Rob Bishop

Mr. Chair, look, the Minuteman III has been a great deterrent and a great source of security for this country, but it is 46 years old. It was put in the ground when I was in college, and I can't even remember what I was doing in college.

It has already been extended three times.

As Mr. Turner said, the testimony in our committee said that we have studied this, and the conclusion was more study and more delay was not cost-effective.

Look at the reality of the situation. If we move into a new system, we have to have the infrastructure to make that move so the system can be seamless going from place to place.

If we pause in that reconstruction of infrastructure, what we do is stop the construction. Then, we have to start up again, which is why the cost continues to increase.

There are parts of Minuteman III that are no longer being produced in the private sector, so the engineers at the Air Force logistics centers have to rejigger from old parts a new part. In fact, the blueprints in some cases are so old, they are not readable anymore.

We have to move forward. This amendment stops us from modernizing our efforts. The GBSD has to move forward.

Let's face it: The only reason it is not moving forward right now is because it doesn't have a cute name like Minuteman III. But it is our future. If we want something in our future, we cannot tolerate more delays. This amendment for another study does nothing more than delay what we can actually come up with, the new generation of what we need to defend this country.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition for the process of what we are doing, not necessarily the substance of the amendment at hand.

Since this bill had first been heard in our committee, there have been new voices that have been raised by the people of Windsor, California, which is the town located adjacent to the unincorporated area of the county in which this land transfer would take place. These residents have repeatedly contacted our committee asking that their voices simply be heard.

Now, for whatever the reason was, we asked the committee to have one more hearing and allow these voices to actually be heard. For whatever reason, the majority on our committee decided to silence the voices and just ram this bill through the committee. The reason I and several others voted against it in committee and on the floor was simply because of the process that went through here.

This, as has been mentioned, is not necessarily a new amendment. It is a bill, a bill that has passed this House and is sitting over in the Senate.

It is certainly my hope that this does not portend a future in which those who make the agenda of the House consider the fact that the Democratic House will so incomparably and infrequently work with a Republican Senate that we now need to take every bill that has been passed in the House and turn it into another amendment and then attach it to the next big bill that happens to go through this process. Certainly, that is not what I think would be the best way going forward.

Now, the last reason, the process for which I do object, is simply this bill does not belong on a National Defense Authorization Act. There is no defense nexus. This is transferring of lands from one area to Native Americans.

Now, heaven knows, I have had all sorts of land issues and wildlife issues on the NDAA, but in each one of those there was a nexus to a training range, a military mission. There is no connection with this particular bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, however one wants to spin whatever issue is here, had the Democratic majority on the committee scheduled another hearing to allow those voices to be heard, I wouldn't have objected then, nor would I have objected right now.

The sad part is this is not necessarily the best of proposals. The checkerboard pattern that is created by this amendment is something in other amendments we have tried to do, to consolidate and get rid of checkerboard patterns and not create checkerboard patterns.

But here is, still, the bottom line: This establishes a precedent-- this is not a precedent. We have done it before. But it establishes the wrong approach.

The National Defense Authorization Act should be about military stuff and about the defense of this Nation. This is not even a tangible concept. This is something that has nothing to do with it. We do have a partisan Rules Committee that has decided to lure some people with partisan amendments to be

put in here, but it has nothing to do with the actual bill.

We are going through a whole lot of amendments and taking a whole lot of time on the floor. The amendments to the NDAA should have something to do with the NDAA and not just pulling wandering bills that go all over the place and deciding to shove it on it just because there is a vehicle that happens to be going through this body.

That is why I said I am not talking about the substance of the bill-- although there are some questions; I would have had my questions answered had there been another hearing for the new voices that want to be heard--but it is the process that we are going through. The process here is wrong. The process the Rules Committee did was wrong.

We should not be talking about these kinds of issues and taking our time on these kinds of issues on an NDAA bill. So, as I said, my opposition is purely on process, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, first of all, if the gentleman from Arizona has any speakers. I do have several.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to be here. I also appreciate Mr. Cole for his work on this particular issue and the time he has put in over the last decade in trying to find a Carcieri fix.

That 2009 Supreme Court made the decision, but it actually opened up more questions than it provided solutions and answers in the process.

In the years since that decision, the Democrats, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, did not find a solution. Republicans, when we were in the same situation, didn't find a solution either, probably because there is even a bigger question than what was decided in this particular case. That bigger question is one that is extremely complex and grave, and it indicates the complexity of this particular issue.

Lands taken into trust by Tribes definitely have a benefit and an advantage to the Tribe, but it also has an impact on the counties and local governments where this trust issue is taking place.

Let's be clear that, prior to Carcieri, the fee-to-trust process was broken and fraught with conflicts. In fact, many will still argue that even today, the current Bureau of Indian Affairs process provides very limited incentives for any community or stakeholder to be partners in this process. As a result, we are often left with conflict and political turmoil and accusations and recriminations on the local level.

Some areas of local government, especially the California State Association of Counties, have been repeatedly asking us to try to come up with a reform to the overall process because the process impacts taxes and zoning in communities where these trust lands are acquired.

Local governments, States, and stakeholders who have some kind of role to play in this area, should they have a seat at the table? Should they be consulted? Should they have some kind of input? Yes, obviously.

Should they have a veto in the process? I don't think so.

Where we draw that line to ensure that there is consultation, so you ensure that people have a voice in the process, that is the underlying question. That is the complex question.

During markup of this bill, Mr. Huffman from California and Mr. Gosar from Arizona entered into a colloquy. They actually had a discussion, one of the few times a committee did what a committee is supposed to do, talking about the need to come up with some kind of variance to this underlying issue that is not necessarily the crux of the 2009 decision. But how do we come up with this process?

If this bill is going to go all the way to the Senate and ultimately become law, we need some help in finding a solution to the bigger issue of how much

consultation should take place and who should have their voices heard in the overall process, a process that does not happen right now.

There is a pathway to solve these problems. We can address Carcieri or we can move forward to prevent future litigation that has plagued the land-in-trust process. The Tribes and every stakeholder in this process deserve as much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

If we, indeed, are going to be serious about a legislative solution to Carcieri, then we need to work out some kind of compromise that could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

I have been encouraged by the debate not only on the floor here, but also in our committee, regarding the need to consult with affected parties before land is taken into trust.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Grijalva whether he will commit to work with us on this type of legislation to solve this underlying problem as this bill moves forward?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and I appreciate the comments that he will be there.

There is this bigger question that needs to be answered. Where we draw the line is a matter that still needs some kind of discussion, I recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a brilliant letter from me to Chairman Grijalva on this particular issue'

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, May 6, 2019.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is frustrating that the Democrat

Leadership has scheduled H.R. 375, legislation to reverse

Carcieri v. Salazar, under suspension one week after the

committee markup of the bill. It disregards what I believe

was a bipartisan agreement to work on an amendment to the

bill to improve consultation between the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) and states and counties to mitigate the impacts

of taking land in trust in their jurisdictions. The Carcieri

decision created vast uncertainty over the fee-to-trust

process for tribes and impacted stakeholders. I voted for

H.R. 375 in committee as a display of my support for

resolving Carcieri. My support for the bill's advancement is

contingent upon the inclusion of reasonable safeguards on

BIA's powers.

During markup on H.R. 375, Messrs. Huffman and Gosar

discussed a mutual, bipartisan desire to respond to long-

standing state and local concerns. The California State

Association of Counties (CSAC), in a letter submitted for the

markup record, reiterated the counties' ``longstanding, valid

concerns'' they have with a fee-to-trust process conducted

under a ``fundamentally flawed regulatory framework'' and

they also submitted proposals to resolve these problems. I

can attest that many counties in Utah share these same

concerns.

Mr. Huffman explained that he found himself in partial

agreement with CSAC's position, and that there should be

``meaningful good faith consultation'' with local

governments. While saying the Gosar amendment went too far,

Mr. Huffman expressed a willingness to ``continue

collaborating on this issue'' to ``come up with something

that would at least codify that good faith consultation part

of a better process.''

Bringing the bill to the Floor this Wednesday is not a sign

that such collaboration is being taken seriously by Democrat

Leadership nor is it a pragmatic approach to resolving

Carcieri for the benefit of Indian Country.

The fee-to-trust system is broken because of a provision of

a 1934 law that has not been updated since that law's

enactment. Realistically, H.R. 375 offers an opportunity

through which to fix it. Moving forward without reasonable

consultation safeguards on BIA's authority will undermine

successful resolution of Carcieri.

It was our hope that after debate on the bill during markup

you'd allow Messrs. Huffman and Gosar, and other interested

Members (on and off the Committee), an opportunity to explore

solutions with H.R. 375's sponsor, Mr. Tom Cole. We need to

work on a compromise bill that solves the underlying issues

and can become law.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop,

Ranking Member.

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, 1869, a Salt Lake paper wrote that the people of Utah--the great pioneers of the Rocky Mountains--received with acclamation the glad news of the completion of the mighty work to which as a people they had contributed their part; and hand in hand with the great circle of States and territories, now rejoicing in union over the event, did thank God for its accomplishments.

They were referencing the Golden Spike which had been driven completing the first transcontinental railroad.

That date, May 10, will forever stand as a tribute to the men of vision who foresaw the potential of an empire stretching from coast to coast in the United States, bound together not only by iron rails but also by a common interest.

From the time of the Civil War when this project started until three or four decades later when the railroad system was completed, America changed. In 1860, the United States was third in the world in production of wheat. When the railroad was completed, we were first. In 1860, England produced three times as much coal as the United States. When the railroad was complete, not only did we lead the world, we were producing 110 million tons of coal more

than Great Britain. During the Civil War, England was producing six times as much steel as we were, but when the railroad was complete, 42 percent of all steel was being produced in the United States--much of that going to the railroad.

During the Civil War, there were only 30,000 miles of railroad track in America. But when the system was complete, there was 167,000 miles crisscrossing this country. Today we still have more railroad track than any other country, 39 percent more than the number two country of Russia, and more than the rest of the top 10, which include in order China, India, Canada, Germany, Australia, Argentina, and France and Belgium combined, even more than nation number 139 on that list, the country of Lichtenstein, which has all of 5\1/2\ miles of railroad track.

The railroad made our economic explosion possible. The railroad made us an industrial giant. Before the railroad came, it was difficult to move goods or even transport people. But once the spike was driven, that was the kick-start to what we were going to do. Now, 150 years later, we are celebrating the coming of the Central Pacific's Jupiter with the Union Pacific's Engine 119 meeting together in Utah's backyard. The railroads still move goods, and they also provide passenger service.

I still remember as a kid my parents taking me to the Ogden train depot for a trip somewhere into Idaho, probably Boise. I was in my Sunday best. As we went up to the observation car, I could look out and see the beauty of this America passing us by.

It is an American national historical park. It is a place where the American story is without equal.

In LaRue County, Kentucky, there is the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park.

In Seneca, New York, there is the Women's Rights National Historical Park.

In Ohio, you can visit the Dayton Aviation National Historical Park where you can walk into the bicycle shop where Orville and Wilbur Wright first started to conquer the skies.

The Golden Spike National Historical Park is going to recognize in Promontory Summit in Utah, the place where the world changed, where not only was history made that day, but also the Herculean efforts of those who organized this, as well as the immigrant manpower of Irish coming from the east and Chinese from the west, who provided the muscle to accomplish this project.

A national historical park is accomplished by an act of Congress, but the Spike 150 Commission, chaired by Doug Foxley and Spencer Stokes, has mobilized a literal army of history lovers who will host a series of events befitting this historic moment.

It has already started with a horse parade in Brigham City, a hoedown in Tremonton, and a country church service on Sunday. It will also culminate this Friday when we invite all of you to come to Utah to see the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike, which encouraged the pioneering of both the spirit and economy of America. When that Golden Spike was driven, America welcomed a new frontier.