[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5415]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            WASTE AND ABUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, when I was first elected to 
Congress, my incoming class decided to concentrate on the concept of 
exposing waste, fraud and abuse in national government. I wish I was 
still doing that because with all due respect, I have struck the mother 
lode of waste, fraud and abuse.
  Tomorrow we will debate on this floor under a rule a perfect example 
of abusing taxpayers, fraud on taxpayers, and wasting of taxpayers' 
money.
  Less than 10 years ago, Secretary Babbitt established an organization 
called the National Land Conservation System. He said it was his idea, 
his hope, to move from what he called the ``Bureau of Livestock and 
Mining,'' which was actually his legal responsibility, to what he 
wanted to be, a bureau of landscapes and monuments. He wanted this 
organization to emphasize and recognize the crown jewels of the Bureau 
of Land Management.
  One has to ask: How does one actually recognize and emphasize the 
crown jewels of the Bureau of Land Management?
  In hearings, we asked the bureau spokesman if before this entity was 
established, was the Bureau of Land Management incompetent in handling 
these goals, or of emphasizing and recognizing these lands. And the 
answer was, obviously, no.
  So the question once again is: Why do we want tomorrow to codify and 
make permanent this entity which is at best redundant and is at worst 
simply a waste of taxpayers' money, because you see, this new entity 
doesn't appoint anyone. It doesn't fire anybody. It doesn't write or 
remove regulations. It doesn't administer or regulate. It doesn't do 
anything except cost the taxpayer $50 million a year to run it.
  The best argument that the proponents of this bill will have is that 
it doesn't change anything. In essence, it does nothing to an entity 
that does nothing; so why do it.
  Another of the great arguments is it won't cost us a dime, except 
when the sponsor was asked in his State newspaper whether this new 
system would have more funds and regulations, his response was, ``Well, 
you've got to establish the system, and then you go to step two.''
  In what actually is being purported as something that doesn't really 
change anything, my fear is this bill might actually do something.
  The Department of Interior tentatively supports this proposal because 
it says it helps them to maintain the basic difference between a 
national park and a national monument on BLM land as opposed to a 
monument or park on National Park Service land. And the key element in 
the difference between the two is the concept in the BLM of multiple 
use on the public lands.
  And yet when our side tried to introduce an amendment in the 
committee to make sure that multiple use was one of the key values of 
this new system, it was defeated on a party-line vote. And when we went 
to the Rules Committee to try to bring this issue to the floor, it was 
once again defeated on a party-line vote.
  The only difference between BLM and National Park Service is this 
concept of multiple use, and yet this is one issue that is specifically 
eliminated from the bill that will be in discussion tomorrow. This bill 
is supposed to take the status quo and make it permanent; and yet all 
of the problems inherent in the status quo are not solved by this 
particular bill. We have great issue with private in holdings on these 
lands, none of which is addressed.
  We tried to make sure that those people who like to recreate on these 
lands, that no boating, no shooting areas would be diminished if this 
went into effect, and once again that issue was rejected on a party-
line vote and not even allowed to be discussed on the House floor.

                              {time}  2045

  We talked about potential border security, and an amendment will be 
granted tomorrow that says we will do nothing to change what we are 
doing on border security on these lands which are part of our border, 
and that is, indeed, one of the problems because it's not the status 
quo we want. It is change that needs to be done.
  This area is sometimes called sarcastically the Trail of Amnesty, 
where it's estimated that every year a quarter of a million people will 
go through, those who are most of the worst in the human traffickers, 
the drug dealers and some of our gang members.
  There is one ranch that is near this area; already in a short period 
of time has been burglarized 16 times even though he has iron bars on 
the window, a security system. When he's on horseback riding his ranch 
he finds needles, baby clothes, two skulls, four dead bodies. No 
Country for Old Men looks like a soap opera compared to this territory.
  It is not the status quo we need to do. It is change that is 
essential. And once again, nothing like this happens. When we write 
fuzzy and vague language we invite lawsuits against the Federal 
Government.
  We'll have an amendment tomorrow to try to eliminate or at least 
limit the kinds of potential lawsuits we have. We will see what happens 
because, once again, that was rejected in the committee.
  This national land conservation system should not be codified and 
made permanent; if anything, it should be eliminated as a $50 million 
example of waste, fraud and abuse. The dream of Secretary Babbitt is 
really an expensive millstone around the neck of all taxpayers in this 
country.

                          ____________________