In closing, whether this cattle ranch becomes part of our national inventory or not may indeed be a good idea. But one of the things I think we are saying right now is the scope these processes have to go through--and the process does become important. Poor process produces poor policy. What we are arguing in this particular case is if we should allow the process to go through to its completion. There are questions that still have to be asked that yet have a quantified answer to them. Neighbors may be in support, but we want those things quantified, which should be part of the process that is there. There should be private property rights in this particular document for the protection of private property owners, and that should be boilerplate language we add in all legislation--not just this, but the rest that comes through. The question that we should be asking, which is what the study should be asking as well, is not necessarily do we go forth in this particular one but should we look at this as the only way of preserving or moving forward on this cattle ranch in the future? Is this indeed the best way? Are there other concepts that could be used? And should this be the $50 million budget priority of this particular Congress? Those are the types of questions that should have been answered in the committee before this bill moved forward, and that's what we asked in committee and we're asking again on the floor.
Rob Bishop: “In closing, whether this cattle ranch becomes part of our national inventory or not may indeed be a good idea. But one…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the importance of process and questions surrounding a cattle ranch bill.
Share
More from Rob Bishop
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…
This hearing, as far as understanding truth of what went on, and coming up with a good history, is going to be invalid.
One final parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
There really is no reason to add to this hearing--unless it is to give Members another 5 minutes to campaign, or speak on the bills. It is kind of a waste of time.





