Congressional Western Caucus

Western Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Protect 2nd Amendment Rights on Federal Lands

2010-06-15T14:20:00.000-04:00

Congressional Western Caucus Members Denny Rehberg (MT-AL), Rob Bishop (UT-01) and Paul Broun (GA-10) have introduced the Firearms Freedom on Federal Lands Act (H.R. 5523) to prevent the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior from issuing or enforcing any regulation or executive order, including presidential declarations authorized under the Antiquities Act, that prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm on lands managed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Bishop, Rehberg and Broun are also members of the Second Amendment Task Force.

The legislation responds to the Obama Administration’s disturbing pattern of bypassing congressional authority and public input when making decisions that affect our public lands, including the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) leaked plan to designate 13 million acres as new National Monuments.

“There’s a large segment of powerful Washington, D.C. elites that thinks the Second Amendment is obsolete and unnecessary,” said Congressman Rehberg. “These progressives envision a world where only criminals and agents of the state are armed, and will use every tactic at their disposal to make this a reality. It’s up to Congress to protect these rights from overreaching bureaucrats, and that’s exactly what this legislation seeks to do.”

“There is no question that there are many in Washington who would like to do away with the Second Amendment altogether and are aggressively finding new avenues to fulfill this very agenda. Just last year, my fellow Western colleagues and I were successful in reversing outdated laws that prevent individuals complying with federal and state laws from exercising their right to carry a concealed firearm while visiting national parks and wildlife refuges. Today, we are taking similar steps to safeguard Second Amendment rights on BLM and Forest Service lands from the heavy handedness of Washington bureaucrats looking to fulfill their political agendas,” said Western Caucus Chairman Rob Bishop.

“The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most fundamental rights of a free people,” said Congressman Paul Broun who also serves as co-chairman of the Congressional Second Amendment Task Force. “Since lawmakers and judicial activists continuously attempt to strip Americans of their second amendment rights, it is critical that we pass legislation that protects people’s rights to exercise this precious freedom all across America.”

Until last year, when Congress stepped in to correct the problem, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prevented visitors from carrying firearms on federally controlled National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges; however, no such statute prevents the Forest Service or BLM from issuing similar restrictions banning guns on lands under their management. Visitors choosing to bring a firearm onto these lands would continue to be governed under state law.

“We applaud Congressmen Rehberg, Bishop and Broun for taking the lead in making sure all outdoorsmen can continue to pursue their passion on Forest Service and BLM lands,” said David Allen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation President and CEO. “It’s vitally important to the future of our outdoor traditions, recreation, conservation and economic impact—but also for the future of wildlife management. For these same reasons, we are very concerned about future proposed federal land designations that have the potential to inhibit sporting activity, access and opportunity as we know it today. We are disappointed that RMEF and other similar wildlife conservation groups have not been included so far in the planning process to re-designate significant amounts of public land as new National Monument land.”

Western Lawmakers Point to Inconsistencies in Administration’s Job Rhetoric and Energy Policy

2010-01-28T14:14:00.000-05:00

Frustrated by the contradictory remarks made by the President during last night’s State of the Union address, members of the Congressional Western Caucus issued a letter to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar today highlighting the Department of Interior’s inconsistencies regarding domestic energy production and job creation. These statements follow on the heels of the Department of Interior’s recent decision to impose cumbersome oil and gas regulations that will have a devastating impact on energy-related jobs throughout the country.

“Last night we heard the President state that he is committed to job creation. I am hoping this begins with a reversal of the job-killing policies his Administration implemented last year,” said Western Caucus Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT).

“The Department’s reforms will simply insert additional, costly layers of bureaucracy while making it more difficult and more costly to develop American energy resources and invest in American Jobs,” the letter states.

The oil and gas industry is one of the nation’s largest employers, supporting over 9 million jobs and generating 7.2% of U.S. gross domestic product. The state share from oil and gas revenues for the states of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming alone, decreased by over $120 million in the last year, largely due to this Administration’s efforts to curb domestic energy production. The West maintains the highest regional unemployment- 10.7%.

“Your repeated assertion that the previous Administration held an “anywhere, anyhow” policy on oil and gas development is not borne out by the facts. While blaming the previous Administration may earn you applause from environmentalists who oppose any and all domestic energy development, the partisan rhetoric does nothing to create jobs and is actually not supported by the facts,” the letter also states.

Secretary Salazar recently referred to energy producers, many of whom are small-business owners, as “Kings of the World.” In reality, independent producers develop 90% of domestic oil and gas wells. Additionally, these independent producers provide good-paying jobs to many families throughout the West who depend upon the oil and gas industry for long-term employment.

“When it comes to meeting America’s energy needs, we need it all. This principle should also apply to creating jobs and getting our economy back on track,” the letter concludes.

The letter was sent by the following Congressional Western Caucus members and 10 Senators:

HOUSE:
Rep. Rob Bishop
Rep. Wally Herger
Rep. Cynthia Lummis
Rep. Kevin McCarthy
Rep. Don Young
Rep. Dean Heller
Rep. Doug Lamborn
Rep. Mike Coffman
Rep. Jason Chaffetz
Rep. Jeff Flake
Rep. G.T. Thompson
Rep. Tom McClintock

Sen. John Barrasso
Sen. Robert Bennett
Sen. Orrin Hatch
Sen. James Inhofe
Sen. Michael Enzi
Sen. James Risch
Sen. John Thune
Sen. Sam Brownback
Sen. Pat Roberts
Sen. David Vitter

Western Lawmakers Fight to Bring Water Back to California’s Central Valley

2010-01-26T12:44:00.000-05:00

Western Lawmakers Fight to Bring Water Back to California’s Central Valley

What They’re Saying About the Manmade Drought and Future of Agriculture in California…

"It is a question of political will." "Congress can act, when it has the political will." – Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA)

"This is about the process. We want everyone to have an opportunity to speak to members of Congress, to take the message back to Washington." –Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA)

"It is falling on deaf ears. That's why there hasn't been a solution." –Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT)

“During Monday's water forum, eastside farmers spoke up voicing their fear that their land is next to dry up.” — [KMPH- Fresno]

“If the agriculture goes away, there is nothing.” — [Manager of Paramount Farms, Bill Phillimore, the Economist]

"I hate to even say it, but I sold my ranch this year.” “It's frustrating because we're not getting anywhere and nobody's listening." — [Westside farmer Bob Diedrich, KMPH-Fresno]

"People barely survived last season. This season, if there isn't water, it will be a tremendous blow to farmers, to communities, to workers." — [Mario Santoyo, California Latino Water Coalition, KFSN-Fresno]

“A seat was set aside for Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, in hopes the Obama–Appointee would attend or send a representative. He did neither.” — [KMPH-Fresno]

When it comes to cap-and-trade, give federalism a chance

2010-01-19T09:37:00.002-05:00

Supporters of cap-and-trade often make bold claims about climate change legislation. Rapturous-sounding rhetoric such as “this legislation will create jobs by the millions, save money by the billions and unleash investment in clean energy by the trillions,” is common in the cap-and-trade debate. Indeed, proponents typically describe cap-and-trade as the equivalent of a giant magic job Pez dispenser.

I am convinced they are wrong. Cap-and-trade legislation will only cap our economy and trade American jobs overseas. There are many devastating analyses of the costs and effectiveness of cap-and-trade legislation. Let me share just one.

The Danish academic and author, Bjorn Lomborg, has found that even if the entire industrialized world enacted U.S. style cap and trade legislation, world temperatures would drop by only 0.22 degrees by 2100. Meanwhile, Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute calculates the “expected costs” of cap-and-trade to the American people are “at least 10 times the expected benefits.” President Obama himself acknowledged that, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

In other words, cap-and-trade will raise the price of gasoline, electricity, food, and just about everything else, destroy millions of jobs, prolong the recession, and all that for just 0.22 degrees temperature reduction by 2100! If the banker phoned in with this offer, like most Americans, I would respond, “No deal.”

I recognize there are many who do not reach the same policy conclusions I do. In fact, there are a good number of individuals who believe that intentionally increasing energy costs during a recession is necessary. They are genuinely convinced that imposing a complicated web of new federal mandates and “green” regulations will lead to an economic renaissance.

Despite their sincerity, neither I, nor my constituents, desire to partake in their risky theories.

Fortunately, there is a political solution that enables both sides in this debate to get what we want. Instead of imposing a top-down carbon-focused reorganization of our $14 trillion economy on a divided public, I’m willing to let cap-and-traders reap all the “benefits” of climate change legislation–all the jobs and economic prosperity they are so confident it will bring about. States eager to impose carbon caps should be allowed to do so.

All I ask is that proponents not impose cap and trade on states choosing to address climate change in a different fashion.

There are regions of this country where cap-and-trade policies may be popular. Some people residing in the Northeast, urban areas, and certain coastal regions appear to support cap-and-trade policies. At least the Congressional representatives in these areas seem eager to implement strict carbon regimes on their citizens.

Again, I say–let them. Then let’s wait a few years and see what happens.

My proposal invokes one of the most important, and sadly, most forgotten of the political insights of the Founders, the concept of federalism. Federalism is based on the simple premise that not all policy solutions must come from Washington. It empowers states to attempt innovative policy without subjecting unwilling participants to mandates they oppose. It allows the country as a whole to learn from policy experimentation and leaves states free to implement their own policy solutions when a national consensus is lacking.

State policy experimentation is not a new or untested idea. Today there are more than 200 compacts that allow groups of states to cooperate on environmental, economic, transportation and other problems. In fact, there was a time when the states were routinely viewed as “laboratories of democracy.” The Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

If cap-and-trade is the Shangri-La supporters think it will be, let it be proven and other states will follow. Likewise, if it doesn’t work, other states can learn from its failure and avoid the same mistakes. I was delighted this week to see that California’s Gov. Schwarzenegger has grasped this important insight. As they say, more power to them.

It’s time those of us in Washington realized that the United States is a diverse, vibrant nation with varying demographics, needs, and concerns. Congress does not have to send to the President a one-size-fits-all bill mandating a nationwide cap-and-trade regime. With cap-and-trade legislation, as in many other policy areas, we should give federalism a chance.

Interior Secretarial Order bypasses Congressional Approval of Climate Change

2009-10-28T11:51:00.002-04:00

Along with Westerners in the House and Senate, I am very concerned that the new Department of Interior climate change policies are simply a way for the administration to implement harsh energy regulations while Congress continues to debate cap and trade legislation.

As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I have sent a letter, co-signed by Senator John Barrasso, responding to a Secretarial Order recently implemented by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The order will require the DOI to apply new “climate change” policies to the Department’s decision-making process. Specifically, Climate Change Response Centers will apply existing and future land management agreements to a new set of restrictive regulations and mandates set forth by the DOI.

Click here to view our letter to Secretary Salazar.

By bypassing the congressional approval process, the Department of Interior has unilaterally created a new set of restrictive regulations and mandates that will allow special interest groups with narrowly focused agendas to dictate current and future activities on federal lands—all in the name of “climate change.” Westerners will suffer the most from the increased regulatory burdens that will likely stifle energy development and lead to further job loss. *According to a recent report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the West is experiencing the highest rate of regional unemployment.

Western Caucus members are concerned that the Secretarial Order will hit Western states the hardest and put into questions past and future management agreements related to oil and gas development, renewable energy development, recreational use, grazing, hunting on public and private property, and wildlife protection. These agreements made in good faith between States and the Department will now be subject to change and terms which will likely have a detrimental impact on public land users.

Additionally, the new order could potentially cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars and have a far reaching impact on our nation’s energy supply.

2009-09-21T16:29:00.002-04:00

Today concludes the public comment period of the U.S. Department of Interior’s (DOI) five-year plan to expand access to critical and abundant energy resources offshore. As a westerner and native Utahn, I am acutely aware of the impact that the current administration is having on the energy industry throughout the West. Their efforts have already led to the cancellation or delay of oil, gas and additional mineral leases throughout my home state of Utah.

Denying access to the abundant oil and gas resources within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is a tragic example of this Administration’s continued fulfillment of environmental special interests’ agendas. Over 14 million Americans are out of work and yet, the Department of Interior continues to drag its heels on granting new leases for energy production.”

Year after year, studies who that if the areas previously under moratoria are opened for leasing and development, the U.S. trade imbalance would be reduced by approximately $145 billion by 2025 if the domestically produced crude oil serves to offset imports on a one-to-one basis.

In addition to helping alleviate our dependence on foreign oil, the OCS oil and gas leases would also create over one million high-paying domestic jobs. Secretary Salazar must recognize the opportunities we have before us. These opportunities will provide relief in areas currently suffering from the economic downturn, such as energy prices and employment.

According to the American Energy Alliance (AEA), developing this single resource could also create an estimated 1.2 million well-paying jobs and generate more than $2.2 trillion in incremental tax receipts.

Administration Places Job Creation On Hold- Still No Action on OCS Leases

2009-08-07T12:36:00.000-04:00

With unemployment at 9.3% and nearly 15 million Americans out of work, I simply cannot understand why the Obama Administraiton continues to block access to our vast domestic energy resources located within the outer continental shelf, which would otherwise lead to immense job creation and greater energy independance.

While U.S. OCS leases remain in a seemingly endless holding pattern, Russia and Cuba are moving forward drilling off our coasts. This is absurdity of epic proportions. Where is the logic and how is it that this administration can stand by and watch well-paying sustainable jobs outsources to foreign countries?