mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. thune: under the previous order, the question is on the sorokin nomination. mr. thune: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 91, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the question is on the boulware nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote?

the yeas are 58, the nays are 35, and the nomination is confirmed. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid on the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:35 p.m. >> the senate today cop firming three district court judges for virginia, massachusetts and nevada. the chamber now in recess for weekly party meetings returning at 2:15 eastern. at 2:30 this afternoon, members will take another series of votes whether to advance three presidential nominees to the federal reserve board. watch live coverage of the senate as always here on c-span2. outside of washington it is primary day in five states as voters head to the polls to cast

their ballots in house and senate races. among them, majority leader eric cantor of virginia faces republican challenger david brat, a college professor. and in south carolina senator lindsey graham is competing against six gop challengers in his bid for a third term. tonight on c-span we'll bring you remarks from senator graham after the polls close in south carolina. returning to capitol hill, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction will testify before a house panel this afternoon. john sofko will address concerns over waste, fraud and abuse in afghanistan reconstruction projects. watch his testimony live today at 2:00 eastern on c-span3. >> religion is a powerful identity forming mechanism. it is, you know, part of human society is figuring out who is us and who is them, right? who is my group and who is the out group. well, religion answers that

question pretty easily. if you pray like me. if you eat like me. if you go to the same churches i do, then you're us and if you don't, then you're them. and you can see very easily how that kind of us-them, in group, out group mind-set can very easily lead to extremism, to marginalization. after all, as i remind people, religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation but just as powerful is violence. how do you know who is us and who is them? if you're fighting alongside me you're us. if you're fighting against me you're them. so far from religion and violence being these two things that are at odds and should have nothing to do with each other, they have, as everyone knows throughout history been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious school lear and best-selling author, reza aslan will be booktv live guest.

in the months ahead, august third, former texas congressman and republican presidential candidate ron paul and september 7th, the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights and children rights advocate, mary francis berry. in our online book club we're discussing amity shlaes the forgotten man. join others and discuss the book in our chat room at booktv.org. booktv, television for serious reeders. this morning congressman rob bishop of utah participating in a discussion about the federal government's public lands policies. representative bishop chairs the house public lands and environmental regulations subcommittee. you will hear first from robert gordon of the heritage foundation, the host organization. this event runs an hour.

>> good morning, welcome to the heritage foundation and in louers with lerman auditorium. i would ask everyone in house, double-check the cell phones have been turned off, especially with the rain in the area and all of the magical warnings about flash floods going off, it might be a little more distracting than usual. we will of course post this program on the heritage homepage following the presentation for everyone's future reference and our internet viewers are always welcome to send comments and questions. email speaker@heritage.org. hosting the program is rob gordon, serves as strategic advisor for outreach in our external relations department.

he establishes and builds working relationships with new audiences and potential allies, champion idea and policy solutions. before joining us here in 2008 he directed several conservation organizations. from 2003 to six he served on committee staff for the house committee on resources. in 1989 he founded the national wilderness institute a non-profit conservation organizations. from '97 to 2000 two he served two terms as a member of the commonwealth of virginia's board of conservation and recreation. please join me in welcoming rob gordon. rob? >> thank you, john. and welcome again to the heritage foundation. we have a great panel today. judging from many faces i see in the audience, we have a great audience too. i think we'll get some excellent questions. let me start by acknowledging rachel kopec, the coalition's coordinator at the state policy network who worked with us to

promote this event and is working with one of the speakers who's engaged with educating state officials on aspects of federal landownership. in a few minutes i will introduce our speakers. after they made remarks, we'll take questions. but first i would like to offer a little bit of context for our panel, states of dependence, reducing washington's control of the western u.s. i think some comparisons regarding land areas are needed because the areas we're discussing are so vast that they're difficult to comprehend. when rural lands not under federal control and the land under federal control that are lbm, forest service, fish and wildlife service, forest service, considered together they're greater than the nation of india. that shouldn't be really too surprising as, based on ranking

the u.s. where, we're the third after russia and canada. according to the natural resources conservation service, as of 2003, only 5.6% of the united states was urban. so we have a huge area that is rural. now i raise this because most americans live in urban and suburban areas. partially or predominantly developed areas are the rule, not the exception as to what most of us see on a day-to-day basis and this certainly affects your outlook and further development close to or within one's already developed little day-to-day world can make it seem as if everything is disappearing. i think this is a very inaccurate perception and it is something that advocates of expanding government landholdings and imposing barriers and regulations to inhibit productive private land use seize upon. so, let me offer a little bit more perspective.

non-federal rural lands total more than 1.3 billion-acres, with more than half of that being range or pasture. now while these land aren't owned by the federal government, they are subject to federal laws and regulations that have the effect of land use control in many instances, most commonly cared out through the endangered species act or wetlands provision of the clean water act. in addition to seeking more stringent controls on private land the environmental establishment has historically sought to expand the federal estate, often arguing that doing so is the only means of preventing land from being somehow wrecked. but consider this. while alabama, connecticut, georgia, maine, mississippi, new hampshire, new york, pennsylvania, south carolina, and west virginia are not among the states with the largest percentage of if he ral landownership, in all of them significantly more than 50% of

the land is forested. suffice it to say there is a vast amount of land, range and forest not under federal control that has not disappeared as some in the environmental community would like you to believe. further i would argue that providing food, fiber, minerals and energy, improving the well-being of real people is hardly something that should be calculated as a loss. but on to the federal estate which is vast. u.s. army corps of engineers for example, manages 12 million acres of public lands and waters nationwide. this would be a equivalent to an area bigger than taiwan or israel. that may seem large to some of you, for those who understand a bit more about the federal estate, the corps of engineers is a relatively small player. there are four large landholding agencies. national parks service controls 84 million-acres of land. that is roughly equivalent to

the nation of tip land and requires some, and requires some 28,000 employees. that is pretty big. what may surprise you, the national park service is the smallest of the four major landholding agencies. the u.s. fish and wildlife service is substantially largewer 551 national wildlife refuges and additional units, constituting an area of 150 million-acres which is larger than the nation of the ukraine. u.s. fish and wildlife service employs 9,000 people a facilities across the u.s. the forest service, again is larger. it has has 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands and seven national monuments, totaling 193 million-acres. that is larger than the area of chile. and the united states forest service employs some 35,000 people. and then finally comes the

bureau of land management. the bureau of land management has 254 million-acres and according to the cia's world fact book, that puts it in position 31 compared to the 250 other nations on earth. it would come in just after egypt and it was some 10,000 employees to administer this land. all together we're talking over 260 million-acres, which one last care son, is larger than france, spain, germany, poland, italy, england, austria, switzerland, netherland and the belgium combined. to do so, if wikipedia is collect, the four major land-holding agencies have employers that are greater than the military forces of australia. the federal estate is too large and it is time we began exploring how at least substantial portion of these lands can be returned to the states. our first speaker today chairs the subcommittee charged with

overseeing all those land and if federal employees, which based on numbers, would seem a formidable task. rob bishop is currently serving his sixth term as a member of the united states house of representatives, representing utah's first congressional district. he serves on the house rules committee, armed services committee, natural resources committee and is chairman of the house natural resources public lands and environmental regulation subcommittee. representative bishop served 16 years in the utah sate legislature including as majority leader and the unanimously elected speaker of the house. he served two terms as state chairman of the republican party. representative bishop was cofounder of the western states coalition and past chair of the congressional western caucus. he was also cofounder of the tenth amendment task force in the united states house of rest. prior to engaging in politics,

representative bishop spent 2years as a high school teacher in utah focusing on american history and government. he is married to lynn hanson bishop and they have five children and six grandchildren and reside in brigham city. following rob, will be carl graham. carl is director of the sutter land institute center for self-government in the west. he came to sutherland, following six years as ceo of the montana policy institute, montana's premier free market think tank and policy research center. carl completed ada -- aviation officer candidate school in pensacola, florida and flew the a-6 intruder in. following strike commander of carrier group 5, carl transitioned to the f-14 tomcat. he served as squadron operations officer, flying and directing missions over bosnia and the persian gulf and acting as the

carrier air wing liaison officer to the joint task force, southwest asia. carl then served aspects assistant and legislative liaison for the commander of the u.s. strategic command in omaha, nebraska, advancing his interest in public policy. his final naval tour was with commander pacific fleet at pearl harbor. carl graduated from montana state university in 1984, earning his masters in national security affairs from the naval post and then from the naval postgraduate school in monterey, california, and is a naval war college graduate. carl was born and raised in glasgow, in the northeast corner of montana. after a 20-year naval career he and his wife cindy decided to settle near bozeman, montana, where he was adjunct of professor of aviation science and a flight instructor and served on the u.s. commission on civil rights montana state advisory committee. he currently resides in salt lake city. please welcome congressman

bishop. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate that introduction. it is always be good to be here. if the fish and wildlife is the size of ukraine is that with or without crimea? [laughter]. look, i want to tell you, words have meanings and those meanings become significant. i was walking to work one day wearing a tan three-piece suit and out of one of the apartments came a teenager. i know he is a teenager because he wasn't wearing shoes and had a cell phone in his ear and he was walking to the car i passed him he looked up and say, that suit is so fly. and as i walked past him i went, i was not sure whether i had been complimented or -- first i checked my zipper. that was not an issue. it was not until i got to the office and talked to my 20-year-old staffers. they said, in modern slang i had indeed been complimented on that particular suit. we have the words but unless we have a common understanding of the meaning of those, that is,

that we don't, we're not really communicating and that the problem with public lands in the united states today and i think two factors go along with it. the first one is simply the size. i've got medium sized posters and small ones so enjoy. everything that is red is owned by the federal government. it is true, the federal government owns one out of every three acres in the united states but it is concentrated with us in the west. we get the joy of having overhalf of the west being controlled by the federal government. that means that those of our friends who live in the east, have some federal land but they don't necessarily have that same kind of concept. let me get the small one, for example. i picked three states at random. this is obviously the state of my speaker, my majority leader and me. in ohio and virginia and utah, everything that is blue is private property. so our good friends in the east really, they have some public lands in there, they have very few, very little access. very little interaction.

the idea of working with the department of interior, is not really coming in concept. now, in the 1960s the head of the park service at that time came up with this plan if i can get more parks in more congressional districts i can get more money. ironically congress was dumb enough to fall for it. we find there are national parks in 49 out of 50 states and he will delaware is frantically trying to find something worthy of a park. they got a monument now but sold out cheap but only 13% of the land. the bulk of the land, 44% is blm but unfortunately blm is only found here in the west. few bases braced are blm property in the east but there is no concept of what the bl does. bl does back there. consequently when you talk about public lands, my good friends in the east only contact they have is national park nearby. you say public lands to them they think of a pretty tree by a pretty lake. those of us who live in the west, we deal with the blm.

when we say public lands we think of sage brush. we're talking the same language. we don't mean the same thing. which unfortunately means most people in pennsylvania and new jersey and new england, when they say public lands, they think all public lands are yellowstone. they are not. in fact sometimes i wan to remind them yellowstone was established i think in 1872 in the territory of wyoming and, took us six years to give them any money. second national park was only three years later and it was in michigan and we gave it back to michigan because they could better manage the land. they're still managing mackinaw island and still doing a far better job than we are. it was 18 years before the federal government came up with the idea of another national park. we have those concepts that simply are different. that, when it shows us though is that first of all, states can manage land just as well as, if not better than the federal government. in testimony we've had in our committee dealing with the forest land in idaho and

washington we simply found even though idaho and washington and the tribes in those two states have fewer forest land they get much more production than the federal government over bigger quantity of land and they have healthier forest. fewer fires, better managed land. less beetle infestation than the federal government has. which simply means you doesn't have to have everything managed by washington in order to have it done well. states and tribes are showing they can do just as good a job if not a better job. i also hunt, to point out, that in all due respect, sometimes the federal government just hurts people because they have the ability of having decisions made by local officials who sometimes are good and sometimes aren't. give you a couple of examples n fort vancouver in washington there is national historic site established in '48. then they had a brac and added more property to this park. basically a community park. they have a pavilion there where

people can go and recreate. the manager at the site thought noise from public access air was too loud for artifacts in her site. she canceled such things as church picnic a youth soccer fair, a concert that was there are to the benefit of veterans because the noise at the church picnic would generate would disturb her artifacts in site. and there was nothing you can do about it except come to congress and put pressure on them in some kind of a bill. lake meade in las vegas. taxi driver in las vegas was murdered. his body was dumped somewhere out there. they did a search for it. called off the search. the family wanted to hire a company to go in and find the body. took them 15 months to raise the money so they could buy the liability insurance to get the special use permit that the federal government insisted the family did. once they actually raised money, the year after the death, they found the guy's body in two hours. we had an air force staff

sergeant, also drowned in that area. they called off the search. it took the family another 10 months, getting attorney, going to court to have the right to have a search-and-rescue company who volunteered to help find the body, to allow them to come in on federal land and actually once they were allowed to come in, they quickly found the body. i mean we have examples all over this country of federal land managers who actually end up hurting people. in the tetons, they established in the 1950, paddling, canoeing would bother the fish habitats up in that area. they found out later doesn't have anything to do with it. doesn't bother them at all. took too much time and effort to change the rule. so they still banned all sorts of paddling activities on area that was designed for river recreation. i don't know what you do if you're not in a boat. i mean fish looking, whatever it is. they banned everything because simply took them too much time to try and do that. we also have the simple example of, federal government in this

land process, harms kids in the west. look, up in the first picture, everything that is in red are the states that have the hardest time funding their education system. they raise the least amount of increase in their fund for public education. the bottom is obviously the area that you have public land. i hate to say this, there is a one-to-one relationship between those who have a problem in raising fund for education, and those that have public lands, simply because we have less ability to raise the raise taxes. we also have less access to the resources that are there. the west gets screwed over in our education funding compared to what happens in the east. over 20-year period of time, it is simply a matter that the east can raise twice amount of money as the west can for its own public education. we in the west are taxed at higher rate than those in the east. we put higher percentage of our local effort and local budgets into education. i'm an old teacher. my kids are harmed by it.

my salary was depressed by it. my retirement is still coming through the state education system. you're putting my retirement in jeopardy. that ticks me off. but it is only because we have a different way of looking at the land. and as i said at the very earlier statement of that, one of the problems we have is that people just don't understand what we're talking about, when we deal with public land. all of the west and public land are not yellowstone. one last statistic we found out. this hits people who actually live in the east. you add up all the revenue that comes from these lands and all the expenses we have from the land, they're putting up eight to $9 billion a year out of pockets of those in the east for the wonderful opportunity of controlling the west. one of things i would like to say. there are three false narratives i like to dispel. that is my effort in congress. number one only somebody in washington has the view of what is good for the entire country. false narrative number one.

false narrative, number two, it there is difference between some one locally, and washington, washington has to win, false narrative. numb per three, the west has to be protected from itself. i'm tired of that. there is time to look at new way of things doing it. that is what we're trying to do in congress. thank you for the time. i'm sorry to spent so much time boring you with all that. [applause] >> i'm not sure why i'm here anymore. you guys pretty much got it. rob, i have the much shorter bio if you are interested for next time we do something like that. >> do that in a filing. >> all right. i will try to put this into context maybe why you folks should care. representative bishop did a great job laying out some of the false premises out there, misunderstanding and language that we use but in the west we're looking at trying to restore a balance really,

balance between individual and states rights and responsibilities and responsibilities versus federal and state government. that is one of the reasons you should care about this because it has broader context. we're seeing unprecedented growth in federal power. the growth of the regulatory state, obamacare, dodd-frank, endangered species act with grouse and parry chickens, oh my, being done on federalism where the war on coal is perfect example with new epa regulations where the federal governments buy the rope and states use it to hang themselves. that is one of the things that comes back to federal lands and federal funding. i touch on that. western states are particularly vulnerable to this because a lot of reasons representative bishop talked about. so we have both the opportunity and really responsibility to ask a very simple question. why not govern ourselves? why be states of dependence and why not be able to govern ourselves? imagine if we could restore that

balance to make government more accountable by bringing it closer to home. i have a sermon, instead after master. government works for us instead of against us. really to be able to decide our futures this is it what this is about. being able to figure out the best way to educate our kids, to steward our lands. to provide for public safety and services using local solutions, local resources, local needs. solutions reflective of those things and not imposed on higher one size fits all solutions from experts who really maybe not aren't experts at the local level. we can see who is most at risk of this. you've already had some stuff laid out. by the way if you missed any numbers and comparison i have more. don't worry. you will have another shot at that but you can see who is mostly hurt at this by looking at who is manning barricades out there for the often overreaching and often counterproductive federal policies that we're seeing. west is kind of the canary in the coal mine because we're the most impacted right away because

of lands issue and funding dependence issue. so you see ranchers in nevada getting on horses riding to the district blm offices to protest loss of access or new brazing restrictions on land they have been on for generations. atv riders in utah risking arrest, protesting trail closures. on trails again they have been on with their families for generations responsibly-used. county commissioners new mexico are threatening to break the locks, tear down barricades put up by federal officials to stop access to water their ranchers again have used responsibly for generations. . .

colorado and nebraska line owned by the federal government that's enough to cover the entire seaboard plus kansas, plus texas, plus friends. 91% of all federal lands are in the west end federal land makeup on average 50% of western states. that's unfair, 50% that we are locked out of current 50% of our economic potential. if the government own half of the casinos in las vegas and started closing doors and shutting down blackjack tables can you imagine the impact that would have if they started cutting off access to half of

those beaches can you imagine the impact that would have? if they shut down 50% of the houses on wall street that might not be so bad. we have in the west of the same rights as everybody else but we are not able to exercise the rights after somebody or a group of people racist and decided to start to show things off from other uses. not a lot o one of them. if you look at the national parks taking over or closing down the national parks i partss area in the monument for the most part they would remain the exception that they make up a small fraction of the federal state in the west. they are those types of special land that most of them are multiple use as it was said

before. some fish and wildlife service and things like that and it's about 20 to 30 million acres per state out in the wes west of hos in that designation. 20 to 30 that is an area the size of virginia within each western state plus or minus new jersey that is basically we are increasingly losing access to. if we are going to govern ourselves we need more control over those and we are talking about the force service lands that were designated for both wreck radiation and economic uses. five states are somewhere in the process. utah passed the act they are demanding the return of most of the national parks. four other states are studying it and i suspect in 2015 if i have anything to do with it we

are going to see legislation in utah and we are also working in new mexico to get a bill done as the first step. at the congressional level they are doing some great work and i'm not here to critique the approaches. each state is going to have a unique road in some way. i'm welcoming all comers to this fight and we want to lay the groundwork for trying to establish the information for folks like you to understand this issue better and get each state with its own approach because they have trillions of dollars of resources and tax revenues, hundreds of thousands of jobs that are increasingly being locked up by people who really don't understand what's at stake. one of the things that is really ironic is the people that claim to worry so much about diversity are choking off an entire way of life imposing their values on the production and the economy in ways they don't understand so

we balance the conservation and the betterment of the condition to have productivity now and long and into the future and in short the proper stewards of the land. in other means of the impositi imposition. it's about one third of the state budgets provided by federal funds. the western states become more important on the federal funds as we don't have access in many cases but these are federal funds that are being used to tell us how to educate our kids come out to take care o of the e resources and they come with a stream to tell us how to do those and we have little control over what we do and that's not just the western problem.

those are discretionary funds so they are under increasing stress getting squeezed between entitlement spending and as interest rates return to restore calm norms we will see them squeezed between entitlement spending and service of the national debt. so we need to work to create a plan when the next crisis occu occurs. we are hoping that states develop the policies to see those funds to measure the risk of accepting them and not just every word and the benefit and of potentially losing them and creating plans to be responsible to budget and plan for that day when those funds start to disappear or they are cut in different ways so we cut the right programs and maintain the right programs and i will give you a couple examples and amendment that there is another thing i want to point out we are trying to create a movement in the west an west and get supporr that movement across the count

country. tuesday to spend interesting from a three, four, five states that's what we are doing by creating the activist leaders to get the right things done out there again so that we can govern ourselves and have more control over our destiny and we provide the tools some of them use all the handouts in the toolkits that we put together to really claim that states rights and restore the proper balance again and to plan for the future. this goes beyond just wanting to do the right thing. it also advances conservatism that is near and dear to a lot of people in this room. the conservative principles are at stake and this is a winning issue to show the cost and to provide an alternative as well.

they are trying to create a permanent majority by making people more dependent and flat-out scared of criticizing a stronger bureaucracy of the federal government. they increase the dependence by increasing benefits. it raises the cost of healthcare and then subsidizes the increase. what a deal you take a basic need and turn it into a government issued privilege. they are also increasing to behold more people and companies and businesses to the special interests out there. i don't believe in crummy capitalist i think it is an oxymoron if you are a s. t. want your goods and services in the marketplace to compete. if you may be a corporatist that once the subsidies and special tax treatment who once regulations that impede others' competition you want a government and influence that is big enough and powerful enough

to pick winners and losers and decide who gets to stay in business and who doesn't either based on the connections were having a correct agenda or policy so that's not the american way or the direction wn that we can go for very much longer. they are also trying to get create this majority by threatening and silencing opponents. you have political leaders, private citizens calling on the agencies to audit or target private citizens engaging in illegal speech. you have people threatening opponents for their political beliefs calling for the loss of their jobs. they are able to do this because the dependence that we have agreed to have to restore our independence and ability to self govern so we need to find ideas that we can behind th unite behd frankly i've been right for a long time and i'm tired of being

right. i want to win. we have to have these ideas that we can bring people behind by pushing back against federal control and dependence. these are winning issues in the west and across the country. my friend in montana and small northeast montana shouldn't be forced off the land that his grandfather homestead because george soros thought to ask youf he wants to put in place in. in fact a few months ago he shouldn't lose access to land in new mexico that his family has responsibly grazed and improved since the 16 hundreds because of the san francisco billionaire held a fundraiser and has more money to get him off of it. a caregiver shouldn't lose her job over a 10% across-the-board federal budget cut or seaquest or were shut down or whatever. whatever. while we are continuing to run each investor because it comes

from a different part of money. the state should be able to prioritize. of the war for the west and the freedoms that we cherish and the proper balance between the individual fulfillment in government. these issues provide an opportunity for all of us to move forward and i think that if we can do it together then we can show the working class families the old democrats we can show them that there's somebody out there fighting for them and theirs alternatives and there's a path forward that enhances their traditional values. they have champions. we can be their champions and move these issues forward. we need those resources. that is an easy argument to make that a lot of the folks that want to make the resources available in the rural reduction economy will have a difficult time because they are effectively being disenfranchised. their voice is smaller. there are more urban voters than rural and so they are being. what do we mean by urban voters,

that isn't a code word it is a democratic term. but it's also a connectedness or disconnected us in that production economy. there are values and ways of working that economy if you go to billings montana or albuquerque or boise idaho most of the people will be at least one or two generations removed from somebody that actually worked the land. they understand those values and what is needed for that economy. you get into the larger cities people don't understand that so they will unintentionally harm the people and the values and the economy that we need to put

electricity and gas in our cars. when america goes to work in the morning and they put on their boots they are not just going to work that they ar but they are e traditional values and ideas that made this country great. people want to prevent them from doing that and they are thumbing their nose at dictators everywhere. again, there are people who want to prevent them from doing that and some people don't even want to put our. they are building a sustainable future for this production economy that values hard work and family and community and in the meantime by doing that they are empowering the world. there's people who don't understand the value of that and they are trying to stop them. self-determination, that is what is at stake for the rest that we are seeing pick up right now. it's not about dollars and cents. where it matters this isn't a

dollars and cents issue up for those that have the most to lose it is about basic fairness and preserving viability and the values of the production economy. and starting in the west because of my backyard and it's where i want to live quite frankly, and that is where the risks and opportunities are the greatest of 12 great risk comes great opportunity. i hope you help us with that and create your own revolt in your own backyard and i would be honored to help you. thank you. [applause] >> we have plenty of time for questions and i think plenty of material to work with. if you have a question if you could raise your hand and state your name and your affiliation. >> in the late 1990s the administration department of

interior carried out in inventory and they found some 3.3 million acres that they wanted to get rid of that it costs more money to manage this land then what was it really worth their time. nothing ever came of the recommendation to do that including the eight years of the george w. bush administration. i believe you have introduced the legislation correct me if i'm wrong on this but it is so off goes 3.3 million acres and i believe that i saw an article not long ago that the obama administration no one opposes that because as he pointed out there are better things to expand on the dependency not reduce it which avenues would

you support to convey too much of the cost that would be blm from washington to the states think you. it's one of a handful of bills sitting over in the senate and the administration detests against that particular bill and for whatever reason it's mind boggling and i don't know. it's about the bill should go forward. that is the low hanging fruit. the other concept is we should have as a standard or policy the idea of transferring as much land and responsibility for the land and it can be either done

administratively or by going to the courts to do litigation. it can be done by legislation. one of the things i would like differently than has been done in the past because there is the problem of what's being done in the remedy. the east doesn't care. what is your remedy. utah is coming up with policies and implementations so they can say this is how we would manage it and find it and maintain it so when you go to the courts or the congress you can say give us the land. so we can tell the east save your money, give us the land and everybody's going to be happy. >> congressman bishop i know that you've had some experiences with wilderness land along the southern border and i wonder if you can talk about "that they have on the immigration reform and border security.

>> thanks for opening a whole new avenue but in very quick terms 51% of all illegal immigration and almost all drugs and trafficking are coming through one sector along the border so you have to ask your self why do people want to come here through tucson and not through main. they are 80% owned by the federal government from texas to california and the distant wilderness category. they are doing everything except the reconnaissance. they are prohibited in going in unless it is a life and death situation. that simply means the border patrol doesn't have the ability to patrol the border. what we need to do statutorily is change the law. we did in california so they

could finish building the wall. we need to change it across the entire border to allow the border patrol to do what they need to do to secure the border. border. it's a statutorif the statutoryn they cannot overcome and you've got to change the law. i think one of the reasons we say yes the southern border is secure is because the law that creates that land designation prohibits that from doing the job and we will not have a secure border until we change those statutes. >> competitive enterprise institute. i have two questions for both of you. the first is an easy one. what do you think is the path forward if there is a window of opportunity to decentralize or de- socialized some or most, what would be the path forward that would achieve that in congress and my second question is what did yo do you think shoe

the ultimate goal, because the last time we had a chance to do this was early in the reagan administration 33 years ago. the secretary general and a senior economist at the council of economic advisers had aged eight and the president sided with him and that was that we should not turn the land over to the state but we should privatize it directly and particularly we should sell a critical portion of the ownership of the land directly. they go on a preponderance of the value of the land typically because they owned the water rights. president ronald reagan said we should sell it directly and privatize it so i don't care which way we go on this, but if we do turn it over to the state i think that we should have a gold in those states that most of the land eventually end up private ownership because it is

still socialized land. thank you. we get more knowledgeable about this and so i am not going to say any idea is a bad idea. i think each state is going to tailor their approach but we have to have some kind of unified approach when the rubber meets the road when it comes down to that supreme court decision or two that the bill that allows this to happen. utah has done a great job leading the way. they've come through with another set of bills that creates a utah wilderness act for the designation of land to be made in the wilderness areas in utah if it makes sense to do that. will that happen?

probably in a few places. they also have a stewardship commission -- let him the best use as a part of the process so this will take a while but you have to show both the goodwill and the institutional stamina before it will get further in the political process or before it ends up alternately at the supreme court no matter who wins somebody is going to sue and as far as the privatization i don't think that is politically possible right now. while some of the privatized click sign sure it will but some of that will ultimatel it will d off as a result of the process. my point is the states ar that a better position to make those decisions than the federal government and that's what i'm focused on is getting that process in state hands than the

federal government where they are not accountable to the people in the limited accountability and they are influenced by people that worked on the street as opposed to people that make their living for the generations. >> you said that very well. there is a realm of possibility. people back east who don't understand the difference, we showed these slides to somebody and said to tell me the difference between the two debate forest service which is a legitimate question unless you've been here 14 years making law on those issues so we are talking about people who don't know the difference, let alone specialized or privatized or that kind of stuff. use a privatization to them and it shows fear is going up and down their spine and they will never know what the issue is who should make decisions about the land is so somebody in washington or somebody that actually lives there and that's

what you enunciated. people in the state can make the decision whether it needs to be legitimized or preserved or opened for development and controlled by the state or simply opened for development. a. they can make the decision as well if not better than somebody in washington and that is the first step that has to go. so getting the land has to be the first step. we can't jump to the last step. there is no shortage of that in dc. but of course that statehouses where they cannot go much further what makes you confident the legislators would be able to push back against that implements such as with development that might go beyond what many people might be

seeking on federal land. >> you're talking about 50 states so it may go further in a particular legislature but if you are changing at 50 states is more difficult than in one place that has all the power. the other thing is the state legislatures and county commissioners know their constituents into the constituents november. i know mine personally. we can have coffee and we can talk. you can't do that most of we probably with your representative or senator and with the local blm whereas in glasgow montana, my friend rancher talks to his blm every day. they are friends and know each other well so it is a matter of accountability. if the decision-making is close to the people who are affected by those decisions there's a lot

more feedback. and that feedback is much more effective i need time before he answered that question is one of the most insulting questions i've ever had. i told you about the false premise. they have the grand view of what's good for the country is a stupid false premise now i'm the chairman of the federal subcommittee in washington because i'm a congressman i am now better, brighter, more valuable, more moral than i was the speaker of the house that is a false premise and a silly premise to think just because you're in washington did you make better decisions somebody in the state legislature i refute it and deny it and find it personally and halting.

i'm from the service in arizona. there is a mention of colorado but nothing in arizona. do you think this is a movement that can be pushed in arizona and d people want more control over the federal land they had a utah transfer of public land bill in the legislature that was in 2013 and it was vetoed by the governor. i don't know if they are going to make another run at it this year. but i know as you talk to the county commissioners i am not sure they would come up with a strategy to move it forward. >> we try to give more chance to make a constituent for

themselves and of course they do. >> fine with a nonprofit called the reduced risk coalition and i used to work for the nevada senator. i get where you're coming from, gentlemen. in nevada for a number of years there was an arrangement where the land was to be spent on environmental projects in nevada and it's still ongoing. i'm wondering if the political deal could be struck where that land is within the west could be used to augment the budget of the national park service and so on. it might be enough to steer our liberal friends into supporting the land transfer nonetheless? >> yes and there are to turn opportunities with that. we have the central land transfer or whatever that comes out to be which allows that kind

of process that can be expanded and allows those kind of concepts to be expanded upon it. the only problem we do have now is here are some budget rules depending on how you use those particular funds. in some respects the definitions are civilly and in some respects insisting that we have to have equal value before any kind of trade takes place is a silly concept as well. but yes it is viable. >> to add something quickly to that, a lot of the laws there are mechanisms for the responsible transfer or management of the federal land is when they are invoked the first thing that happens is you get a lawsuit and so you have the service managing the timberland cannot get sued some other nature doesn't manage them, we docome it's so they don't end up in court and use the budget on a legal settlement

or fee or whatever it is that ties them up so one of the things we need to look at society from this is that system that allows people to misuse the remedies that we already have available and that is a separate topic but it is worth bringing up. >> i'm from the congressman's office. i'm wondering what is the argument against giving states jurisdiction, what are we fighting against? >> i think the congressman bishop laid out a lot of it is a lack of understanding. they see pictures and think that's all the federal land in the west. they are these pristine treasures. some of them are.

but not only could they be used for economic development and recreation those users are not just possible but they are often complementary. it gives access to hunters and fishermen as well. the infrastructure that comes with fossil fuel development in eastern montana or utah creates infrastructure but again there recreates recreation and folks can use as well so they are not complementary they are additive in the biggest obstacle that we have our first of all, people who belief that humans are discouraged to the planet and others just plain don't understand that we can do this responsibly in a way that looks to the future and better is the human condition and supports the production. hispanic i appreciate the question and there are two broad responses to it.

the first one is that we always have every 6 60, 70, 80 years io changing the attitude so in the colonial time it encouraged people to come over here and then it was to sell land in the territory to the 1820s, 25 was from the sale of the land. they would kickoff the threats to encourage homesteading. the last of those passed in 1916. they came and all of a sudden we have a great idea we will keep everything and administer it so people won't have to mess with their hands in those nasty things and we will do it scientifically and won't let people's desire play a role in it. we are about time for those changes and the multiple use and also the ability of opening up for settling, those things are changes. we are about time to change the paradigm and that's why i feel comfortable that as we go forward we can make some of these changes instinctively how we deal with land and the other

part of it is the concept of dual sovereignty. we are one of the people that said the federal government should have the power into something the state should have power to do we keep mixing those and a lot of people in washington still have this idea i'm in congress and i should be able to deal with everything including the land policies when actually it was set up to the states take that responsibility because they can do it so much better. i'm sorry, as bad as the state budget or they are not as behind on their appropriations and the maintenance as the national park service so going back to the concept of the dual sovereignty and this idea that we have the paradigm shift on how we deal with public events we are doomed to change that and we can go to a better way of handling public land in the future. >> more questions. we have time for maybe one more.

>> megan with the "the washington times." you were talking about how you would like this to become a movement. can you talk about possibly if that would become a big issue and if you are hoping in the face of the issues like health care or education policies. >> it's going to be a challenge putting it in the interest of the national level but it already is a large and building movement in the western states and we are working to try to make it even a larger issue at the cost of the policies become more apparent at the gas pump and electricity bill and also for those families trying to make their living the way they have for a long time they are going to be looking for answers and my job is to be out there with those answers. i think we will have a movement but it's good to be focused more

on the west and east. hispanic i think if there are no more questions please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

the senate is in recess for weekly party meetings and they will return us 2:15 eastern. defense department spending bill/that would've prohibited the dod from using funds to transfer prisoners at guantánamo bay cuba. that amendment comes as lawmakers have raised questions about the obama administration decision to exchange in prison american soldier for taliban leaders.

they are set to defend the bill next week. this afternoon on capitol hill, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction or reconstruction that is will testify before a house panel. to improve veterans access to healthcare. this coming on the release of a va internal audit showing that 57,000 veterans waited more than 90 days for appointments at medical facilities. faceok, and ponsors of the "washington spokefo with us this morning on the washington journal. >> host: joining us now us no st senator bernie sanders of vermont. vermonvermont to veterans affais committee chairman good m gorning. her assessment of the results of the report that came out yesterday what do you think aboutrt the numbers when it coms of wait times and the like?at d

>> in some cases it is totally unacceptable. people were dropped off the system, people were waitingpeope endless amount of time, unacceptable.. there are two major issues it seems to me.t to makre every number one is we have to makevee sure that every veteran in thers qu country gets quality care in the va in a reasonable period of time and the second issue,nd, people falsifying data and cleaw pretending that they were getting in a reasonable time, asonab those people have to beot be pu punished. i would say though also around the country but we have seen is something like 98% of the whicrans got an appointmentnth, within one month which i think probably holds up as well or how maybe better than the private sector to somewhere else in the country pretty good and others are unacceptable. for the >> host: what do you think are th pe causes?ou hav >> guest: we have the goal ourt was established by the va e-echo of years ago that saidup everybody is going to come in

within 14 days and get ant appointment. when you do not have the staffing incentivized in other parts of the country we don't have the doctors and nurses and the other medical providers that we need. my understanding is that in phoenix for example, we need hundreds of new staff if we are going to take care of the veterans in the way of quality care. >> is this a money issue going forward? >> guest: i think it's two things. it's a management issue and clearly what has happened in terms of people doctoring books is unacceptable and that is a management issue. on the other hand you can have the best management in the world and if you do what the va has and the next four or five years and you don't have the doctors and the nurses were not going to provide the healthcare quality care. and the legislation that we just

introduced, senator mccain and i addressed the book that says the secretary should have the ability to get rid of incompetent or worse but also understand that there are possible countries where we don't have the doctors and nurses that we need. >> host: how do we get to the point that you and senator mccain or working on the legislation's? >> guest: i think the answer is most members of the senate and the congress understand that people that put their lives on the line to defend our country have got to be protected, and i think on that basis historically there has been bipartisan activity for veterans. recently unfortunately there hasn't been that senator mccain already understood there were problems that have to be addressed quickly. i hope we have the dough on the floor very shortly and we can get it done in a bipartisan way.

>> host: is there more that you were looking for that didn't make it? >> guest: i've been the chairman of the veterans committee in the senate for about a year and a half and if there's anything i've learned that the cost of the war is much greater than those people appreciate. when you lose 6700 men in iraq and afghanistan we understand that. when 200,000 come home with brain injury or posttraumatic stress disorder we have to understand. people come home without arms and legs but the whole transition from the military, from the active-duty meaning of the national guard to going back to civilian life and reuniting with your family and kids and going out and getting a job that you may have lost theirs a lot of stuff we have to address. there are issues for example this bill does not address.

we have folks, mostly women who are taking care of their spouses for 50 years. they need help. it's a 24 or/7 job. imagine being in an apartment with somebody that has lost legs or has posed traumatic stress disorder. they need support. this bill doesn't provide that. we have many and women who lost their ability to have kids in iraq and afghanistan, despite all injuries and others, i think we should help them get families. that's not included. dental care. many have better insight are rotting in their mouth and the va can't take care of them so i want to see that as well. it takes care of some of what we need to get done. talk to senator mccain. >> host: as far as the highlights of the bill the secretary fired the most senior officials and veterans that live 40 miles away from the facility

experience long waits at other facilities they can choose private facilities for medicare or seek the care from the centers that purpose 500 million to hire more doctors and nurses had authorized them to sign 26 leases in 18 states as well as puerto rico. as far as those details what support do you see and how is it different from the house and it comes to taking a look at this as well? >> guest: the hous house has focused narrowly on management issues, and if they had a bill that was a pretty simple bill. it is the secretary has the power to fire immediately. i objected to that because i think that you do not want to put the va in the position of being politicized so you have the new president coming in and all these higher-level executives and getting rid of 400 people and then you politicized the va and it is a

health care program. you want the best doctors and nurses and the progressives and conservatives that's what you're paying them to be healthcare providers. the other thing is without any due process, somebody can be fired because of their race or sexual orientation, they need a due process. we have put in an expedited process in the field. >> host: as far as the "washington post" editorial talks about the proposal. they wrap it up saying this may relieve short-term pressure on the system but it basically does nothing to change the system itself. >> guest: i don't think that's accurate let me say this and maybe some of the others want to call it. i can tell you as the term and i get around the country and i talked to a lot of veterans and what we have seen in the recent months in terms of falsifying data is a total outreach and people have to be punished.

if you talk to the veterans all over the country come if you talk to their organizations, the vietnam veterans and all of the other organizations what they will tell you is once people are in, the quality of care is good. the quality of care is good so to my mind what we ought to do is provide better management but we also want to make sure every facility in the country has the staff they need to drive the quality care that our veterans deserve. i think implicit in the problems we are seeing right now is because of iraq and afghanistan and the aging population you have a lot of healt healthcare problems, complicated problems. we've seen in the last four years 2 million people coming into the system and that has overburdened the system and it appears parts of the country we don't have the resources. >> our guest