Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Yes. I would simply suggest to the leaders of our Congress and to the President, instead of saying, If you have ideas, give them to me, and I'll make a choice on whether they're good or not, put the ideas on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate being able to join the gentleman from Missouri here, and I appreciate his efforts so far in explaining the differences in these particular bills. I want to echo that I agree with you that we are in a precarious situation. There are those who would tell us that the most important thing we could do right now is to pass something. A lot of bad pieces of legislation and policy changes have happened when we have simply passed something that was there. Our goal on this particular issue should be to pass the right type of reform, not just something. Until we get the right type of reform, we should never actually quit looking to form a way that is best in providing options and choices to the American people. I am assuming, when you started, that you talked about some of the four supposed, alleged, Republican proposals that were added today. You know, when I first saw that, I thought somebody was pulling my leg. It was a joke. I find it ludicrous and somewhat insulting to the American people that there are actually those who believe, if you take a $1 trillion program which transfers power from the American people to bureaucrats in Washington, by adding more spending for a few studies and for a few small, little tweaks here and there, that that's actually better and that that's going to buy people's support. I think one of the things, maybe, we have done too long in both Houses of this Chamber, perhaps with both parties, is we've spoken too long about it. We've been giving speech after speech as if that's going to convince Americans to go along with this program. What we should do now is listen to the reasons Americans have complaints about the core program that is before us. I appreciate what you're doing up there. You're going through some of the core problems in this particular bill--that a few little add-ons, which cost even more money, are not going to sell this core problem issue. If I could say just one more thing--go ahead.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could add just one element to that concept of $250,000, because I agree with you, if $250,000 was a salaried employee, that's pretty good money. The only problem is, in all of these equations it applies to the business world as well, in which almost every small businessman is grossing at least $250,000. I know in my district--once again, I said Utah has more small businesses on average than most States do. And in my district, almost 98 percent of those, according to the IRS, will have a bottom line that's above $250,000. So it means the taxes that are imposed are also imposed to the business community. It's one of the reasons why the State of Utah, when they looked at a reform for health care in the State of Utah, tried to come up with a policy that would give a consistent number to small business so they knew how to plan for what the health care cost would be and can come up with a defined contribution level they could give their employees, who could then go to the exchange and buy something that fits into what they need. But that consistency is extremely important. It's very difficult for small business to provide health care for their employees when they don't know what the escalating and skyrocketing, almost roller coaster costs, will be to them. They cannot plan for that so they basically don't do it at all. And if indeed we add a tax to them at this stage of the game, that means we are making it even harder for the business community to recover, to provide jobs, to grow our economy, and to get people working again. That's why when we say this thing hurts job performance, that's why it hurts job performance. It can be devastating to job creation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. At times we have talked in the past about this concept of constitutionality in two ways. One, that it violates the concepts of federalism. But the second one deals with specifically the commerce clause. I think that's been brought to our attention before. That even in court cases, and maybe somebody will correct me here when it's his turn, in court cases there are usually two principles that are involved on whether the commerce clause is justifiably used. One: Does it have an impact on interstate commerce? I think everybody admits this would have an impact on interstate commerce. But the second is: Is there a willing participant in this program? This is why this is different, because for the first time you are threatening to fine people, throw them in jail, for not doing anything. For doing nothing. I don't know how many negatives I put in those sentences. But for someone just living their life who does not want to participate, they will now be fined for doing that. The government has never done that. And that is what I think exacerbates and expands the commerce clause beyond recognition and beyond fairness to individuals at the same time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman from Missouri also has those last two points on your chart, which reemphasizes the very statements that you were just making.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That means there will be an extended cost of doing business associated with this particular plan. Even though when we say anyone making over $250,000 will not be taxed, it will be taxed. Once again, if that was simply a salaried employee--a salaried employee--that sounds pretty good. But that covers almost all the businesses we have who are small in this country, and large as well. Once again, it does go to the point we tried to make a little bit earlier. The Shadegg bill, the Price bill, the other Republicans' bills that should have been allowed to be debated, they don't have any of those provisions. So that negative anti-job aspect that is definitely a part of this bill if it's pushed through does not necessarily have to be there if you simply allowed the other ideas to be debated, discussed openly here on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think it is well to reemphasize that fact that not everyone will get what they want in this particular program. I was told that once again today, the President, in his remarks, said, if you like your plan, you keep your plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Now, if that line sounds familiar, it is because it was a staple in the rhetoric for all of last year, with a couple of problems. I have been told that media outlets like the Associated Press and ABC News debunked that claim, showing that that cacophony of programs and lines going through, that that simply was not the case. And the White House then said, well, we are not taking that line literally, and eventually it was removed. It is coming back now, but it still is not accurate. The problem is, if you like what you have, you may not end up keeping what you like. You may end up being told what to do, which is the problem every time when you try and transfer power from individuals back to Washington to tell us what is best for us. We sometimes may not agree. And that is the sad part. That is the fundamental problem that a few tweaks around the edges can't solve. But that is a significant problem. And I think the gentleman from Missouri hit the nail on the head when he said this is one of those fundamental issues, which is why this program should not be forced through, but you should back up and start again with something that doesn't have that premise of Washington being empowered to tell us how we will live our lives. There are 8,000 State legislators out there, all of whom are bright, all of whom can come up with programs for their States. Allow the States to be the laboratory of democracy that Louis Brandeis used to talk about. We can do better. We can do better. This is not good enough for us to force through, just so we can say we did something. There is a better approach to it. I yield back.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I can add a follow-up question to that, in the law that is proposed to be passed, either the House or the Senate version, does it allow me to maintain my insurance in the present form if I want to maintain that insurance in the present form?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas not only for his insights he is going to present on this particular bill, but you have a special talent that I think the gentleman from Missouri and I did not have a little bit earlier in this with a legal background. First of all, I appreciate you bringing up the fact that there is bipartisanship in their concern for this particular bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I also appreciate the fact that sometimes we present arguments and I need to have a specific legal expert explaining them to me. We talked a little bit earlier about the fact that apparently in his speech today, the President once again said, If you like your plan you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. That if you are on an insurance company right now and you are happy with that, it will not change. And maybe I can ask you now as an attorney, as someone who reads this stuff for a living and tries to understand the gobbledygook that we always pass, if you can tell me if that is really accurate. Is it indeed the fact that if you like your plan you will be able to stay on that plan? And insurers who have private insurance plans will be able to maintain that commitment to people if either the Senate or the House version were to pass?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sylvia Prothro Hebert of Park City. Sylvia has been selected as a 2009 Great Comebacks Recipient for the West Region. This program honors annually a group of individuals who are living with intestinal diseases or recovering from ostomy surgery. At age 9, Sylvia Prothro Hebert was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. At first Sylvia managed her symptoms with medication but flare-ups became a constant companion during college. Her weight dropped to 89 pounds, teeth loosened and hair fell out. At age 21, her intestines were punctured during a colonoscopy and she underwent ostomy surgery. ``I awoke with this `thing' on my side and was in shock--I thought my life was over,'' says Sylvia. Since her diagnosis, Sylvia has triumphed over her illness, soaring to new heights to fulfill her dream of becoming a flight attendant--and by her records--the first Delta flight attendant with an ileostomy! Today, Sylvia, 42, lives in Park City, UT with her husband Paul and their children, Reese, 5, Garrett, 3\1/2\, Renee, 1\1/2\. In addition to skiing, Sylvia has completed two half-marathons and a triathlon. ``I feel healthier and happier than I've ever felt in my life,'' says Sylvia. ``Ostomy surgery gave me freedom to do things I wanted--it's great to be alive.'' I would like to congratulate Sylvia on her recent recognition as a 2009 Great Comebacks recipient.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida and what he's saying. I think we're saying the same thing. There are some core responsibilities the government would have to do, and the government has promised that they would do these. And the people working on the NASA side are the same kinds of people we need on the defense side. And one would think, as Mr. Hensarling showed the amount of money that's being thrown around in this particular budget, with all that, with $3.8 trillion, you could at least cover the needs, at least cover what we have to do.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I think you are exactly right, and that's why, with all due respect, this is like a double disappointment to me. Not only are we spending too much and taxing too much, but we are not spending it in the right place.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That program got more funding in the stimulus bill that was passed last year than it would take to carry on with this program moving forward.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Both of those are core responsibilities of the government and one that this administration has decided to cut. And it's not necessarily that they are companies that are making these-- there's actually two companies in America that do make those motors; one hasn't made any in a couple of decades. But it is people that do it. When you cut these programs--when you cut the missile defense last year and you cut this rocket program this year, the people with the expertise that we need to build the defense of this country are going to be gone. They're either going to find another job or, unfortunately, they're going to go on unemployment so we can pay them for not doing their jobs that we need to defend us. This is one of the travesties of this particular budget. And it would be okay with me, perhaps, if they had come up with a new plan, a new role for NASA, something they are going to move us forward with, but they did not. All they did is simply cut the program, throw people out of work--if it goes through, I should say. We still have the right to say what it is. But this budget would cut the program, throw people out of work and, more importantly, fail for us to defend this country, which is our constitutional responsibility. It would fail to allow this country to move forward in space exploration and in defense because the industrial base of this country would be gone. The acquisition guys over in the Pentagon understand it. They say it's not necessarily about jobs, it's about the kinds of jobs. And therefore it is important for the future of this country to have the right kinds of jobs in the industrial base. And it's not simply a spigot you can turn on when once again we decide, oops, maybe we had the wrong idea and we need more missiles to defend us against the Iranians and the North Koreans and who knows what else might be out there. You can't just pick it up again. If you lose the capability, you lose the capability. And, I'm sorry, in this budget we lose the capability we need to defend this country. It's not just about the amount of money. It's about where we put our priorities and do we do what we need to do first and then cover the wants. I'm sorry; we're paying a lot of money for a lot of wants. Let me give you a simple example. If you took what we spent in the stimulus last year for ACORN alone, you could fund this program again and still have close to $2 billion left over.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could ask the gentleman from Missouri, because I appreciate you said the key word of ``priorities.'' Before we actually deal with our priorities, we have to look at what is in this budget and what isn't in this budget, and I think what the gentleman from Texas is going to show is we could have done better for the American people in this proposed budget, and we must. The status quo is not acceptable. The way we've been doing things is not acceptable. There has to be a better alternative. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Well, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. Yes, this presents a particularly interesting conundrum that we do have here. The President has talked about how our most important element is to create jobs. And it is. For our people we need jobs. I recognize, though, that much of what we have in this budget that you have already mentioned does not create jobs. It actually has a stifling impact on jobs. Some things, though, in which jobs are our responsibility, we also have put a stifling influence just on the decisions we make. This budget is $3.8 trillion. That's a whole lot of money. It's $1.6 trillion more than we have. That's a whole lot of money that's going to go there. And in every one of the budgets that takes place it's about choices. In our own families we do the same thing. We have certain things we want and certain things we need. My problem with this budget right now, specifically in the areas that I am deeply concerned, is that we have a lot of stuff in here that we want that's being funded and a lot of things that we need that is not being funded. One of the few constitutional responsibilities we have in this country is defense. Last year, you and I were down here with others very frequently talking about missile defense. It is essential for this country. We cut missile defense. Once again, it was about prioritization. I think and I believe you thought we put our priorities in the wrong place. And you don't build a missile without people. When we cut our missile defense program, we took jobs away. Unfortunately, in this particular budget, once again we go after another kind of missile program and have decided to take it out. What it simply means is this budget decides to go after NASA and take away the Constellation program and specifically the Ares 1 rocket. Now I hate to say this, but Time magazine determined what were the Fifty Best Inventions of the Year. And the number one invention was the Ares rocket. This is our process to replace the space shuttle. This is how we are moving into space exploration in the future. I hate to say this. I think space exploration is one of the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. But in taking this out what you are doing is cutting 7,000 jobs nationwide of people involved in space, engineering, math, and science, which--once again, the President wants to encourage kids to study and to go into engineering, science, and math, but we don't have any responsibility of trying to encourage that on the real side. And where the problem comes is the people that make the motors for these rockets make the motors for our missiles.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In defense.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, consistent with the Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure information regarding project funding I had requested and which was included within the Joint Explanatory Statement of Managers to accompany the Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3326, the Defense Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2010, which is commonly referred to as the Defense Appropriations Conference Report for Fiscal Year 2010 (even though no formal conference was held). To the best of my knowledge, these requests: (1) are not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) are not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark; and (3) meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable. I further certify that neither my spouse, nor I, have any personal financial interests in these requests. Project Title: Senior Scout, Electro-Optical Infrared Capability Amount: $4.8 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army Aircraft Procurement Address of Requesting Entity: Utah Air National Guard, 169th Intelligence Squadron, and Lockheed-Martin, 7563 South 4470 West, West Jordan, Utah 84084. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would provide for infra-red imaging capabilities for better all-condition imagery of high-value intelligence target identification and location functions. Project Title: Senior Scout, Line of Sight Datalink Amount: $2.4 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army Aircraft Procurement Address of Requesting Entity: Utah Air National Guard, 169th Intelligence Squadron, and Lockheed-Martin, 7563 South 4470 West, West Jordan, Utah 84084. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would upgrade the Senior Scout platform by incorporating line-of-sight equipment, antenna systems, and infrastructure components for increased data processing and dissemination capacity to meet greatly increasing military mission demands. Project Title: Senior Scout, Remote Operations Capability Amount: $2.4 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army Aircraft Procurement Address of Requesting Entity: Utah Air National Guard, 169th Intelligence Squadron, and Lockheed-Martin, 7563 South 4470 West, West Jordan, Utah 84084. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would upgrade the Senior Scout intelligence platform by upgrading the remote data processing functionality, improving processing times and dissemination of crucial time-sensitive intelligence to end-users. Project Title: Automated Composite Technologies and Manufacturing Center Amount: $9.6 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Defense Production Act Purchases Address of Requesting Entity: ATK, Inc., Freeport Center Building H- 8, Clearfield, Utah 84016. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would be used in partnership with the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, to continue multi-year effort to develop high tech cutting-edge carbon fiber placement and equipment in support of Air Force aviation platforms and weapons systems, leading to better technical competence within the government depot system in support of these systems. Project Title: Dugway Field Test Improvements Amount: $3.6 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: ITT, Inc., 8262 South 5260 West, South Jordan, Utah 84088. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding will incorporate cutting-edge radar and sensor technology into the capabilities of U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, for use in its vital chemical and biological defense test mission, to allow for more accurate test characterization of biological and chemical threats. Project is in conjunction with the Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University. Project Title: Multiple Source Data Fusion for Dugway Proving Ground Amount: $2 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: ITT, Inc., 8262 South 5260 West, South Jordan, Utah 84088. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding is needed to support the U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground in its unique mission of chemical and biological defense testing, by supporting technology improvements to monitor and analyze chemical and biological stimulants, including development of stand-off referee instrumentation and data fusion methods. Project Title: Precision Strike Munitions Advancement with Integrated Millimeter Wave Power Sources to Satisfy Army Strategic Goals Amount: $3.28 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Innosys, Inc., 2900 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding will be used to develop an integrated millimeter wave amplification portable power system to support autonomous operations of precision strike weaponry, such as micro UAVs and helicopters, providing warfighters with greater and more flexible weapons and tactical surveillance capabilities. Project Title: Transitioning Stretch Broker Carbon Fiber to Production Programs Amount: $3.2 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Hexcell, Inc., 6700 West 5400 South, West Valley City, Utah 84118. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding needed to continue industry efforts to develop advanced carbon fiber technology to allow for the forming of more geometrically complex weapons system and aviation components at the time of manufacture, and also to allow for the development of a Mil-HdBk-17 approved data base, which is necessary for the new technology to be certified for use on current and future defense program production. Project Title: Unserviceable Ammunition Demilitarization via Chemical Dissolution at Tooele Army Depot Amount: $1.6 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Army RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Battelle Memorial Institute, 4225 Lake Park Blvd., Suite 200, West Valley City, Utah 84120. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Project would continue efforts begun in FY09 to design and construct a prototype acid hydrolysis conventional munitions demilitarization process for the disposal of high-risk/high-cost unserviceable and obsolete ammunition stored at Tooele Army Depot, Utah, in a more environmentally responsible manner. Project Title: CAD/CAM Aircraft Structural Overhaul Work Center Amount: $2.5 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Air Force RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Mission Support, Inc., P.O. Box 160135, Freeport Center Building Z-15, Clearfield, Utah 84016. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding will be used to provide computer-aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology in workstations for the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah, for use primarily on legacy aircraft repairs of aviation component parts, such as the A-10 weapon system, increasing parts manufacturing accuracy and reducing repair and overhead costs to the government. Project Title: UAV Sensor and Maintenance Development Center Amount: $3.92 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Air Force RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University, 1695 North Research Park Way, North Logan, Utah 84341. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would provide technical assistance to the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah, in the areas of developing, calibrating, and integrating various sensors and other payloads onto UAV platforms, which will facilitate future R&D development of UAV capability within the military. Project Title: Compliance Tools Development for Metals in Antifouling Paints Amount: $800,000 Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Navy RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Kennecott Copper (Rio Tinto) and International Copper Association, 260 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding would be used to develop environmental modeling software tools to survey site-specific naval installations for buildup of harmful heavy metals in harbor sediments caused by paints and coatings on naval vessels at port. This tool will allow the navy to measure and monitor which coatings are best and most cost-effective for anti-fouling paints (some of which contain copper), and allow the Navy to remain in compliance with environmental standards. Project Title: Tomahawk Cost Reduction Initiative Amount: $3.28 million Requesting Member: Rob Bishop of Utah Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: Navy RDT&E Address of Requesting Entity: Williams International, Inc., 3450 Sam Williams Drive, Ogden, Utah 84401. Matching Funds: None Detailed Spending Plan: Not applicable. Description and Justification of Funding: Funding is needed to incorporate new manufacturing technologies into the Tomahawk production line that will reduce the per-unit costs for future missiles. This funding has a quick pay-back period on this proven ``weapon of choice'' in many conflicts.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me some time. It is with mixed emotions that I speak on this particular bill. This is not the worst bill our committee has ever produced. We have produced some real stinkers that we have hidden in other pieces of legislation. However, it is symbolic of the problem that this administration and leaders of this Congress have. We have a Secretary of the Interior who, every time we wish to use Federal land to actually help improve the lives of Americans or creating jobs, will always yell that we have a process we have to do; we cannot commit a rush to judgment. And now when we have a piece of territory, land that will be taken off the tax rolls in a territory that is in deep financial problems today, this historic cattle ranch is now considered something that we must hustle through the system. We just voted on a bill to solve problems in the wilderness areas of Idaho, which, if we had taken the time to see what was in there instead of rushing to create the most restrictive environment we can on this land in Idaho, we would not have needed the legislation. That is why this administration and this Department of the Interior have said they want to wait until the study is completed and the process is done. If one of the arguments in favor of passing this bill is we don't really know how much land we will ultimately have and how much it will ultimately cost, that is a great argument to wait until the study is done and we figure out how much land we really want to have and how much it will ultimately cost. But it is also symbolic of a deeper problem. This Federal Government already owns 650 million acres of land. One-third of this Nation is owned by the Federal Government. Now think of that. One out of every three acres in this country is owned by the Federal Government. I have had three land transfer bills in the past few years here, and in each case, the land that was controlled by the Federal Government was land they did not need, they did not use, and in every case, they did not even know they had the land until a land title search pointed out that, indeed, it belonged to the Federal Government. At some time you have to say enough is enough. The States with the biggest problem in funding their education system are found in States that have a predominance of public lands. It is a one-to-one relationship between States that have that problem. In my State of Utah, only 18 percent of the State is in private property. The Governor of Utah controls 18 percent. The rest of the State is under the heavy hand of the Secretary of the Interior, and both my adjective and noun are appropriate. One of the issues that we simply have here is we will be hearing that we should have a spending freeze on nondefense and nonentitlement programs, and we will hear that tonight. Does it seem logical that we should spend up and then decide to freeze? Does that indeed solve our problem? As I said before, this particular bill, which will probably cost $50 million, give or take $50 million, this particular bill is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but it is symbolic of the problem that we have, that we do not have a large-scale picture of what this Nation should control, should own, should do, and we are moving in a pell-mell process to try and add more and more acreage to the heavy hand of the Federal Government. And at some time, we should stand up and say enough is enough. One-third of this country owned by the Federal Government is enough. For that reason, we should at least wait until the Department of the Interior has finished their study and the process and they sign off and we actually know how much land and how much cost we are talking.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1030 congratulating Messiah College men's and women's soccer teams on winning the 2009 NCAA Division III national championships. Messiah College is a private Christian college that was founded in 1909 and is located in Grantham, Pennsylvania. Messiah's mission is ``to educate men and women toward maturity of intellect, character, and Christian faith in preparation for lives of service, leadership, and reconciliation in church and society.'' The college's mission reflects its dedication to developing students' character, as well as their intellect. Messiah College offers 60 majors in five different schools and has been ranked as one of the top 10 best colleges for comprehensive bachelor's degrees in the north by U.S. News and World Report. Messiah College obviously boasts an excellent athletic program. Of the 22 intercollegiate athletic teams at Messiah, the men's and women's soccer teams are the college's two most winning teams. The Messiah College Falcons, both their men's and women's soccer teams, won the 2009 NCAA Division III national championship on December 5. This victory was the seventh national championship since 2000 for the men and the third since 2000 for the women. Messiah claimed the third and only men's and women's dual national championships in NCAA history. In the championship games, head coaches Brad McCarty and Scott Frey led the men's and women's soccer teams to a 2-0 victory against Calvin College and a 1-0 victory against Washington University of St. Louis. Jared Clugston was voted the most valuable defense player, and Geoff Pezon won the most valuable offensive title at the tournament. So I congratulate Messiah College, the men's and women's teams, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Resolution 583, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Lester Flatt has made an invaluable contribution to the American art as both a songwriter and a performer, and has left an indelible legacy on bluegrass music. Born in Overton County, Tennessee, in 1914, by age seven he had learned to play the guitar and sang in his church choir. He began entertaining locally and began to pursue a music career when rheumatoid arthritis forced him to quit his job in a local silk mill. As has been stated, he started in 1945 with the Blue Grass Boys, then later with the Foggy Mountain Boys and then finally with the Nashville Grass. He passed away, but his voice and unique bluegrass style will always be remembered. Lester Flatt and the Bluegrass Boys are credited with the introduction of bluegrass music to this Nation. Bluegrass music is a unique form of American roots music and is considered a sub-genre of the country music scene. Bluegrass was especially popular in the rural areas of this country, and it's often referred to as the Kentucky bluegrass after Bill Monroe, who was from Kentucky and a member of the Bluegrass Boys. Bluegrass music is a uniquely American art form and Lester Flatt helped to introduce this music to the Nation. Lester Flatt left an indelible legacy in bluegrass music and in the American art, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. After hearing the eloquence of the gentleman from Tennessee, I'm embarrassed to admit that the only thing I think of, when I hear Lester Flatt's name, I have to think of ``The Beverly Hillbillies.'' But with that, I'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We have no more speakers, so I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on this particular resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Resolution 990, expressing support for the designation of January 2010 as National Mentoring Month, and I am glad we are doing it before it's over. National Mentoring Month celebrates mentors who are positively impacting the lives of people and highlights the need for additional mentors to make themselves available for America's youth. Mentoring is a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support, and encouragement, all aimed at developing the confidence and character of the mentee. A mentor is an adult who, along with parents, provides a young person with support, counsel, friendship, and positive reinforcement. By all estimates, almost 18 million young people--nearly half of the population of young people between the ages of 10 and 18--live in situations that put them at risk of not living up to their potential. Without immediate intervention by caring adults, they can make choices that not only undermine their futures but, ultimately, the economic and social well-being of our Nation. Research shows that formal, high-quality mentoring focused on developing the competence and character of the mentee promotes positive outcomes such as improved academic achievement, self-esteem, career development, and social skills. By honoring mentors and mentoring programs, we recognize the importance of mentoring programs implemented in our local schools and communities. We also draw attention to the components of a quality program, including appropriate screening of potential mentors and careful matching of youth with adults who have a genuine interest in providing guidance and being exemplary role models. Today, thanks to the commitment and dedication of mentoring advocates, 3 million young people are now enjoying mentoring's many benefits through school-based, faith-based, and community organizations. It's a six-fold increase in formal mentoring relationships since the early 1990s. Today we recognize the contribution mentors make to the lives of the Nation's youth. The time adults take to serve as a mentor provides children and young adults with a positive adult example and support system. Adult mentors should be recognized for their contributions and efforts, and, therefore, I urge Members to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.