Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could just add one comment to that as well. I think it is very clear that we need to say it is not that the Federal Government will always be bad and is incompetent at doing things. The problem the Federal Government has is the size of the Federal Government. Any big industry has waste, fraud, and abuse, and that is one of the reasons why if we could coordinate and work with local governments-- that is why the old cliche that the government that is best is the one that is closest to the people. It is not necessarily that they are smarter or better; it is because they don't have the problem of size in a one-size-fits-all issue and they have the freedom to be creative. As you were talking about, especially with the entitlements, this is an area in which creativity is going to be the most important element. And some things, especially with the cost of Medicare, are driven by one-size-fits-all Federal mandates and Federal decisions, when allowing creativity could help us solve this problem. I also want to say one other thing too when your comment about the general defense is so significant. It is not because we are funding for the defense of the America today. The decisions we make, the plans we make for defense today will not come to fruition for another 10 to 15 years, and indeed, the ability for us to have diplomacy in the future depends on wise decisions that we make today. I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri coming with this issue. This is something that the people care about, something that the Congress cares about. I think the fact that we just passed a 5 percent cut on ourselves with overwhelming bipartisan support says that this is the direction we should be taking, and we should continue to talk about this over and over and over again. I appreciate you allowing me to be part of this.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. You make me embarrassed right here. I wish I could take full credit for the time management plans that we are implementing here. I may have said it, but somebody else had to make the decision to go forward with it. I think it was the right thing to do because it requires us, instead of running around in circles like a bunch of squirrels on a treadmill or chipmunks on a treadmill wasting a lot of time, we try to focus our energies so that when we are on the floor it makes some kind of difference. Let me just give one other historical example of what I think we need to be doing and dedicate ourselves, since I have been throwing out too many already. I believe it was in the first Congress that the issue came up of postal roads, where to draw the line, where would the postal roads for the new Post Office go. There is some kind of economic benefit of having actually mail dropped along a route. But Congress, eager to get out, said let's just allow the President, the executive branch, to decide where the postal routes will be, which seems to be a logical thing to do. And I believe it was Congressman Paige, I hope from Virginia, who stood up and said, no, our job of Congress is to legislate, which includes taking the time to agree on where those postal routes will go. It is not our responsibility to give it to an executive branch or a bureaucracy or some other group to come up with all the details. And he forced Congress to stay there, and they did their job. Too often we as Members simply have the tendency of coming up with a grand and noble idea, and they say all right, we will empower. I think the language in the TARP bill is a perfect example of where we empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to make all kinds of decisions which were legislative decisions by their very nature. Well, I hope what this schedule allows us to do and what you were talking about is to say we have a great deal of work to be done here. We are still looking at ideas. I am sure there are great ideas that are out there that will be coming from the people as time goes on, but we have to make sure we dedicate the time to not simply running around in circles playing silly games, but coming here and zeroing in on our task. It was said by you, it was said by the gentleman from Georgia as well as the gentleman from Louisiana, it is the spending. That is our problem. That is what is hurting jobs, that is what is hurting Americans, that is what is bloating our budget. We need to zero in on that, and until we do that, we will never come close to meeting what the American people expect the Congress to do, nor what we really morally need to do. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you. I do appreciate the Congressman from Georgia talking about the difference between ``provide'' and ``promote.'' Let me just go with one historical example of how that works, because I think in one of your earlier questions it was said, How are we actually going to handle this spending problem? Part of it is we have to think outside the box and make some things that have been common assumptions not necessarily have to survive. And instead of going with some issues that we're funding right now, which may be too close to people, let me just go back to history. In most of the history books that I do, that I have seen, when we taught high school history, they always talk about how this nation came together with the uniting of the railroads, the UP and the Central Pacific joining together and how the Federal Government subsidized that process and was the only viable way of getting that done. We provided the railroad system. One of the concepts, though, as I was reading another book that took a closer look on this issue is that not only did the Federal Government help with this railroad building craze but the idea that the Federal Government became involved changed the mechanism in which railroads were built and the kinds of ways they were built. We paid railroads for every mile of track that was laid, which meant you gave them more money if they went to a mountainous route than on flat land. So many of those routes took a very circuitous route going through some elevated terrain because they got more money than if they had just taken a simpler flat route. One of the, I won't mention which one but they refused to put up masonry supports. They put up wooden culverts only for their train tracks. In the winter they laid track over ice which meant as soon as the thaw came, the tracks disappeared. Much of our railway system had to be rebuilt within 2 years of its actual completion. I live in the State of Utah and my only national monument is the Golden Spike National Monument in my district in which both the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific came and they passed one another continuing to lay track because they were paid for it by the Federal Government, until Congress finally told them not to track off and link up somewhere; and they picked Promontory Summit which is in the State of Utah in my county to finally link up. Ironically enough, in 1893 James Hill built--maybe the Madam Speaker has the name of this railroad--Northern Railroad that went from Chicago to Seattle. He did that without any government subsidies whatsoever. He paid private property for renting his lines even during the panic. It survived. It was functional. It was profitable. Sometimes we make assumptions that only the Federal Government has the ability of doing things when in reality we don't. And we forget that once again if we were to make States a true partner with us in projects, States have the ability of being creative, much more than we do; they have the ability of providing justice for its circumstances much more than we do; and more importantly if the States make a mistake, it doesn't harm the entire country. I think ObamaCare may be one of those particular examples, where State creativity was going on a proper road with some wonderful ideas that were stopped dead in their tracks, no pun intended, by ObamaCare.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try and hit, for just one moment, two potential areas to address that particular question, and it goes back to the fact that we did read the Constitution on the floor today. You know it's amazing, as P.J. O'Rourke once said, that the Constitution is 16 pages, which is the operator's manual for 300 million people. The operator's manual for the Toyota Camry, in contrast, is four times as large, and it only seats five. But you also contrast that with what we have done in the lame duck session when the Senate's omnibus spending bill, it's not 16 pages, it was 1,924 pages. Those are the kinds of issues we're talking about. And I think if we really want an answer of how we make those decisions, we go back to the document that was read this morning. The general welfare clause today usually puts the emphasis on the word ``welfare.'' When they wrote that thing, they put the emphasis on the word ``general.'' What the Federal Government should do is that which affects all of us. Monroe, Madison, Jackson vetoed road projects because they said those road projects didn't meet the general welfare. When Savannah burned to the ground, Congress had a great deal of empathy for Savannah, but it did not actually appropriate any money for Savannah because they said giving money to Savannah to rebuild would simply help Savannah and was not general welfare. Now, I made this speech once on the floor a couple of years ago, and I got a nice letter, kind of, from a lady in Alabama who took me to task and listed all the programs that she thought were viable and good and she wanted continued. And I said, ma'am, you actually missed the ultimate point. The point is not should these programs be available for citizens. The point is, who should be responsible for providing those programs? Not every idea has to germinate, be funded, be appropriated, be regulated from Washington. The States are equally competent. And if, indeed, we divided our responsibilities together, we could provide better services for the people for a cheaper price. Now, Mr. Akin, if I could just give one second of a simple example. David Walker has written a great book called ``The Rebirth of Federalism,'' where he simply made the effect that dangling money we don't have in front of cash-starved States does not necessarily help out the States or us, or the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for both levels of government. For example, he said when we put conditional grants to States with strings attached that eventually become regulations and mandates, it undercuts both the inter-level cooperation between those two bodies, and it is a term he invented called ``creeping conditionalism,'' which means the cost to the taxpayer actually increases. By doing his estimates, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 cost the States $2 billion to $3 billion more than the States would have spent to provide their own safe drinking water. From '83 to '90 he estimated that the regulations imposed by the Federal Government was $9 billion to $13 billion more in local taxes that did not provide a benefit to the citizens. It was just the creeping cost to them. So our mandates, supposedly with free money given to States, end up costing the taxpayer not only for the free money we don't have, but costs the States to do more than they would have done or needed to do to actually address the problem.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California recognizing me. Every time we talk about rules, I realize for the majority of people, their eyes kind of glaze over. But every kid who has spent time in an elementary yard realizes that the rules are important to the game. We are here, though, on this floor doing the people's business, and it is not a game, and the rules become significant. And the rules are significant because they are responsive to what the people have said. People told us very clearly they are interested in jobs, they are interested in spending. The rules package before us right now facilitates the growth of the former and helps in the limitation of the latter. True, PAYGO will be replaced in this rule. PAYGO was the process that was honored in its breach and suspension as often as its application, and it is replaced with CutGo, a process that zeroes in on the real problem, which is spending. And if indeed we suspend CutGo as frequently as PAYGO was suspended, then it would be justified to criticize us at that particular time. This rule says committees are important. It's not just a box you check to say you have done regular order. We have now provided for time for committees to do their job. We have provided for pre-meeting requirements and post-meeting requirements and accountability, and respect for the product of the committees will be here on the floor. Once again, in this rule the Constitution is now in vogue again, and the bills coming to the floor will become readable so that you will never see again a multihundred-page amendment coming before this body in the wee hours of the morning of its actual debate. Many of us who worked on these rules have had legislative experience in our home States. We brought different ideas, realizing that a better process equals a better policy. We have changed the schedule so that time management will be seriously considered. We have added to transparency for what takes place on the committee as well as on the floor. We, to use cliches, thought outside of the box. But in so doing, we included more Members than ever before, Republicans and Democrats, who were invited to give specific input into what we indeed are doing.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We reached consensus. We found that making the right decisions is not necessarily a difficult process. All you need to do is throw strikes. Satchel Paige, when he was advising a young pitcher who was having a problem with his control trying to hit the corners simply looked at him and said, ``Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.'' This rule is strikes, because home plate don't move. Will it change Washington and the way we do business? Yes. And appropriately so.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding the time. I know full well from my experience in the State legislature, as well as working on the transition team here, that when one speaks of procedural issues, usually people's eyes glaze over. They are boring issues. However, good procedures do create good policy. Poor procedures create what we are doing here today. As was said by the gentleman from Minnesota, had the motion to recommit, an amendment, been approved by this body, it would be attached in its entirety to the entire bill. This bill, if it goes to the President's desk, would have all of that language in it. By changing the procedure, pulling the bill from the floor before the vote and now stripping out part of the motion to recommit and doing it as a suspension, it allows us once again to have political coverage that won't take place in reality of making changes in what happens to this bill or in the real world. For we all know the suspension that we pass here has a very high likelihood of dying in this session. So we can come down here and say, yes, we want to protect our kids from predators and vote for the suspension knowing full well that that probably will never go into effect. It will die over in the Senate, if it gets that far, and then we'll vote for a bill that no longer has that concept that the House seemed, or at least appeared that it wanted, to add to this provision part of that. And one of the rationales for doing that is because, well, most of the States already have those types of procedures. I hate to say this, but that argument can be used for almost all of this bill. See, one of the things that would not be included if indeed the suspension passes and then the motion to recommit fails is the deal with section 205, which, as was mentioned earlier, deals with the amount of money that people will pay--not for reduced lunches--but people will pay just because they don't qualify for reduced lunches. I hate to use a personal example, but I've got to. As many of you know, I was a school teacher before I joined this august body. Now, this is not something great to note, but as a school teacher, I qualified under the standards for reduced lunches for my five kids. And as a school teacher who qualified for those reduced lunches, I refused to take advantage of that opportunity. I figured that no one had a gun to my head when I had the kids; it was my responsibility now to take care of my kids. I don't think I'm unusual in that respect. I think there are hundreds of thousands of people who have the same attitude, that they want to take the responsibility for their progeny and the responsibility for what takes place. And, unfortunately, if this provision, section 205, is allowed to stay in the bill, it means the Federal Government--not local school districts, not boards where you actually have a chance to talk to people and they understand the demographics and the reasons-- they will make the decision of what people who are paying the full price will pay for that price. It can go up whenever someone wants it to go up, and has been mentioned, it becomes a disincentive for people to be responsible, to not ask the government to bail them out, to take responsibility and pay for at least school lunches for their own kids or school breakfasts or whatever the process has. It becomes a counterintuitive argument that harms the process. And why? It's because the decision on what level that payment will be will no longer be made on the local school district level or at least at the State level. It will be made here where a one-size-fits-all program does indeed fail the process. Now, this is simply--I don't want to call it political gamesmanship, but it is poor procedure that will result in two votes: one vote that is totally meaningless and another vote that misses the mark and does not improve what we're trying to do or what we should do in schools, and that is, allow people who really understand the process to have the final say at the local level where kids are, where the parents are, and where reality should hit. Not here. Once again, this is not a school board. However often we have tried to act like one, we still are not.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota allowing me some time. I come down here in an effort to try and talk, perhaps somewhere balancing this particular act. There is nothing wrong with child nutrition. There is nothing wrong with trying to provide that kids have the opportunity to be well fed so that they can function in school. There is nothing wrong with the goals or the desires of those who are sponsoring this legislation. Admittedly, there is something wrong with allowing the Senate to write everything and ignoring what the House did and bringing this here on a closed rule, but that's a process issue. What I wish to do here today though, more than anything else, is to plead the 10th Amendment. There are great and noble goals within this particular bill, but this body is not the only place in which great and noble goals can be accomplished. When we, in this bill, give the Secretary of Agriculture the unlimited control and authority to determine what is food and what is not, what kids will eat and what they will not, by nature of that action we take away that responsibility from local school boards, from parents, from local administrators who actually do care about those kids to a greater degree than even our compassionate concern on this particular level. When we, in this bill, now mandate an exercise program in order to get funds for school lunches--once again, there's nothing wrong with making kids go outside and exercise. It's noble, but this is not a school board. Those are the issues in which local government and local schools and parents and administrators and educators on that level, that is a prerogative that they should be making because, I hate to say this, but they do know better to the local initiatives and local needs of their kids. When you add 17 new Federal programs in this particular bill, you automatically, if nothing else, take away the ability of schools to concentrate on what they think is more significant and more important. When you, in this bill, allow the Federal Government to establish what will be paid for a school lunch, you take, once again, flexibility away from local people to meet the needs of their particular area. There is nothing wrong with the goals and attitude and hopes of this particular bill, but we are not a school board. That's why they are there. They understand. They care about their kids. They should be empowered to make these kinds of decisions, not mandated on how those decisions should be made. Like I say, I appreciate the sponsor. I appreciate the leader of this committee. I appreciate his goals. But once again, not every idea has to germinate in Washington, not every concept has to be authorized, funded, and regulated in this particular body. I plead the 10th Amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the last action that we took in this body today was a resolution honoring the Constitution, which we celebrate tomorrow. Since we are not in session tomorrow, I wish to talk for a moment about that inspired document this evening. It's difficult to do that, because as we talk about the Constitution, I am looking straight at the relief of George Mason, who was one of those unique characters in American history, one of three men who spent the entire time at the Constitutional Convention and then refused to sign the document. When I was teaching school, I always insisted my students had to tell me why Mason refused to sign it, which, of course, was because it did not have the Bill of Rights. But I was always hoping, and hoping in vain, that some bright student would ask the better question, which is not why did Mason not sign, but why did all the other people who were there at the Founding Fathers convention not go along with Mason for a Bill of Rights? It was certainly not because they were opposed to civil liberties, but because the rest of the Founding Fathers realized that they could accomplish the same goal by the structure of government, by dividing power by the three branches of government horizontally so no branch had too much power, but equally by dividing power vertically between the Federal and State level. So no level of government had too much power; you could accomplish the same goal of protection of individual freedoms. The issue at the Constitutional Convention was that of power. As the States met and then ratified this document, the issue of power was still there. We, of course, know of course that two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island, did not ratify the document until after the country was established. But five States, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland and South Carolina, sent specific amendments that should be added to the document. Foremost in each of those State's amendments was the concept of sovereignty or the ability of States to make decisions. Their goal and their concepts were incorporated in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which put in written form the unnamed structure that the Founding Fathers had established in the Constitution. As one of our Justices on the Supreme Court said, the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns, among branches of government, precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as the expedient solution to the crisis of the day. For a century and a half, this Nation basically honored that concept. In the last half century, though, we have stretched the idea significantly. Starting with the progressive era at the early 1900s, it was President Wilson who called this concept the separation of powers political witchcraft. He said that separating powers into hidden corners prevented us from consolidating powers to be used. In the early 1900s, the politicians and the philosophers who believed this did not do so because they misunderstood the Constitution, but because they understood it and did not like the fact that it prevented them from doing what they said were marvelous things. We, today, still have this issue of power before us. For the last couple of years we have debated on this floor the idea whether it is better to consolidate power in Washington with the ultimate goal of uniformity or to hold fast to the idea that States should be allowed to have alternative ideas and that our ultimate goal should be creativity. The 10th Amendment is not just about smaller government. It's about more effective government, what works best for people and the idea that not all programs have to be evolved from Washington. They also have their idea because the 10th Amendment talks power for States and individuals. In a concept that many of us on this floor can never get, there are some problems that don't need a solution by government at all. The issue is creativity, efficiency, and justice. The issue is can those best be resolved. We still have this question of power that we are dealing with today, and I would hope that we would reject the revisionist idea and, instead, go along and support the Founding Fathers. For both the constitutional structure and the 10th Amendment meant that our Founding Fathers were inspired to get it right.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, before I give my comments on this particular resolution, I wish to yield such time as she may consume to the sponsor of this resolution, as well as probably the most famous alumnus from Miami Dade College, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise to support House Resolution 1571, acknowledging and congratulating Miami Dade College on the occasion of its 50th anniversary of service to the students and residents of Florida. Miami Dade College was founded in 1960, 50 years ago. Only half a decade later, the college had increased its enrollment by 300 percent. As has been mentioned, as the first racially integrated junior college in Florida, Miami Dade College provided an education to all area residents who wanted to better their lives and further their education. Today, almost 100,000 students are enrolled on the eight campuses year round, and if you count part-time students, it increases that number significantly. MDC is now the largest institution in the Florida college system, and it works to educate a diverse student population by offering 300 majors and by providing an affordable education to students from all backgrounds. The college holds several annual events that benefit both students and members of the community. The Miami Dade College's Miami International Book Fair and the Miami International Film Festival are two such events that are nationally and internationally renowned. I congratulate Miami Dade College for 50 years of excellence in higher education, and I wish all of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the sponsor of this piece of legislation and appreciate her bringing it forward. I urge my colleagues to support this. As someone whose alma mater will join the Pac next year, this is probably the last time I can ever publicly say anything favorable about Southern Cal; but in so doing, they certainly deserve the honor they got for what they accomplished this last May. I urge adoption of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1480, commending the University of Southern California Trojans men's tennis team for its victory in the 2010 National Collegiate Athletic Association Men's Tennis Championship. The USC men's tennis team captured the 2010 NCAA championship on May 25 of this year--its second championship in as many years--by defeating the Tennessee Volunteers 4-2. Despite losing their first two doubles matches, the fifth-seeded Trojans fought back hard in singles play and against the second-seeded Volunteers en route to the championship. USC's Robert Farah and Steve Johnson, who had their streak of 17 consecutive doubles match victories broken in the opening set, each recorded a victory in their respective singles matches. Two fellow Trojans also recorded singles victories to cement the win. I also want to congratulate Daniel Nguyen for his phenomenal efforts on the court in being named, as was mentioned, the NCAA Tournament's Most Outstanding Player. USC has won 113 national championships as a university, its 90th men's national championship, and in capturing this tennis title, their 18th men's tennis title championship overall. This feat makes the Trojans the all-time leader in such team victories. The University of Southern California is one of the world's leading private research institutions. In addition, USC fosters a vibrant culture of public service and encouraging students to cross academic as well as geographic boundaries in their pursuit of knowledge. The University of Southern California has established itself as a world leader in the field of communication, multimedia technology, and the life sciences, as well as in cross-disciplinary teaching and research. The university has also strengthened its culture of community service, receiving national acclaim for its innovative service-learning programs and community involvement. Today I commend USC President Steven B. Sample, Tennis Coach Peter Smith for winning his second NCAA championship as head coach, the coaching staff, the team, the fans, the faculty, and the staff. Congratulations to the team for an outstanding accomplishment. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today also in support of House Resolution 1564, commending and congratulating Michigan Technological University on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. Michigan Technological University was founded in 1885 and is located in Houghton, Michigan. Michigan Tech was established to train mining engineers to support at the time the booming copper industry in that area. Classes began with 23 students and four faculty members. Today, the university's enrollment stands at over 7,100 students and almost 450 faculty members. Today, Michigan Tech is one of the Nation's premier technological research universities. Students at Michigan Tech can choose from majors in five different schools and colleges, including the College of Engineering, College of Sciences and Arts, School of Business and Economists, School of Technology, and School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science. The university offers more than 120 degree programs in these various subjects. Michigan Tech students also excel at athletics. The Michigan Tech Huskies compete in Division I and II NCAA athletics and have 14 varsity athletic teams. The Huskies compete in sports including basketball, cross country, football, hockey, tennis, track and field, soccer, volleyball, and Nordic skiing. Michigan Tech's mission is ``to prepare students to create the future,'' and the university works to do just that. Today, 96 percent of Michigan Tech's students have jobs in their chosen field, enroll in graduate school, or enlist in the military by graduation. Michigan Tech has become a premier university during their 125-year history and promises to be a leader in education in the future. I extend my congratulations to Michigan Technological University for 125 years of excellence in higher education and once again wish its faculty, staff, students, and alumni continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I submit the following: Lockton Companies, LLC., Houston, TX, May 13, 2010. Hon. Robert Menendez, U.S. Senator, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Menendez: Lockton Companies is the largest privately owned insurance broker in the world, and through Lockton Marine & Energy in Houston, we service the insurance needs of many energy companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, we specialize in the small to midsize independent exploration and production companies that are very active in drilling wells in the shallow and deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In fact, two of our clients are in the top 10 largest lease holders and/or most active drillers in the Gulf of Mexico; however, they are relatively small companies. Exploration and production companies are supported by thousands of workers all along the Gulf Coast from their own employees to many small to midsized service companies' employees. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics reported that there were well over 100,000 petroleum-related workers and greater than $12 billion in total wages earned in the Gulf Coast Region alone. Insurance is critical to our clients and all small to midsized energy companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. All of the companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico essentially go to the same insurance market to purchase their liability insurance coverage. The insurance market for offshore operations is relatively small, and prior to the Macondo well incident, we estimated the total market capacity for third-party pollution liability to be $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion. Following the Macondo well event, we estimate the capacity has dropped to $1 billion to $1.2 billion. Furthermore, the cost for the insurance coverage has increased substantially. The market for Oil Pollution Act (OPA) coverage is an even smaller market, with total capacity of $200 to $300 million. While large exploration and production companies are able to certify on the basis of their balance sheet, most small and midsized companies are dependent on purchasing OPA coverage in the commercial insurance market. We understand there is legislation under consideration which could significantly increase the liability cap for economic damages from the current level of $75 million. Given the limited capacity in the energy insurance market, a material increase in the cap will eliminate insurance as an option for many exploration and production companies. Without insurance, many of the active exploration and production companies would be unable to operate in the Gulf of Mexico. This decision will affect thousands of people, their families and their local economies. We respectfully request you give this issue careful consideration, and we are more than happy to provide supporting information on the energy insurance market providing insurance for the Gulf of Mexico. Sincerely, John A. Rathmell, Jr.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5610, the Independent Living Centers Technical Adjustment Act. Independent living centers provide a valuable service, including employment, skilled training, peer counseling, and information for people with disabilities. H.R. 5610, the Independent Living Centers Technical Adjustment Act, as passed in the House and Senate, allows States to apply to the Department of Education for a waiver to disregard funds received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the fiscal year 2010 allotments. Because of a discrepancy in how current law factors in prior year funds, some independent living centers will see dramatic decreases in the funding that they will receive this year. This technical fix will enable funds granted through the Rehabilitation Act to be distributed to independent living centers in a more fair and appropriate manner for this year. The House-passed version of this legislation allows States to apply for these important waivers until July 30. Because the deadline included in the original version of H.R. 5610 does not provide sufficient time for States to take advantage of these waivers, the Senate extended the timeline until August 5. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill, which will assist independent living centers that help disabled persons live full and productive lives, and I ask for my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It has been that way for the last 12 months. So, somewhere, somebody has to figure out what is unique about my State and about our area in the West that has given us this wonderful distinction of having the best joblessness in the Nation for well over a year. I think, obviously, there are a number of causes, but it is also, I think we can say for a certainty, that many of the new policies and regulations that have been adopted during this administration, coming out of Washington, are flat out not helping when we could be unleashing economic upturn as well as providing domestic energy independence for this country, which is a boon to economic development. Yet we're doing the exact opposite. Let me show you three charts, if I could, simply to illustrate. You know, every time I come here, I rant about the amount of public lands that we have. The Federal Government owns 650 million acres. That means that 1 out of every 3 acres in this country is now owned by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, in my area--the West--1 out of every 2 acres is owned by the Federal Government. For example--and this is a different chart than I have used before-- if the amount of land owned in the West by the Federal Government were owned in the East, that is how much area, the area in blue, would be owned and operated and controlled by the Federal Government. If, on the other hand, we in the West had as much land owned by the Federal Government as you out in the East--and by that, I mean everything east of the Rocky Mountains, that is how much of our territory would be controlled. So, obviously, there is a unique element there, which simply means, of the 12 States that have had the slowest growth in their economies, the biggest joblessness increase--and I hate to say that--then 6 of those 12 are in the West. Georgia gets in there. I'm sorry. I didn't leave you out. Six of those 12 have to be found in the West. If you want to go one step further and look at the 20 largest counties with 25,000 or more inhabitants, counties which have the highest unemployment and joblessness rates, of those 20, 19 of the 20 are found in the West. You have to go down to number 20 before you finally have somebody--in this case, it's Michigan--that breaks through with a higher unemployment rate than Western counties have. So I am going to make the contention that there is a reason the West has been hit very hard in what I simply like to refer to as an ``inexplicable war on the West.'' I think the numbers bear it out, and part of it is because of policies. Without taking too much of your time, let me just list off a couple, a slew, of some of those administrative decisions.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you. I am actually very honored to be here with two friends who are talking about the significant problems we have in this country--simply, the lack of jobs. As we all know, government does not create jobs, but government can create a policy to discourage jobs, and that is specifically where we are today. If I could, I'll just go in a slightly different direction from where the two of you have headed so far.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have my good friend here--the newest Member from the good State of Georgia, so we've got a good southerner here. We have somebody from the Midwest, and I am actually from the West. With all due respect, I think my part of the Nation is taking a bigger hit in this economy, because of government decisions, than are the others. The unemployment rate in the West is actually higher than any other section in this country.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. While you're there, if the gentleman wouldn't mind for just a minute, let me talk about another concept of taxes which I don't think many people are aware. These are things that will automatically happen. But there are bills that will be coming to the floor sometime soon that deal with tax increases on our form of energy production. Now one of those things listed in there in the cost of doing business is also the cost of energy that takes place. There is a bill that passed the Natural Resources Committee, it's called the CLEAR Act, which purportedly dealt with what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico which is a terrible crisis and needs to be changed in some way. But deep within the bowels of this bill is a $2 per gallon tax increase on all oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, and a 40 cents I think it's per trillion cubic feet of natural gas that will be produced in the Gulf of Mexico. And one would assume, if we are dealing with the Gulf of Mexico, that money could be for restoration work, for cleanup work, for those who have lost jobs and lost income during that period of time. Unfortunately, that's not what that money will be used for if this bill passes. That money is all going to go to the Federal department into a specific fund which would now bypass appropriations and be just under a billion dollars a year to buy more land in the Federal inventory. So the amount of blue on this chart could grow in every section of this country, but once again primarily I get the fun of it in my State, where most of the public land is. That is a tax increase on business solely so the government can grow its hold on the amount of property we own here, and in so doing will infringe upon the ability of producing better energy in the future. And like I say, if we were actually moving forward in alternative energy, as we say we want to, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. But this administration is also shutting down alternative energy projects at the same time it is shutting down traditional energy projects. And that's another tax that goes onto that multitude of taxes you are talking about, and actually goes on to compound the amount of spending that we're doing.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And so far we're a half a year away from the deadline and we have yet to do anything proactive about it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So what the gentleman is telling me is that if Congress does nothing, there will automatically be a marriage penalty increase. Child deductions will go down. There will be another death tax increase. There will be a capital gains tax increase; a dividend tax increase. Unless we do something proactive, it will automatically happen.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would the gentleman from Missouri simply restate what that first line in black actually means. Unless Congress acts, taxes will go up.