Rob Bishop: “Thank you very much. Though I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Virginia, I have to disagree once again. We…”

“Thank you very much. Though I appreciate the words of the gentleman from Virginia, I have to disagree once again. We have a process for the way we do things. This is an exception to that process because of an emergency. The Parks Department has already identified where they need to spend the money. Any authorization that would ask for any kind of acquisition of lands will take away from where the money is already identified to be needed. {time} 1810 The hypothetical situation of where some expert at some point might want to do this, to spend some type of money, it's nice, it's cute, it's wonderful, but we have a specific process here. If, indeed, you need to move an administrative building from point X to point Y, we have a process to go through that. And it should go through the administrative, it should go through regular order; not be hidden in the bowels of an emergency expenditure. I'm not cutting any money from this bill. I'm simply saying you spend the money where it was designed to be spent, and there is a loophole in the language here that would allow that to change. That is wrong. Do not allow the Interior Department or the Ag Department to use a loophole to move money that is designed to solve an emergency from the place where it needs to be spent, on the emergency. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).…”