Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 9 to grant a rule that could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment to the bill must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and description via the Rules Committee Web site. Members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log in form to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10, 2011. Both electronic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as ordered reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is available on the Rules Committee Web site. Members should also use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members should also check with the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Committee on the Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House and the Congressional Budget Act. If you have any questions, please contact Chairman Dreier or the Rules Committee staff.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you. Tom Nevins, who is actually a social archaeologist, gave an interesting discussion about Ancient Central America in which he said, in 1521, Cortez led a group of Spanish soldiers to what is today Mexico City. There he found an Aztec society and an Aztec capital with 15 million inhabitants. Cortez gave simple instructions to Montezuma, II, who was in charge at that time, which was, either give us your gold or I'll kill you. For whatever reason, Montezuma gave him the gold, and then he proceeded to kill him. In fact, in the siege of what is today Mexico City, approximately a quarter of a million Aztecs died from starvation in that siege, and within 2 years the Aztec empire was totally controlled by the Spanish. A decade later, the Inca civilization had the same thing happen to them, led by Pizarro, who, once again, said, Give us your gold or we'll kill you. They got the gold, and they proceeded to kill him. Also, within 2 years, the Inca civilization was totally dominated by the Spanish, which meant that both the Aztecs and the Incas were a highly centralized government, a highly centralized society, a highly centralized economic system, and because of that they were easy prey for a smaller but a very well-trained and well-organized Spanish Army. By the 1680s, the Spanish moved into the deserts of New Mexico where they moved against the Apaches. There are two things that are different about the Spanish efforts with the Apaches in New Mexico. Number one, there was no gold to be taken. Number two, the Spanish lost. In fact, for almost two centuries, the Apaches were able to hold at bay the Spanish. One of the reasons they were is that the Apache civilization was very decentralized. They had tribal leaders. Yet, as the tribal leaders were either captured or killed, they just simply got another tribal leader. The greatest of all is the one whose name we probably mispronounce and call Geronimo. As Nevin said, this Apache civilization was not loosey-goosey. They had customs; they had traditions; they had a very sophisticated society, but they also were decentralized. I am told that, in the Apache language, the phrase ``you should'' simply does not exist. Whereas, if we look at the thousands and thousands of pages that produced ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, you will find the concept of ``you should'' being repeatedly inserted over and over and over again, which means a centralized society has certain strengths and certain weaknesses. Its greatest strength is the concept of uniformity. Everyone can be coerced into doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. A decentralized society has certain strengths and certain weaknesses. Its greatest strength is creativity, flexibility and the opportunity of its people to have options in the way they live. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, you and probably Mr. Stutzman are wondering what I am actually doing here: I came into the wrong Special Order; like, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? I think it does have to do with the topic at hand because the idea at the Constitutional Convention was: Do we have a centralized or a decentralized society and government here in this country? Indeed, they tried to separate powers horizontally between the three branches of government, but more significantly, and more importantly, vertically between national and State governments as a specific way of trying to make sure that we had a decentralized system of government, one that puts a greater emphasis on creativity, on flexibility and the ability to ensure that our citizens had what they call personal liberty, what I simply say are the options to make choices for themselves in the way they wish to do that. The Founding Fathers had a great fear of control. That is why they rebelled against the British in the first place. They had a great fear of bureaucracy. It is why in the Declaration of Independence they talk about the swarms of officials who were sent here by the British Government to devour from us our substance. Today, we have in our government a Federal Government that apparently tries to vacuum up as much power, as much money, and as much influence as possible. Our government bureaucracy today in Washington is one that is based on command-and-control style of leadership which builds a heavy emphasis on rules. And obeying the rules of procedure is far more important than just coming up with a commonsense solution to the problem which happens to be at hand. In fact, one of the questions that we have is, have we become, in essence, too big today? Have we become more centralized than decentralized? And does that give some inherent weaknesses to our society and our country that we have today? One of the things that we have to do is try and rethink this entire situation. Tomorrow, Members of this House will be inviting legislators from around the country who are back here, and we will have a conference in which State legislators will meet with Members of Congress to discuss this very issue of what direction this country will be going in the future and to recognize very clearly that this is not an issue between the left and the right. The idea of Federalism, of balancing powers of creativity and a less centralized government, is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's an issue of the direction of this country, because it's about people. It's about whether people actually have options in their lives or whether they don't. And when we recognize this, it becomes apparent that the only way to make sense of the situation is to make sure that fewer decisions in Washington are allowed to be directed towards the States and local governments and that the people make more decisions in their lives. As Justice Rehnquist said, surely, there can be no more important fundamental Constitution question than the intention of the Framers of the Constitution as to how authority should be allocated between the national and State governments. That's the battle which we still fight for and struggle with here. And it's the one in which we cannot afford, for the future of this country, to lose or to fail. If sometimes when I was teaching school my students didn't quite understand the significance of the fall of the Aztecs or the Incas, then that was an annoyance. But if we, as Members of Congress, fail to recognize the distinction between the centralization of power and the decentralization of power, which was the very foundation of this country, that is not an annoyance. That becomes a tragedy. I am very grateful to the Constitutional Caucus, especially Chairman Garrett of New Jersey and Representative Stutzman from Indiana, for your leadership in organizing this. I am proud to join my good friend from Colorado and, hopefully, my good friend from New Mexico as long as he does not try and change any of my story about the Apache. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. But this is important. This is one of those key issues. This is one of the quintessential issues that will define where we go, either forward to a brighter future or forward into a less secure and more dangerous future. And I appreciate being able to be a part of it. I thank you for allowing me to be here for a few minutes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate and 11 a.m. for legislative business.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so I can find another baseball metaphor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I appreciate the discussion, I appreciate my good friend from Florida if for no other reason that all of a sudden people are now sending me baseball stories and analogies here. I have one from Casey Stengel which I will save for the next time we join together here on the floor. Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear what we are dealing with in this particular bill. This is money that is within our Federal budgetary discipline. We are talking with this bill about money that would go to the traditional public education system in the District of Columbia, an equal amount of money that would go to the charter schools which does have a waiting list here in the District of Columbia, as well as money that would go to this new opportunity scholarship. Once again, with our dueling statistics, whether one wants to say that it was successful or not, the bottom line is still there were parents who wanted that program, there were parents who complained when the program was taken away from them by Congress, and there are parents who still want this program reestablished. They want those options for their children. We have a choice here. If we act favorably on this bill, we empower those parents. If we refuse to act favorably on this bill, then we limit those parents and the choices that they seem to want. That is one of those issues that is there. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the fairness of this structured rule. I urge its adoption, along with the underlying legislation. I urge members to support this rule which will allow the House to consider good legislation that affords bright and competitive D.C. students with an enhanced opportunity to pursue a higher quality of education while not harming the underlying public education system in the District of Columbia. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 186 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify that countervailing duties may be imposed to address subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of any foreign country. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time, and I will tell the gentleman from Florida that I am prepared to close when he is.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am not objecting at all to the concepts and the comments about Chinese trade. I think that's a legitimate issue. It has its time and place, perhaps not necessarily on this particular bill. But as an approach that the opposition, the minority, wishes to take, I can understand that. I do, though, have my baseball analogy still here, and I'm not going to count the DiMaggio joke because that was made up. That was not a true one. But it is true that Casey Stengel at one time, talking about I think one of the best second basemen ever, Bobby Richardson, said: I just can't understand it. He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink, he doesn't stay out at night, and he still can't hit .250. Now, even though a healthy lifestyle may extend a career, it still has no ability or connection to the ability of hitting a curve ball. But those kind of non sequiturs are part and parcel of the entire debate that we will be having not just on this rule but also extended on to the other debate as well. I find it personally very difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this bill, which only expands choices for D.C.'s brightest and least financially blessed schoolkids and does not subtract from school funding for D.C. public schools. In fact, it increases funding while keeping within Federal budget disciplines. It increases the percentage of money going to the charter school program as well as to the public schools. This is a win-win-win situation because it sends money to three distinct efforts: the regular public school; the charter schools, which have a waiting list more than ever before; and also this Opportunity Scholarship Program, which had a waiting list and will again as well. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Again, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be here and also be joined my good friend from Colorado, whom I should probably publicly apologize to for saying disparaging things last night. I screwed up and I apologize for that. However, he presents to us an unusual conundrum that is here on who gets to decide what will or will not be allowed. Whatever we do in this unique situation, the decision will be made. If we pass the underlying bill, we empower parents in Washington, D.C., to make a choice. If we don't pass the underlying bill, we prohibit parents in Washington, D.C., from making that kind of choice. Once again, when they were allowed to make that choice, they had a waiting list for those wishing to participate. It's a conundrum whatever we do, yes or no. It makes a decision on behalf of the people of Washington, D.C. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will yield 10 minutes if the gentleman from California wants it. Otherwise, I will be happy to use what he does not use.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the opportunity of discussing this particular issue. There is one effect where the Delegate from the District of Columbia does have something in common with the State of Utah. Over 70 percent of my land is owned by the Federal Government in Utah, and it is one of those factors that inhibits our ability to fund our education system in the State of Utah. The District of Columbia has that same initiative problem with so much of the land owned by the Federal Government. The difference, though, is that this program is giving Federal money to the District of Columbia to fund not just the scholarship opportunity but also increased funds to fund their charter schools, as well as funds to fund the regular public education system. In that respect, I wish we were very similar to what's happening in the District of Columbia, but unfortunately we are not. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, sometimes called the SOAR Act, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Further, this proposed rule will make in order all of the amendments filed at the Rules Committee for H.R. 471. Admittedly, it was only one amendment, but it is made in order, and it is offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This is an amendment that was presented in the committee and defeated on a 12-21 vote, but which will be reoffered here today as a substitute measure. In short, this rule is about as fair as they potentially get. Madam Speaker, this is a very open, straightforward rule that we will be considering today, and I am pleased to stand before the House in support of this rule as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 471. I commend the sponsor of this legislation, the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has previously served as chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, and he understands education issues very, very well. Madam Speaker, when the Cubs in the 1960s hired Leo Durocher to be their manager, he was hired 2 years after they finished the season 49 games out of first place. In his short period of time there, he would take them to the top, in which case, in 1969, a year that still hurts, the Cubs were atop the National League for 155 days. Unfortunately, 7 of those days they were not on top included the last day of the season. But Durocher always said for his team that ``I make a great effort to argue for the issues, but there are two things that are working against me: the umpires and the rules.'' There will be a lot of people--some people--who will speak against this motion, perhaps even this rule, and there are two things against them: One is the unique constitutional relationship between Congress and the District of Columbia that is not there, vis-a-vis the States; and, number two, the underprivileged kids who benefit from this underlying bill. If I were to predict a preview of what will be taking place in the debate, not only on the rule but also on the bill itself, I would predict four themes will be appearing time after time after time. One will be the concept of the constitutional mandate that is here. When this Republic was established, the Constitution gave unique jurisdictional responsibility to Congress over the District of Columbia. That is not going to be a violation of their home rule concept, but it is a responsibility of Congress. And there is great precedent for this particular kind of provision. In 1996, it is Congress that insisted upon a charter school program in the District of Columbia. You will hear from both sides of the aisle recognition of the great value that that program has, and justifiably so. There is a waiting list in the District of Columbia for those charter schools. This underlying bill increases the percentage of funding going to charter schools in the District. In 2003, an Opportunity Scholarship was instituted, at the insistence of Congress. Again, there was a waiting list of people wanting the opportunity; disadvantaged kids who wanted the opportunity that this scholarship afforded them. In the appropriation bill for 2010, unfortunately, Congress intervened again in a negative way and cut out this Opportunity Scholarship program. There were a lot of upset students and parents who couldn't believe how special interest politics got in the way of their son's or daughter's dreams and was snatched from their very hands. Their opportunity to make what they believe were better educational choices was basically taken away from them. H.R. 471 remedies this inequity. There were 216 kids at the time scheduled to enter the program who were not allowed because of the action of that particular appropriation bill. Those 216 kids, by this particular legislation, will be given priority in once again being able to apply for this Opportunity Scholarship. A second discussion point that will be coming up repeatedly deals with the efficacy of these programs. There will be conflicting data that will be thrown from both sides as to the effectiveness. But I think the one piece of information that can be clearly stated is that 91 percent of the kids enrolled in this Opportunity Scholarship complete their coursework. That is 21 percent higher than a control group of kids who were interested but were not allowed the opportunity to complete this particular program. That completion rate is almost 32 percent higher than the regular completion rate of kids in the public education system in Washington, D.C. To quote Dr. Patrick Wolf, who was the lead investigator of the evaluation mandated by Congress of this program, he concluded by stating: ``The research evidence and the testimonials of parents confirm that the District of Columbia is a better place because of the Opportunity Scholarship program.'' The third issue that you will be hearing deals with the support of this particular program. There will be dueling statistics that will be coming at you during the course of the debate. Those in favor of the bill will give lists of groups who are in favor of this particular program. Those against the bill will give lists of groups and unions who are opposed to it. Each side will give a list of political leaders both within Washington, D.C., and outside who are in favor; and those opposed will give lists of political leaders who do not support this program. There will be poll results that will be given from both sides, the most recent of which will be given by advocates, a Lester & Associates poll, which simply says 74 percent of the D.C. residents polled supported this program and wanted it restored and made available to all D.C. students for all their abilities to participate. You will hear polling data to the contrary. You will hear anecdotal stories to the contrary. Perhaps the most telling, though, issue of support deals with parents and the kids in Washington, D.C., who lined up for this program; who went on waiting lists for the opportunity to become involved in this program; who cried and pled with Congresses past when this program was eliminated. They clearly do not want this program to totally be destroyed because it takes away from them their chance, their option, their opportunity to individualize and upgrade their educational opportunities. This program probably has a philosophical basis, a kinship, if you would, with the Pell Grant, the GI Bill of Rights, in which, once again, government tried to empower with choices with few strings attached individual adult students or parents so they could choose their own personal education future. That's what this bill still tries to do. The final concept that will probably be presented during debate on the rule as well as the bill deals with the concept of liberty. We have a Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. The Revolutionary War was supposedly fought for the purpose of preserving personal liberty. I have to admit, though, as I was teaching school that it was difficult for my kids there to really comprehend what liberty meant. It was an abstract noun, to say the least. The Founders clearly understood what that concept meant as they looked upon a government that was far, far away from them. And in the Declaration of Independence we're willing to write that the government far away has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eke out their stance. Indeed, they had waged war against them. Those of us who live in the West today have the Department of the Interior to remind us of those same circumstances. But the kids, mainly in urban and rural settings and suburban settings, still have a problem understanding what it means really to have liberty until you try and talk about liberty in terms of choices. Options, opportunity, without the heavy hand of a government official defining what those options and opportunities may or may not be. The entrepreneurial world gets it. They realize if they want a market share, they have to give people choices in their lives. So if I want a mobile phone, there are all sorts of plans from which I may choose. Even in the smallest corner market in Washington there are still a whole row of breakfast cereals from which I may choose. I may want Pringles potato chips, but they still give me 16 varieties. If indeed Omaha Steaks sends me an invitation every week to try and come up with one of their products, I will choose this week to order one that fits for me. Only in Washington in this government do you still have people that truly believe in a one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates can actually be worked, that believe and go back to the concepts of Henry Ford when the automobile was so unique he could with a straight face look at a consumer and say, You can have a car in any color you want as long as it is black. Unfortunately, many of the ideas and philosophies still in government today, indeed some of the programs still in government today, were born in that era in which the idea of an elite sitting in some darkened office would decide what I wanted and what was indeed best for me. That's liberty. The icons who face us in this Chamber, all of them were related in some way of moving the concept of law forward, which led to the concept of liberty. This bill is based on that concept of choice, opportunity, and options for people. It deserves our support because it is an opportunity. Call it an education app for Americans living in the District of Columbia. The most needy and deserving can actually have their choice of how they want their education to take place and it is done under the sphere of responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. This bill is worthy of our heritage. It is a symbol of our legacy. One can only assume that the Founders, indeed the icons that are looking down from the perch above us, are smiling now, saying, Congress doesn't always do it correctly, but this time with this bill they got it right. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of being here, and I also appreciate being here with my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who is one of the true delights with whom I have such an opportunity to work here in Washington. I guess, if he is saying that we have the group du jour from whom we are presenting bills, today's group du jour would be those who are financially disadvantaged and still want a better opportunity for education. As I said, there would be four issues that would be discussed. We can check off three of the four already. Only the concept of ``liberty'' has yet to be addressed here. Some of them may be non sequiturs, but they were still there nonetheless. I guess the last statistic that still can be put out there as to whether this program works or not deals with the parents who, when the free market of ideas was opened up to them, they chose this program. They wanted this program. They wanted to maintain this program, and they will flock back to it. Since my good friend Mr. Hastings also used a baseball reference to tie me, I have to one-up him one more time. In the words of the great Satchel Paige, who was consulting a struggling pitcher who was failing to get it over on the corners, he just said, Throw the pitch. Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move. This program is one of those strikes. All we need to do is throw it. Home plate don't move. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate listening to the gentlewoman's discussion of the bill actually at hand, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I close with some trepidation, as I heard the debate today about continuing resolutions, health programs, teachers, gas prices, and capital gains. But let me risk something and actually talk about the bill at hand. First of all, it's an impeccably good rule, which allows an open amendment process for anyone who wants to think through an amendment and prefile it. Not a gotcha amendment, but a real amendment to this bill. It's a good way of handling the situation on the floor. I am very proud of the Rules Committee for presenting this type of a rule. Secondly, you have heard from the sponsor of this piece of legislation the details that are required of this particular program, which discourages those from actually using it. So that the CBO would say that if we continue this program, which is not actually attracting any takers, it would cost the Federal Government at least $175 million in failed mortgages, defaulted mortgages. In addition, this is one of the programs that we are talking about mandatory spending, not discretionary, but actually doing something about mandatory spending. And in the terms of the Inspector General, this program has failed. We can do better. And as a government we ought to do better than this poorly planned, poorly executed, underutilized, and very, very expensive failed program.