Rob Bishop: “the language that is put in here is part of the BLM mandate. They are to conserve, protect, restore cultural, ecological…”

“the language that is put in here is part of the BLM mandate. They are to conserve, protect, restore cultural, ecological and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations. The issue at hand, though, is that this is not the only part of the BLM's management authority and management purpose. By refusing to expand this to the other areas to which BLM is supposed to do, the work they are supposed to do on this land, we are in danger of actually going the other way and trying to impose that this is the only way, especially when this language has been used in the Park Service to mandate specific management practices and hurt that process. If you go on with this particular section, when you go to (b), it lists the kind of areas designated in this new land system. Each one was established with a certain land management plan. They are there. But the fact that we don't put them in here opens up the possibility of litigation to problems that are there. It is important so we know that the Department of the Interior said they don't mind creating this system by statute, but they were opposed to this language. They said this language is harmful to their mission statement. I wish to actually try and convince every Member on the floor, all three of us here, that this is indeed not what the department needs. It is not what the bureau needs.”