Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The first gentlelady from California who spoke talked about how important it was to start this program. May I reiterate, once again, we are not starting anything new. We have a program. All we are doing is changing things in that program. The current program has specific dollar amounts going which will be reviewed and specific programmatic responsibility, all of which were stripped out in this particular version. The gentlelady from Texas, actually, I appreciate everything she said, she was right on. Everything for which she argued that is necessary is what the original program was intended to do. The problem we have is--and we could have easily, easily gone along with the expansion of this program if they had actually allowed us to come up with some kind of limitations, because unfortunately, as I mentioned before, what we have now done with this program, 75 percent of which was to go to make sure that we have healthy forests, where the actual priority was to go to help public lands, is you have taken out all that language and we have simply replicated AmeriCorps. Once again, go on to the language of the legislation that created that document. On page 22 they list what they can do. It's exactly the same thing that has now opened up this possibility. Page 24, where can they go? Exactly the same thing. All we are doing is making a duplicate of a program that's already there when we have a good program with a specific goal, a specific recommendation, and we have taken out those specifics. Now I suggested that there is plenty of opportunity for abuse in this particular program if you don't try and limit it to what we want it to accomplish, because we all agree on what we want it to accomplish. The unfortunate thing is the language in this bill doesn't say that. It doesn't specify that. And so indeed we can have instead people going in there to provide not jobs, but to provide internships for people to go in and have them assist professional staff in identifying problems, formulating legal strategies to address those problems, providing legal education and direct response representation, engaging in policy development. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but not on the government dime. I don't have a problem with having a tour of this country talking about sustainability of processes and having drinking parties and all. That's fine, but not on the government dime. I don't mind actually having an agency that has a program here in Washington sponsored by the National Park Service, but not if it's going to teach people how to lead protests and sit-ins, not on the government dime. You can do all of these, but not subsidized by government funding. And that's what should be specified, that those type of activities should be beyond the opportunity and beyond the appropriation and beyond the concept of this program. That is what should have been in the bill. And had we done that, we would also all be singing Kumbaya or anything else that you want to with that. But this bill, as I said before, is somewhat of a metaphor for everything that we have been doing for a large part of this session. It's simply, once again, a bill that there were assurances made in the committee that amendments would be applied to this bill. For whatever reason, they are not. Instead, we are standing up here protesting a bill which should have been and could have been a great piece of legislation to move us forward towards a common goal, but for whatever reason it was not allowed to be written in that form. We are standing here on a bill that actually presents itself with a visual of why we need systemic change in this body. If the vast majority of Members were here on the floor to hear what these arguments are, I think they would say, yes, this is a logical limitation, it should be there. But as you look around, the vast majority of Members are not on this floor right now. So far too often we do things in a vacuum of understanding, which is why this body needs systemic change in the process that we use to reach conclusions. Nothing, nothing more than the changes, nothing more than the process we are going through this weekend, reeks of the need for some kind of systemic change. Because if we did that systemic change and the expectation were the people were here to listen to the debate, they were there in the committees to hear the testimony, there were there in the committees to be part of the markup process, I am still convinced that we could have a better product and a bipartisan product. But the process does not encourage that. The process encourages the exact opposite. We have a process that has evolved in the wrong direction, and if anything else, this weekend should show that we need systemic change in the process. This bill, this program, is still a decent program. And with some limitations on the amount of spending, some review on a regular period, and some limitations on what the product will be, what the kids will be working on as they go through these internships, we could have a very, very good positive program. And I hope before this bill actually goes all the way through the system, those kinds of limitations are put back in the bill so we can have something of which we can actually be proud. I urge defeat of this bill until those changes are made. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will reserve.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Arizona, my good friend, wrong on all the issues, but still a great guy, if he has any other speakers?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to a fine American, Ed Pace, on an occasion when he and his business have received the International Circle of Excellence Award for 2009. His business, Lake City Trucks, is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has grown from two locations to one of the largest International truck dealers in North America today. His entrepreneurial leadership has helped Lake City Trucks to expand to 11 locations across three states with 305 employees in Utah, Idaho and Oregon. Ed began his career with International Harvester in 1971 and served in several capacities before purchasing his first International dealership in 1991. Ed has achieved recognition through many years of hard work and service to his industry and community. As an industry leader, Ed has held numerous positions of responsibility in organizations, including former chairman of the International Dealer Council and former co-chair of the International Dealer Development and Systems Board. He is active in his community, where he supports a variety of charities, including the Barth Syndrome Foundation, the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Utah and Idaho, Toys for Tots, the Christmas Tree Auction and the Food Banks of Utah and Idaho. Through his commitment to hard work and outstanding customer service, he has built an economically vital business of which he can be justly proud. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join with me in congratulating Ed Pace for his record of accomplishment and for his many contributions to his community, state and nation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to criticize a bill that is still being put together behind closed doors. But we do know that it is more about consolidation of power in Washington than about real health reform for the American people. We also know that a poor process always equals poor public policy, and the procedural shenanigans being proposed by the Speaker and Democratic leaders to slip this past the American people make all of Lucy Ricardo's schemes to be a part of Ricky's show look like clear and logical plans of action. This also would be a comedy if it wasn't such a tragedy for the American people. Madam Speaker, my State has already instituted real health care solutions that deal with our demographics and give people options in the State of Utah. All of our efforts will be destroyed if this one- size-fits-all, trillion-dollar tragedy is actually passed here on the House floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, you know, we, as Americans, have a responsibility to protect our environment and to protect our homeland, and unfortunately we are failing at both. Our border patrol has done a wonderful job in the urban areas of this country; however, in rural areas, where the United States Federal Government owns about 40 percent of the land from California to Texas, we seem to not be doing quite as well, and that now becomes the prime area where evil groups like drug cartels and human traffickers and potential terrorists are now entering into this country. The rules, the regulations, and our interpretations of the law are prohibiting our Border Patrol from actually fulfilling their functions. We have gaps, not only gaps in the fence, but gaps in our virtual fence, gaps in our monitoring that allow these groups to have open access--drug cartels, human trafficking cartels, potential terrorists-- undetected and unfettered into this country. Secretary Salazar is currently at the border. On Saturday, he will be at the Chris Eggle Visitors Center. Chris Eggle is a Border Patrol agent who was shot and killed in the line of duty at Oregon Pipe National Monument back in August of 2002. He was pursuing a drug cartel hit squad who had fled across these open areas into the United States after committing a string of murders in Mexico. These people we are talking about who are illegally coming into this country are those who are bringing massive amounts of illegal drugs into this country, who are involved in human trafficking--illegally coming into this country--who are involved in unthinkable acts of aggression, and especially violence against women. We have wilderness law protection that is supposedly there to protect the sanctity of the land; unfortunately, in some of our laws or interpretation of those laws about wilderness area we are actually opening up this land to some of those evil people who are coming across. And in so doing, they are destroying the wilderness characteristics we are trying to protect. What it means is that we are destroying that which we wish to protect. Therefore, I am asking Secretary Salazar for four items in his visit when he sees firsthand the problems we have on our southern border. Number one, I am asking him to end the Department of the Interior's requirement that the Department of Homeland Security must negotiate access and seek permission before entering onto Interior lands to enforce the law and secure the border. Two, I want him to acknowledge that Department of the Interior policies have contributed to severe environmental damage and destruction by hampering Homeland Security from fulfilling their job to stop organized crime, drug and human traffickers, and potential terrorists from crossing the border through protected natural areas. Three, I want him to stop impeding Border Patrol access to public lands, including wilderness areas, for the purpose of siting and building electronic surveillance. And, four, I want to end the Department of the Interior's practice of extorting mitigation funds from Homeland Security. Money appropriated for border security should only be spent on making our borders secure, not diverted to unrelated Interior spending projects. To secure our borders, we must do so to stop the evils of drug traffic, human trafficking, and potential terrorism. Common sense tells us that should be our goal; common sense tells us we should agree to that particular goal.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And environment. I think at some time, Ms. Garver needs to explain what she meant, as this is the priority of NASA now when, in reality, this should have been the priority of NASA. And once again, if you have those goals, I think it makes sense to take away the program that everyone who knows what they are talking about says is clearly the best innovation we have and the only way of supplanting the space shuttle with safe vehicle mechanisms for the future and for manned space flight. But once again, if your goals are to eliminate anything that deals with the traditional role of NASA, then perhaps those goals aren't significant whatsoever. I have one last area, and if the gentleman from Texas has time, I would like to go into that or I could wait if you would like to.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would just like to echo what you have said in all of these particular areas. It is important that we move forward. I think it is common sense that we do not cede space to the Russians and the Chinese. The United States has been a leader in this area. It has been very productive for us. We ought to ensure that our goal is to be number one and to continue to be a leader. Having our astronauts standing on the edge of space trying to catch a Russian taxi where the meter will say $51 million as soon as they sit down is not the way America becomes a leader in this particular world. We have the ability to do the right thing. It is planned. We need to follow through with the original plan and not change courses right now to an experiment that is unproven and has a history of failure. I appreciate the gentleman for allowing me to join him tonight. This is an important issue for all of us, and it is important for America's future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To my understanding, that has not taken place because those other commercial endeavors are not far enough along in their testing and their success pattern to be to that stage. Once again, it goes back to why we should keep Constellation. It was designed to have that factor of safety. That was the purpose for its design. That is its simplicity. For example, there has to be a way of escaping. That is the Orion capsule, where people will be kept. It has to have an escape process. None of the other commercial ventures have any kind of plan or design for that component yet, and it is a long, long way away.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is not wise for us to take our 30,000 best scientists and engineers and give them pink slips. One thing you said as well, when John Kennedy gave us the challenge to go to the Moon, those people who started to study engineering, science, and math, it skyrocketed because there was a challenge. There was a mission there. NASA is talking about all kinds of programs to encourage kids to get excited about space with their summer school programs. They instituted a new computer simulation game so students could pretend to go up to the space shuttle. I am contending to you, it is cruel to excite these kids about this future when you give them no realistic way of exercising that dream because we have stopped the mechanism of doing it. Once again, as we should have learned out of Columbia, we have to put safety first. This program is not. And secondly, we have to have a clear goal. If we don't do those two things, we are courting another disaster. This plan of certain NASA administrators is courting another national disaster.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If you would yield, I will try to come up with that because, indeed, the deputy administrator of NASA said that she did have consultations. But one she said she consulted is the very same person who said that if it's allowed to erode, it would be difficult to rebuild. I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and we had the opportunity to question Secretary Gates when he came in. I asked if there was any consultation. He said no. I asked the same thing of the Air Force chief, if they had had any consultation. His response was over this entire issue--and I added the Minuteman III issue as well--We recognize not just the Minuteman challenge going forth but a broader industrial base issue which we're going to have to wrestle with this year. So we do not right now have a long-term solution to that in hand, which means that the Defense Department was caught unaware. There was no communication between NASA and Defense. If, indeed, there was, then clearly NASA was not listening to what was being told to them because we have had a year of comment from the Defense Department and from the Pentagon, saying that this is a significant issue, that if, indeed, North Korea and Iran have a greater capacity than we think, and you've destroy the industrial base, we do not have the capacity to react to it and defend this country. Now, what we are simply doing in this program is not just dismantling our manned space mission. We're not just losing the ability to go up to the Moon and beyond. We are also destroying our defense capability at the same time, and that is a consequence of this rash and naive proposal that has to be fully explored, and this Congress needs to address because it is the future of this country. This NASA opinion, in my estimation, is nothing more than managing America's decline in the world, and that is not the role we should be doing. That is not the purpose of this country. That's not the purpose of this Congress. This Congress needs to make the clear statement that NASA is going on the wrong approach. It has to have a proper goal for its mission. It has to properly fund its goal for its mission. This, the Constellation, is the solution to the space shuttle and beyond.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Please.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try one last thing. We talk a lot about the industrial base. It's a term that maybe not a lot of people understand. As I define the industrial base, I simply want to say that the kinds of people, the kinds of jobs that put a man on a rocket and shoot him to the Moon are the same kinds of people and the same kinds of jobs that build our missile defense against those who wish to attack this country. That is our industrial base. Last year, this country engaged in some significant--and I think unwise--decreases in our military missile defense system, and it had the effect of putting our industrial base in disarray. However, if now NASA goes through with this, I think, unwise and naive approach of canceling Constellation, it is going to destroy that industrial base, which means not only will you not have the ability of putting a man in space very quickly with a program that works. If, indeed, our projections of the threat of countries like North Korea and Iran are underestimated, we will have no capacity to ramp up for a missile defense future. Now, what that simply means is--and the Pentagon has recognized this--last year, three different reports came to us. In April of last year, the Defense Department report to Congress on the solid rocket motor industrial base said, If there was a delay in Constellation, it would have a negative impact on our defense system. Next month after that, there was another report. This time the solid rocket motor capabilities report to Congress in June which had a different conclusion. This report said, If there was a delay in Constellation, there would be a significant negative impact on the military capabilities of this country. Later, the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Acquisitions sent us a letter in which he simply said that the technological base in the world is not a birthright which means several years ago the Air Force dropped all of its military missile plants to build these projects. We are relying on the private sector, and it's into the birthright. It's about certain kinds of jobs, very rare kinds of skills that are not easily replicated in the commercial world. And if we allow them to erode, it would be difficult to rebuild.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me some time on this significant issue. I have read some of the comments that have been made in the past, saying, You're a conservative. NASA is saying in this new budget that they want to commercialize and privatize the program. Why aren't you supporting that? I have to admit, I think it comes down to an issue of semantics. When I think of privatization, I make three assumptions: It will cost the taxpayer less money, there will be a smaller government force in use, and there will be a better product. I think, as the gentleman from Texas would agree with me, this plan that NASA has put forward doesn't do any of those. Indeed, it costs more for a NASA budget. It increases the cost that the taxpayer will be spending on NASA. There are no Federal jobs that will be eliminated, only private-sector jobs, to the tune of about 30,000 jobs nationwide of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, those kinds of jobs that we don't really want to lose and we're trying to encourage young students to go into, and there is not a better product. As the gentleman from Texas said, it was ironic that the other day the Constellation Program passed their predesign review, which means after expensive engineering and technical checks, they passed everything. There is nothing technologically wrong with Constellation. It is ready to go forward. Ironically enough, on that very same day, one of the alternatives that the NASA administration would like us to fund was having a test on their engine, and it was a total failure. Ironically, NASA didn't publicize either of those events--the engine failure or the complete success in the predesign and review of Constellation. So let me just spend a moment and talk about these commercial startup enterprises that NASA administrators are telling us they want to transfer all American taxpayer moneys into going into this direction. These are programs like Rocketplane Kistler, which after a 14-month review or alliance with NASA, was terminated because it failed to meet any of its goals. Or, SpaceX, which over 8 years working with NASA and being funded by taxpayer money, has had a 40 percent success rate. The Falcon 9 was supposed to be ready for flight in 2009. It's not there yet. It is now scheduled for sometime in 2010, but that was the engine failure that I talked about that happened this very week. They are behind. They have already received $158 million of tax money, but obligations of NASA run in the multibillions of dollars. Orbital, another of those companies, is 7 months late on all of their assignments, which means if you actually look in the proposed budget, there is $312 million assigned to a category called: Additional incentives for commercial cargo providers. If you want to take the spin off of it, it's a bailout for these companies who are not meeting their deadlines, who are not providing the product. After $600 million to these kind of companies, NASA can clearly say they have no hardware to show for it. They have no services that have been delivered with it. There are no intellectual property rights. And this is what certain administrators within NASA call the ``bold new direction for this country.'' It is ludicrous. When the Columbia accident occurred--and was a tragic event all of us mourned--there was an intense study to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it. And they came up with two goals: that if there is an entity that's going to be successful, they have to first have a clear goal of what their mission is. And second, they have to have an ultimate emphasis on safety. Let me talk about safety for just a moment, because the Bowman report, as much as we may not like it, clearly said the Federal Government's supervision in this area produces a safer project. But in that report as well there was a mandatory report given by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel after that Columbia accident. In the report in 2008, in which the current chairman--General Bolden was a member--as well as this year's report, at no time were they supportive of making entrepreneurial commercial options the primary means of U.S. human spaceflight. So what were they supportive of? Well, Constellation. Time magazine this year--actually I'm sorry, the end of last year--came up with their 50 Great Inventions of the Year. And what was the invention they rated number one? Ares, the Ares rocket which is part of the Constellation program. That's what they did. In the official report to NASA, it says, The simplicity of the Ares design makes the mature Ares 1 clearly superior to all other vehicles no matter what choice of qualification method. Even accounting for error bars on method and model inputs, Ares 1 is superior to all other options with more than a 90 percent confidence. In short, results suggest that the Ares 1 launch vehicle is clearly the safest launch vehicle option and the only one that can meet the goal post-Columbia of having a launch vehicle that was 100 times safer than the space shuttle which it was designed to replace. What they are doing, simply, is Constellation is meeting the goals. Now, once again, the goals are somewhat nebulous. If you don't have a goal, almost anything you appropriate can meet your goal. And I am suggesting that the NASA administrators right now do not have a clear goal. Deputy Administrator Garver gave a speech today over in Maryland in which she said that the President's budget should be approved by Congress because it will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation. And those priorities, these key national priorities that I am referring to are: economic development, ending poverty, hunger and creating jobs; international leadership in geopolitics, or world peace; education; and environment. Now, I hate to say anything, but in 1958 when NASA was started, their goal was to--and I will quote, Provide for research into problems of flight within and outside Earth's atmosphere and to ensure that the United States conducts activities in space devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of humankind. Nearly 50 years later, NASA proudly pledges to redefine what is possible for the benefit of all humankind by using NASA's unique competencies in scientific and engineering systems to fulfill the agency's purpose, to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, NASA recently announced and unveiled a new interactive computer simulation that allows kids to pretend to be going to the space station, the Moon, Mars and beyond. They said it would excite young people. Sometimes, though, our new NASA administrators are too shy. What they failed to announce is that also the preliminary design review on Constellation was finished successfully, which means that after exhaustive scientific and technical review, there are no technical issues that can stop Constellation from doing that for which it was designed, to replace the space shuttle with a flight capacity that is 10 times safer than the space shuttle. You see, Madam Speaker, it is nice to come up with computer games to inspire kids, but it is also cruel to stop the only programs that can make those dreams a reality. There is nothing technically that can stop Constellation from fulfilling its mission, except politics. Thanks, NASA.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I've actually been trying to think of a lot of metaphors here, and I don't think any of them really work terribly well. Except I do remember one time when my oldest kid was about 3 or 4. He had been given a candy bar and was supposed to participate in a program, and he didn't want to go up and join the other kids in the program. So I took his candy bar away. I said, If you go up there and perform, I'll give you a candy bar. Of course, he was dumb enough to accept that, and he waddled right up there and did the program, and I gave him his candy bar back. I hope that people don't think, just by giving me my candy bar back, I'm going to buy this program, because the program hasn't changed. It is still fundamentally flawed. A reporter just asked me, Don't you think these bills should have an up-down vote? Well, here in the House, everything is an up-down vote. Also, the bills that have been introduced by Representative Shadegg and by Representative Price have a different approach to solving the problem and to reforming our system, which is based on giving power to the people so that people can make choices. Representative Akin, I think they deserve an up-down vote in this body as well. Instead, they have been prohibited from even being discussed in committee or on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could maybe add to that, because I think you have hit on one of the things I think is essential if we are really going to reform the health care system, because we do have two problems. One is people being covered by insurance, but the second one is the overall cost of the system. If you don't address both of those problems, you haven't really done a good health reform.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Coverage of individuals, being covered and having the costs overall. Because even if you have insurance, it still is very expensive, and the costs keep going up. So we have to deal with both of them. A key element, a crucial element that everyone within the medical community will tell you, is if we don't do cost reform dealing with tort issues, if we don't deal with the massive amount of litigation that forces doctors to do more and more procedures just so they are covered just in case someone decides to sue them, we will never actually get a handle on the costs of health care that keep going up. Once again, the President has said in past speeches he is willing to look at that. But in one of the four proposals he seemed to add as a sweetener to this deal, it was not to actually have malpractice resolutions, but simply to study alternative malpractice resolutions. Now, that ain't it. A study, we have been doing that for a long time. We know what the problem is.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So adding that as something to improve the system doesn't improve the system at all. It is nothing. What we need to do is actually implement those. And you are right. Once again, even my home State, the legislature once again is addressing on a State issue that concept of tort reform and litigation limitations. It is essential, and we need to do that. That is one of the issues on which I think both parties could easily come together and make a resolution, if we were allowed to discuss real litigation reform. But, once again, that is not on the table. That is not discussable on the floor, if ``discussable'' is a word, which it probably isn't.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would be very hesitant to try and ascribe any motives as to why things happened the way they did. What we do know is, historically, when major changes of policy have taken place, even when they have been hotly debated, even sometimes when cloture has been approached over in the Senate, the final product has had a lot of majority and minority votes coming together. It was not this divisive of an issue that was trying to be pushed through in, once again, a very partisan and divisive way. I think you are right. What Republicans are saying is there are other ideas that still have to be out there, and what is more important for us is to do the system and do the reform the right way the first time. It is very difficult once something is established to go back and fix it. It is best to do it right the first time, and we are not doing that here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could get the gentleman to yield for just one second.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think you're absolutely right, and I think that's one of the reasons a lot of people have changed their opinions. A lot of people have grave concerns about this type of a program, a one-size-fits-all, Washington-based program. I've also had some other people calling me, a lot of people with grave concerns and with a great deal of anger over everything that's going on. There are some who have simply asked, ``Why can't you just sit down and compromise? Why can't you work things out?'' I think I join with you in saying I am more than happy to sit down and work with anybody who will work with me. The bottom line is we have not been allowed to work together, which is why I was saying earlier to let those other ideas, the other bills, have an up-down vote as well. Bring them to the floor and allow a true debate on all ideas. Don't siphon the ideas down to what is allowable by the leaders of Congress. Allow us to actually work together. As I think you intimated, there are some things, certain provisions, on which both Republicans and Democrats do agree. Let them stand by themselves and see what we can actually accomplish without taking an idea on which we basically all agree and then adding 10 or 15 bad ideas on which we fundamentally disagree and saying, Okay, it's take it or leave it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I think the gentleman has also brought the other chart down here, which you probably used earlier, which is how the system would be structured. Now, when the first bill was presented by our good friends on the other side, that was the structure. I hate to say this. Over all the times we've just discussed it, that typical Washington approach of convoluted, complex patterns and about people making decisions hasn't changed at all. As we have come through and have supposedly come up with this new idea that has a few tweaks from the Republican side, there has been no compromise on the basic problem, which is that structure.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Put those ideas on the floor, and let all of those ideas be fully debated in front of the American people. Give an up-down vote on every idea that's out there. Just perhaps, just perhaps, we will find that there is a needed reform to our health care system that actually meets the needs of the American people, that does not cost them out of existence, that does not cut jobs, and that does not move power away from the people back here to Washington. It allows people and their doctors to chart their own futures. I have said it a couple of times when I've talked to you on the floor here on this issue: the State of Utah launched last year a reform of the health care system based on Utah's unique demographics. We have the youngest State in the Nation. Our median age is younger. We also have probably more small businesses which don't provide insurance than in most States. We need something specifically for our need, and we have launched a program that is well designed with fundamentals. It still needs to be tweaked, and it still needs to be worked on, but it is based on our needs and on our demographics. If either the Senate or the House bill, these one-size-fits-all programs, were to pass in any form, it would totally destroy what the State is trying to accomplish. We are not the only ones with brilliance here. We are not the only ones who care about people. We should be partnering with States to come up with new and creative ideas to meet the individual needs of our people in their individual areas, and we flat out are not allowing that to take place.