Rep. Bishop: Time to reassert the power of Congress

But, Bishop, nearing the end of his seventh term, has become one of the Obama administration’s biggest critics on how it places land under federal protection, especially in the wake of huge swaths of land and ocean being placed under federal protection in Maine and off the coast of Hawaii last month, and a new marine monument off the coast of Massachusetts just last week.

Bishop’s plan is to re-assert the power of the legislative branch over the executive.

“Making a monument is not an executive branch function. I think these monuments show how invasive it is,” Bishop said. “The Antiquities Act was supposed to be about an antiquity. A fish off the coast of Hawaii is not an antiquity. Trees in Maine are not an antiquity.”

Huge swaths of land and ocean were placed under federal protection in Maine and off the coast of Hawaii last month. (AP Image)

With just a few weeks left in the 114th Congress, the 65-year-old Utahn is a key figure in the negotiations over a comprehensive energy bill being hashed out in conference committee.

But the end of this session could leave a few of his goals unaccomplished. While Bishop wants to include legislation changing how the U.S. Forest Service works to prevent wildfires in the energy bill, he said he’s going to push hard to get some reforms through Congress before next year’s wildfire season.

He also has an ambitious plan re-organizing how federal lands in eastern Utah are managed that he believes would cut down on litigation costs and make life simpler for businesses and recreation enthusiasts alike.

Sitting in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building, Bishop discussed his goals with the Washington Examiner, listing his priorities in a patient tone that belies how seriously he takes each issue and the urgency he feels to get something through Congress.

Washington Examiner: A Senate committee advanced a bill from your committee reforming how the Forest Service manages forests to reduce wildfires. How important is it to get that bill done in this session? Could it be attached to something?

Rep. Rob Bishop: It already is part of our package in the energy conference, so it could easily be part of the energy bill if the Senate would go along. But it becomes extremely important before the next wildfire season.

I’m proud of the Senate for doing this. They finally recognize we can’t just throw money at wildfires and solve the problem; it’s the management of the wildfire. What we have in this bill are things the Forest Service worked with us on and they could implement on the very first day it’s signed. This is like low-hanging fruit. It’s the easiest type of things we can do.

While Bishop wants to include legislation changing how the U.S. Forest Service works to prevent wildfires in the energy bill, he said he’s going to push hard to get some reforms through Congress before next year’s wildfire season. (AP Image)

And the Forest Service clearly recognizes they need categorical exclusions so they can move faster on this work of rebuilding forests, and also limitations on what kind of things can they litigate. The second most expensive part of their budget is litigation, after wildfires.

If you can limit that, the Forest Service can do a hell of a lot better job, which would allow us not to put so much carbon in the air by burning up the forests in the first place and actually being able to control the watershed and the quality of water by keeping the forests there. It’s such a no-brainer, but it has to be done before the next cycle of forest fires start.

Examiner: Listening to Democrats, it seems like the party line is, “This is a good bill, but it’s not comprehensive enough, it doesn’t have enough funding.” Do you see that they want to get along with the reforms to the Forest Service and not just increase funding?

Bishop: I would hope so. Sometimes there are real reasons for voting no, sometimes there are good reasons. If saying this is a good bill but it doesn’t have enough money, that sounds like a good reason to vote no, but not a real reason. If you want to solve the problem, you’ve got to do it, and I think they’re finally recognizing that and that’s a plus.

You can understand things, like [Sen. Ron] Wyden has said things that he’s realizing and ready to do some sort of compromise. The Resiliency Forest bill that we sent over there is not a comprehensive bill, it’s not everything I want. To me, it’s like it’s the first step. It’s the low-hanging fruit, because it’s easy.

Examiner: Last month, the Obama administration named a new national monument in Maine and expanded a marine monument in Hawaii using the Antiquities Act, and last week added a new monument off the coast of Cape Cod. Can the Antiquities Act be reformed?

Bishop: Not unless you change the act itself. Repealing it would actually be the wisest thing to do. Making a monument is not an executive branch function. I think these monuments show how invasive it is. The Antiquities Act was supposed to be about an antiquity. A fish off the coast of Hawaii is not an antiquity. Trees in Maine are not an antiquity.

Even though they’re given to the federal government, [it] is going to cost us more in a department that already had a $19 billion backlog in what it’s trying to maintain, and the $20 million the Quimby family wants to donate won’t cover the first year of maintenance.

Bishop, nearing the end of his seventh term, has become one of the Obama administration’s biggest critics on how it places land under federal protection. (AP Image)

The only way you could reform it is what we proposed in the last session, which is insist the president go through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process, which means before he can make any of these designations … If he’s working with the agencies and they know what’s going on, that triggers NEPA, which means you have to have public input.

You have to go through a long and lengthy process. At least people would know ahead of time, and they could complain about the situation and details that should be worked out before the designations.

We proposed that, it passed the committee, it passed the House, the Senate wouldn’t go for it, and the irony was people were arguing the president shouldn’t have his hands tied by dealing with NEPA.

Everybody else in the world has to go through NEPA, but the president shouldn’t have to because he’s much too busy for that. That could be a simple reform that would at least give people a chance to have input.

Examiner: Every president since it was passed has used the Antiquities Act …

Bishop: Over-simplification. A lot of presidents have used it, many presidents have never used it. If you go from the middle of LBJ to the middle of Clinton, nobody used it. Zero. Six of the seven presidents in that time didn’t use it. Most of them who have used it used it sparingly, like FDR in four terms used it four times.

Carter, in the middle of that 30-year-span, used it in the middle of that 30-year span used it 15 times, Clinton used it 21 times as he walked out the door and now this guy is up to … 26? These three presidents have abused the act, the others have not, there is a big difference.

Examiner: Do you think Hillary Clinton, if elected, would as well, if there was no reform?

Bishop: Her husband was one of those three. I don’t know. I don’t have the insight into somebody’s heart. I don’t know, to be honest with you, I can’t say fairly.

Examiner: You’re working on legislation in the committee now on an eastern Utah public lands initiative. You say the goal is to solve land uncertainties and cut down on litigation. What kind of land uncertainties are you talking about, and what’s the situation out there?

Bishop: Most of the conservation designations are study areas, which means they can be done by fiat and they can be taken away by fiat. The idea of actually having conservation is all theory; it’s tentative and it can be taken away. Oftentimes, there’s a conflict between folks who want to develop and those who want to save all the areas around there.

So, what we’re trying to do is say, “Look, we will now designate and save the most significant use of the lands.” So, if it’s a recreation area, I want to guarantee recreation now as well as in the future … It has to be permanent value.

I want to identify areas of economic development potential where that’s the prime purpose of the land, so it won’t be fought and litigated by everyone. That’s the purpose for having that, so the businesses know where they can fit. I want to make sure the conservation areas are no longer done by fiat, they are done by Congress so they are guaranteed.

And I’m giving land to the states so they can create destination spots and manage the land a hell of a lot better than the federal government can.

So, those are our goals. And, if you can give primary purpose for the lands, then you stop this bickering and arguing over if this is an area for economic development because we have labeled it as such, this is an area for conservation because we have labeled it as such, this is the watershed for this county so we’re giving it to the county because we labeled it as such.

I’m also doing another thing that, instead of saying “the secretary shall promulgate rules,” we are telling them what kind of management practices will be done on these grounds, which is exactly what we should be doing.