. But in all of that, we look at the things that are still before us today, and they are huge issues: what we are going to do with the coronavirus, funding to help with that problem, national defense authorization still yet having to be done, appropriations bills still yet to be passed. Instead of dealing with those this week, we find ourselves here with these suspensions, most of which will not have a chance of actually going all the way through the system. Many of them should start over again and be done separately. But, at any rate, this is what we have been called back to do. The Germans had a good word for it: kleinigkeiten. It is those little things. It is not the major issues of the day. It is the small stuff. Now, admittedly, kleinigkeiten, those little things, sometimes can enable one to get a victory and they can also cause a problem that stops one from success. But what we are dealing with today here on the floor is a whole bunch of kleinigkeiten. So I am happy to be invited to be part of this effort that is here. I also want to say one another thing, too, as well, because the bills that are on the floor, when they are printed, when they are talked about, will have the sponsors' names, Members of the House, sometimes Senators who are involved in this, and what is never listed on here is actually the people who make this possible. I want to make one mention of the staff that we have. It is the staff that does the research. It is they who actually write the bills. It is they who actually conduct the talking points. It is they who organize the session so it can run smoothly. So the staff that is sitting to your left over there does a huge amount of work that will never be credited in any way, shape, or form, but it should be; working into the night to make sure that what we do here on the floor is possible, and we should recognize them and be grateful. The staff on my right over here has done the same thing. Lisa Pittman, to my right, has been here for 33 years working in this body, making sure that we do things the right way. She will have forgotten more than--no offense to the Parliamentarians--the Parliamentarians will ever know about how to do things properly, effectively, and with civility. She works tirelessly without asking for the limelight or the effort. Lisa, at one time, I got you on C-SPAN when you had to come down in the well and hand me a piece of paper. I hope to get you in the Congressional Record right now. To realize that in a month from now I am going to be gone and no one cares; but a month from now, you will also be gone, and there will never be--it will be decades before somebody can actually replace you. So to the staff that is here, the staff that is on the floor, the staff that has worked on the committee, they should be recognized as best we can for the work that they do to make everything possible. Even though we get the headlines and we get the names in bold type in the articles, there should be given some recognition to staff. We have a bill that is before us that deals with heritage areas. I congratulate the sponsor of this for taking on something that needs to be done and, even if this does not happen, or if it does happen, still has work that needs to be done on this topic area. The idea of heritage areas was actually pushed on us by the National Park Service, who wanted to find a way of stopping all the Members from trying to create more national parks in their areas; giving them an alternative. The idea was to get local governments coming together and forming a cooperative so that they could actually use and increase the tourism and the opportunities for getting people to come and visit these particular areas. Now, everything that is done in a national heritage area does not need the Federal Government to be involved. Every heritage area could simply, by an interlocal cooperation agreement, simply come to do everything that happens in a heritage area. The two problems that heritage areas have had in the past are dealing with: number one, ignoring property rights of individuals. The local government can solve that problem by themselves. They don't need us to do it. Or the idea of assuming responsibilities and powers from local governments. Local governments in an interlocal cooperation agreement can do that by themselves. They don't need a heritage area to accomplish that. But one thing that heritage areas do that local governments can't do by themselves is give themselves money and that, unfortunately, is why most heritage areas exist, because they will get $700,000 to $800,000 a year just to run these. See, this was the nice part about it. When this was established in 1994, the chairman of the Parks Subcommittee was from Minnesota, and he claimed that the amount of support is going to be limited. There is a limit of time or the amount of money that the Federal Government can be in a heritage area; 10 years, we are out of there. And then they are on their own, and they will get all the benefits of that conservation. The idea was heritage areas would be for a limited time with a limited amount of money. And as the gentleman from Hawaii suggested, there are still 55 heritage areas. Not one of them has ever disappeared. Years after the time has gone by, they are still there and still they are getting that $700,000 to $800,000 to run their programs. The heritage areas are no longer there to try and get the people so they can make things for themselves and handle it. Heritage areas are simply a drain on the budget that no one wants to control. Appropriators don't try and control the spending; authorizers don't try and control the spending. Even the administration, though they talk and complain about it, don't try and do it. The Clinton administration had a problem with this. The Bush administration asked us to quit doing heritage areas. The Obama administration cut the funding for heritage areas in their proposed budget by 50 percent. And the Trump administration also tried to limit what we were doing with heritage areas. That is the problem. What we do with heritage areas makes no sense. It doesn't have value to it. It doesn't have responsibility and we are not even rational. Tennessee has a heritage area for Civil War--what is it really called? Civil War something. The heritage area is the entire State of Tennessee. That is illogical. That is not what it was intended to do. We have corrupted the idea of heritage areas. And I compliment Mr. Tonko for what he is trying do. He is saying, look, if we are going to have these stupid heritage areas--and it looks like no one has the responsibility to actually go back and do what we originally intended to do; appropriators won't, and we don't seem to do it by ourselves-- then at least have some rational reason for why heritage areas are established. Have some kind of standard. Now, what Mr. Tonko is doing is the first step in coming up with some way of doing this appropriately. It is not near enough. The bill does nothing about the root problem of heritage areas just sucking up $700,000 to $800,000 a year and never, never going away, never getting off the Federal dole. That still needs to be addressed. It doesn't happen in here. But that is why I appreciate Mr. Tonko going forward with this particular bill because, for once, we need to sit back and say, why are we doing these heritage areas? What is their purpose? What is their value? If we are not doing it in an intelligent way, then all this becomes is simply pork barrel for certain people to take the money back home to their district, pound themselves on the chest and say, look what I have done, even though it sets the country on a dangerous precedent. The Federal Government and our Federal spending are in trouble, not because we spend too much, but we spend money on too many things. And that is why we, as a Federal Government, have to prioritize, and so should heritage areas be part of that priority process, and we don't do that. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I appreciate this. Whether this gets all the way through, I doubt it. But I hope the gentleman will pick it up again in the next Congress and continue to work forward so we try and look at these heritage areas and say, why are we doing this? What is the purpose? And how can we avoid the objections, the obsessive, the abuse that has happened in many of these areas in the future; so that Tennessee cannot be one heritage area. So the gentleman is really trying to get local people to work for their own local advantage to appreciate it, and make sure that we do it right way. So, with that, having tried to emphasize the fact that this is a huge problem, I do want to be very clear that I support this particular bill and I support the gentleman's effort. We haven't gone far enough, to be honest. There is an amendment we tried to make in the committee which would force heritage areas to lower the amount of money they keep getting from the Federal Government until they are finally weaned off the system. I still think that is the right thing to do. We can talk about that in the future because that is an issue still before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, as now we come to some of the realities of this particular bill and the procedures. Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if we actually dealt with the good of the body and recognize that reauthorizations are important so that we can reevaluate what kinds of programs actually exist and if they are still necessary. We don't do a very good job in Congress of doing that. We allow reauthorizations to lapse, and then we simply go on automatic pilot, unfortunately. This is the situation with this particular program because the Sea Grant College Program expired in 2014 and has never been reauthorized by Congress since that time. The appropriators still put money into it, even though they are not supposed to do it. But once again, when we, as a Congress, fail to do the reauthorization investigation and hearings and prioritize, then we make major mistakes in what we are attempting to do. We certainly don't have the priorities that we should when these programs were originally started to make sure that they are doing what we originally intended them to do, or if, indeed, there needs to be a change, like including the Great Salt Lake in many of its provisions so that you actually do something positive for the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, Congress in the last year, fiscal year 2019, even though this was not an authorized program, still spent $72 million to do that, even though it was eliminated from the administration's budget. The House in this fiscal year appropriated in the 2020 bill only $71 million for this program. There is, of course, a glitch in that appropriation, which simply means that unlike other Senate bills that are coming here to the floor, this one will not go directly to the President's desk. It has to go back to the Senate for some kind of a revote and reanalysis with it. But this is not simply a reauthorization of a program. This is a reauthorization that changes things, including of which is a much higher amount with that program. So, beginning with this bill, this would change it not only from $70 million; it would take it to the $87.5 million for fiscal year 2020 and add a generous 5 percent increase to each year through 2024. In addition, it funds an additional $30 million for six specific research and extension activities. Now, once again, whether those are justifiable or not--it would be nice--that should be part of the discussion in a reauthorization program before you actually come up with these kinds of numbers that go into that. The increases won't necessarily result in more Sea Grant marine research or outreach because it also increases the percentage of funds that can be used by program administration. Now, the CBO score of this bill is at $513 million. A half-billion dollars for any program is simply a big deal if it is not considered in the context of the other priorities that this government should have, and that is one of the programs and processes that should be done. So, this bill, like its House companion bill, goes beyond simple reauthorization. It adds new priorities. It adds new programs that benefit certain offices more than others. I am not just going to contend that this has a disproportionate influence on certain bodies, but let's just say this provides for free office work, fellows that are placed in offices year after year. In the latest list of congressional placements and their opportunities, out of 29 total spots in both the House and the Senate, only five were put in Republican offices. Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe there is simply a process that we are not looking at in the reauthorization and the way this program is managed, which, once again, should be considered before you go through the reauthorization approach to it. The problem is that some of these positions now go in there, and it should not be that Congress provides itself its own free staff, but that is exactly what this is attempting to do. Those free staffs are involved in drafting legislation that benefits the Sea Grant program, which is, of course, a built-in conflict of interest. With those other conflicts of interests, there is another advantage that has now been built-in for these fellows that I don't think is appropriate and something we should actually think about properly before we even go forward with that and decide if these kinds of programs need to be done at taxpayer expense. The Sea Grant bill also gives preferential access to Federal jobs. This bill allows the direct hire of fellows by any Federal agency, regardless of if there are better qualified candidates. So, fellows already receive a unique educational professional experience that provides advancement in opportunities that others in the same field may not have. Yet, they are now being asked to reduce the competition to get a job in the Federal workforce to help a select few in this program. I am sorry, that is a process that is simply not in the best interest of good government. It is that process that needs to be revisited, that should be revisited. Actually, this also eliminates some of the transparency. Right now, this program needs to report to Congress on a yearly basis. By this bill, the advisory board will have to report every other year to Congress. I understand that the Sea Grant program is popular among some States, especially coastal States. Even as a representative from an inland State, I have to applaud the efforts for research and outreach that are conducted by Sea Grant universities and institutions, and I also don't object to fellows at all who are placed in the executive branch. But I have grave concerns regarding the politicized nature of this program, the fellowship program. I have problems with the direct-hire incentives and authorities that are given in this particular program, also, without actually having some rationale for it, just the mandatory increase in spending that goes along with this type of program. Therefore, I cannot vote for this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, for me, I will vote ``no'' and urge the rejection of this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.