Rob Bishop

Whenever you do changes to public lands in Utah there will be collateral damage, and there will be collateral damage that hits kids.

I would like to make a motion of unanimous consent that a letter from the Utah State Board of Education be inserted into the record, who is opposed to this proposal.

If my kids are going to have a decent education in Utah, my state has to have a balanced economy.

One of the problems I have with this particular bill is that every state in the West with all of those public lands was promised elements that would help their public education funding.

We now want to create nine million acres of wilderness. That means 18 percent of Utah has to support the rest of the state.

One in every three acres is owned by the Federal government, and 90 percent of that land is congregated in the West.

The reason why I am Chairman of the Western Caucus, if for no other reason, is because all the colored land in there is land that is owned by the Federal government.

I appreciate that opportunity and, in honor of our Senators being here, this is the beginning of a filibuster.

Would wind or solar farms harm or have a greater impact on elk than mining?

I hope you recognize that when you go after that water in central and eastern Nevada you leave western Utah alone.

Categorical exclusion is part of NEPA.

If you would write that guarantee in your bill, it might be a better bill, obviously.

We import the 92 percent of the uranium that we use in this country. I understand about 25 percent of that comes from Russia?

So the good supervisor will still get her tourism dollars going into that area.

There are places in the canyon, like Orphan Mine, that the government has refused to reclaim.

Is it my understanding you are not speaking on behalf of NACO today but only as Coconino County?

Yes, the Administration should be here to answer why they did what they did, and what the rationale is for doing it, but they are not here.

Not only was the letter ignored, but there were no answers to any of those questions given before his unilateral action.

We meet today in a hearing that may actually be a moot issue, which is legal talk for useless.

I just want to--appreciate your being here. I appreciate Pedro, what he is doing here...

I feel that H.R. 2499 allows the people of Puerto Rico more opportunities to define their political status.

H.R. 2499 would--at long last--provide them with this opportunity.

This argument is flawed. Before a single vote has been cast, critics of the bill have used their crystal ball to predict the results.

The fact is that the legally-viable status choices available to Puerto Rico are crystal clear, no matter how loudly some may insist otherwise.

This bill shows the highest respect for the people of Puerto Rico by refusing to mislead them.