Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, again, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1029 that expresses support for the designation of the week of February 1 through February 5 2010 as National School Counseling Week, even though that is only 5 days. But I guess that is a school week. School counselors serve as a valuable resource to students across the Nation. School counselors assist students with the transition from secondary education to higher education or the workforce. They help students cope with trauma and difficult family issues, assist students and teachers in dealing with behavioral problems, and they serve as a resource for students dealing with the challenges of becoming adults. School counselors also serve as a resource for parents and educators. They assist parents in communicating with their kids, and provide parents with important information to help their kids transition to higher education or the workforce. They work with teachers and parents to help students explore their potential and set realistic education and career goals. They often serve as a third party to mediate between parent-teacher or student-teacher or parent-student relationships. National School Counseling Week highlights the importance of school counselors and the valuable assistance that they provide students, parents, and teachers. This year's theme is ``Celebrate School Counseling.'' The theme aims to focus public attention on the unique contributions of professional school counselors. I spent far many too years of my life teaching in the public school system. I have known many counselors, and I have appreciated their efforts and have respected their efforts and their goals even as I have harassed them on their particular jobs. With that, I express my sincere gratitude to all school counselors. I recognize their contribution to our Nation's youth. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have no other speakers. Is the gentlelady from California ready to yield back?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Then with that, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill, as introduced by Mr. Simpson of Idaho, would require the Forest Service to issue special use permits to owners of small, existing water systems in two Idaho wilderness areas. And although these water diversions continue to operate, their owners currently lack the authority to maintain or repair these facilities. Failure to maintain or repair these facilities would harm not only the farms and ranches that need to be assured of having access to water that they own to be viable, but also will be important for the Forest Service to maintain the environmental needs and watersheds on these particular Forest Service lands. This bill, H.R. 3538, will allow the owners of the existing water systems to do this necessary maintenance. Let me just say this legislation has been very narrowly tailored to apply to only a small number of sites that are within the wilderness areas and meet a very specific criteria. So to qualify for this bill, they would have to be a water diversion facility that was in existence before the wilderness area was designated. It has to be continuously used since the wilderness area was designated. The owners have to have a valid water right under Idaho law that predated the wilderness designation, and the sites only can be covered in this bill if there is no other alternative than to continue the use of these facilities within the wilderness designation. And so it is beneficial not only to the Forest Service but to these private property owners individually for the water rights that they have recognized that are valid. Let me say that this bill illustrates one of the problems that we here in Congress have. Wilderness designation is the most inflexible and restrictive of any of the land use weapons that are at our disposal and in our arsenal. Too often we find after the fact of that designation that there are simple activities that are denied because of that designation that should not have been there in the first place. We ought to be wise enough to devise a conservation practice for our lands without creating unintended consequences to neighboring families that were poorly thought out when the designation was originally made. There is no reason we cannot be both good stewards and good neighbors. This shows one of the problems we have when we rush into designation of land without doing a thorough understanding of what the consequences of that designation of land will be. I understand also there was another change in this particular bill. And although I stand, as I did on the other, to support it, I want to make public that we do not approve of the change that was made in that bill. Just as in the DeFazio bill, the word ``shall'' would have made it a better bill, and it should have remained, and that was the concept that the committee voted, so in this bill the word ``shall'' was changed to more permissive language after the committee voted on the bill. That ``shall'' should have been in here, which would have been the better language for this particular piece of legislation. Even though I support the bill with the change, that change was done in a poor process. That change should have been done before the committee actually allowed this bill to leave their jurisdiction. And in all sincerity, the mandate would be the appropriate policy we as Congress should have insisted upon. So I am not happy with that particular change, but I still support the bill because overwhelmingly it does a great deal of good in areas where otherwise there would be a great deal of harm done by the unexpected consequences of some rash action many years before. So I support this bill as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Sadly, neither do I. So at this time, I will simply go forward and say that we still support it. We still think this bill could have been done better. We are still very curious on why the Senate bill was not being pushed forward, but we support the purpose and the goals of this particular piece of legislation, and we will be very happy to support it here on the floor as well. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very complete and thorough analysis that the gentlelady from Guam did on this particular bill. It was well done. I will ask at this time if the gentlelady from Guam has any more speakers for this particular bill.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I rise to slowly yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have no objections to H.R. 725, and indeed, we support appropriate law enforcement efforts to stop illegal counterfeiting of Indian arts and crafts. However, I would like to note a concern for the record, because this bill could have been written in a way to increase its effectiveness. At the committee hearing on H.R. 725, it became clear that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Law Enforcement is contemplated to be the primary agency to investigate and enforce any violations of this new Indian Arts and Crafts Act. As written, this bill, H.R. 725, authorizes any Federal law enforcement officer to enforce the act. That is the issue. It authorizes any Federal law enforcement officer to authorize the act. This would include law enforcement officers who may or may not have expertise in dealing with tribes, with artists, counterfeit art or crafts. So I certainly hope that the President takes appropriate steps to delegate this overly broad law enforcement authority only to the agency or the agencies that have the funding, manpower, time, and expertise to enforce this important but somewhat complex area of law. It would be nice if Congress were to actually take that responsibility to ourselves. Indeed, the very goal of stopping this illegally counterfeited Indian art should not be turned over to law enforcement agencies who are strained with other duties, other kinds of investigation of crime, acts of terrorism, fraud, or any other kind of scheme that takes place. Finally, in addition to the fact that this has not been specified where it should be, I do want to note that there is a largely identical bill, sponsored by the Senator from Arizona, that is in the House. If we had taken up that bill today, it could probably be signed into law this particular week. I have no idea why we did not take up the Senate bill rather than pushing this bill forward, and for whatever reason it is. If, indeed, it is simply because it's a Senator's bill, that may be good enough for me. But if there are other concepts that may be there, there are still questions as to why we are not passing Senate Bill 151 rather than this one. However, by passing H.R. 725 today, we are simply delaying the enactment of this particular bill. So once again, I think we missed the opportunity of trying to narrow in our particular focus on the enforcement powers, and there are still some questions on why this bill is taking precedence over others that may speed up the actual date of enactment of this, but with the substance of the bill, I am in support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This particular bill has been well explained by the distinguished gentlelady from Guam. Up front, I would like to say that I have basically favored this bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Oregon. In concept, it is a good bill, and I actually will be voting for it on the floor. However, I do want to state that there are two particular problems, once again, with the process, which are very perplexing and concerning to me, and I think it's something we ought to discuss. This bill has been changed--I think significantly--since it left the committee on November 18. An amendment was added at 12:58--that is the date on it, today. Admittedly, we knew about it maybe an hour before that, but an amendment that changes this bill significantly was added today. That is not the process you go through. Once again, poor process will equate to poor public policy. The amendment that was added in here took out salvaged sales on BLM land. That is not what was in the bill when it went through committee, and I would suggest that I am not in favor of that change to a very good bill. We will be told, I'm assuming, that this change was made to conform what practices we do on BLM with national forest land. However, what we are doing is changing the law to conform to an agency regulation, which is, indeed, backwards. Congress should be establishing what our requirements are and what our practices are, not forcing Congress to try to regulate ourselves and relate ourselves to what an agency of government, through its own internal regulations, does. So I am opposed to this amendment, which was added within the very last 2 hours. That should not be there and was not discussed in committee. I am also opposed in one particular way to the concept that this was made from a ``shall'' to a ``may.'' I would like it very much more had it been with the original language that Representative DeFazio proposed in making this a ``shall'' issue as opposed to simply making this or any other bill that comes before us today into a ``may,'' to make it at the whim of the Secretary. Now, with those two conclusions, I will say that this is still a good bill. This is still a bill that I think should go forward. This is a bill that should have gone forward in the way it came out of committee, in which it was a stronger and better bill, and I will still vote on it on the floor. But I am perplexed with these changes that have been made that weaken this bill and do not improve it and, more importantly, with the process we are going through to make these last-minute changes when they should have been done with full committee hearing, with full committee discussion, and full committee markup. In closing, let me just apologize for making a misstatement in the first place. I am told now that there is a statute that since has been done by the National Forest Service, so the statutes are consistent. They are consistently wrong, but they are still consistent here. It is still the wrong thing to do, and those salvaged sales should have been approved on both BLM as well as national forest land, and I still resent the process that went through, even though what I said was technically wrong earlier. With that, I intend to vote ``yes'' because I think the DeFazio bill is a good bill. It needs to go forward. It is the right thing to do, but we could have done a whole lot better if we had really put our minds to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. ``Laboratory of democracy.''

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate you yielding again on this. Let me just say that there are several concepts that we have talked about here. One, does it meet the threshold of the commerce clause according to the courts? I do not think it does. You have also mentioned several other concepts, that just because Congress says this is a necessary and proper act doesn't necessarily mean it is a necessary and proper act. It also bothers me that we forget the very essence of federalism upon which this country was founded, which means simply, it is not essential for the Federal Government to have to solve every problem. In fact, sometimes it is better if the Federal Government does not. I have used that example many times before about records. When I was younger, if I wanted a song, I had to buy the entire record. Now there is an iPod that my kid can download the song that I want, too. If I want vanilla, Ben and Jerry's still has 34 flavors from which I can choose. Every part of our lives is now based on the concept of choice and options for American people, except the government. The Federal Government is still the last bastion of one-size-fits-allism, where we tell people what they ought to be doing rather than allowing them to have choices and options. I say this because some people said, Well, if we don't do this, we have nothing. That is not true. States are moving forward. My State already has implemented a process that gives people 66 options based on the demographics of my State, and everything we are doing in Utah is stopped dead. If this Federal bill passes, they succeed, they now dictate everything that will happen. States are different. Massachusetts has a program they seem to like. It would not work in Utah. The demographics of Utah would not allow our program to be successful in Massachusetts. But that is why there is the brilliance of federalism, so there can be 50 different innovative ideas and people have the chance to experiment and try and prove and find something that works for their particular area. In a nutshell, that is a very brief problem. This destroys the concept of federalism. I will yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. That news, if I can get the time from the gentleman from New Jersey, is as amazing as the potential harm that this bill could do to all Americans that are there. We've spoken many times on the floor about the concept of the general welfare clause, which was not an expansion of opportunity for Congress. It was supposed to be a limitation. And I did at one time get a call--we spoke once on what was the interpretation of the general welfare clause--I got a call from a lady from Alabama after that, saying it was very eloquent, but these are all the things I like the government doing. And then she gave me a list of stuff. I said, Ma'am, you basically missed our intent. It was not the government can do these things; it is which level of government should do these things. Not every issue has to rise to the importance that Congress needs to do it, which would lead to another element of the Constitution that I think this Obama health care-Democrat-Reid-Pelosi, whatever you want to call it, is violating, which is Federalism. But before I do that, I would yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey to allow him to at least give some comments upon this particular issue, and then if we want to go back into Federalism--you don't have a whole lot of time--I'd be more than happy to pick that up at some later date. But I'd like to yield back to the gentleman first and at least give you a shot at this thing.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for this. You know, we are talking about a potential health care bill which, whether it is the Senate or House version, is an enormous expansion of the government. Not only is it an enormous expansion of the government in the cost for it, but it's also an enormous expansion in the amount of power. Now, both bills are based on the commerce clause of giving them their authority to implement this program. The commerce clause, as we know, over the last 70 years has been so expanded, its shape has basically been lost. But notwithstanding even when the courts have ruled on commerce clause issues, they have two thresholds that must be maintained before something has usually been declared constitutional for them. One is the activity has to have a significant impact on interstate commerce. I think you can argue this bill will. But the second is the willing participant threshold that must be met, which means the commerce clause has said Congress can do that which will stop an activity; but never, never have they said the commerce clause can be used to forbid inactivity or force individuals to pay a fine not only for doing nothing, but for doing the wrong kind of thing according to the Federal Government. Now that is the problem this piece of legislation has, because if you can force people to go through this to have a certain kind of health insurance, they can force Americans to do anything at any given time. The Constitution simply says commercial activity in which people choose to engage, but cannot require that they engage in those commercial activities. So it's one of those simple concepts. Let me give an example. We passed a Cash for Clunkers bill, which gave incentives for people to go and get a certain kind of car. We still allow people that choice and option. If you use that same program with the principles within this health care monstrosity, we don't have a Cash for Clunkers program; we simply have a clunker program, which will then have the government establish a bureaucracy, an organization not only to tell you what to buy, but when to buy it and give you the opportunity to pay for it yourself or be fined by the Federal Government. Now that is not the way it's supposed to be. In Mack v. The United States, the Supreme Court said, The Constitution protects us against our better instincts because it divides power to help us so that we do not succumb to the temptation of concentrating power in one location as an expedient solution for crisis of the day. And that is indeed what this particular bill would do.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In closing, whether this cattle ranch becomes part of our national inventory or not may indeed be a good idea. But one of the things I think we are saying right now is the scope these processes have to go through--and the process does become important. Poor process produces poor policy. What we are arguing in this particular case is if we should allow the process to go through to its completion. There are questions that still have to be asked that yet have a quantified answer to them. Neighbors may be in support, but we want those things quantified, which should be part of the process that is there. There should be private property rights in this particular document for the protection of private property owners, and that should be boilerplate language we add in all legislation--not just this, but the rest that comes through. The question that we should be asking, which is what the study should be asking as well, is not necessarily do we go forth in this particular one but should we look at this as the only way of preserving or moving forward on this cattle ranch in the future? Is this indeed the best way? Are there other concepts that could be used? And should this be the $50 million budget priority of this particular Congress? Those are the types of questions that should have been answered in the committee before this bill moved forward, and that's what we asked in committee and we're asking again on the floor. This may indeed be the proper use of turning this former cattle ranch into a national asset, but there are still questions that should have been asked in a proper process to make sure that this is the right policy at this particular time. And that's why we have objections to this particular bill, not necessarily the substance of it, but the manner and mechanism of what we are doing, because there are still too many unanswered questions. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have concerns with H.R. 3726. As of today, the National Park Service has yet to complete the congressionally authorized study of this proposal. In fact, the agency has asked that we defer consideration until the study is completed. These studies are not without cost in both personnel and funds, and they take several years to complete and can drain as much as $500,000 from the Park Service budget. What use are these feasibility studies if we simply choose to ignore them, or, in this case, rush to pass legislation before the study can be finalized? Typically, these studies contain information that could be useful in crafting better legislation. For example, it would be nice to know what process the National Park Service went through to consult with all private property owners who may be harmed or impacted by this designation. The National Park Service testified that the cost to acquire the private property to establish this park could be as much as $50 million, in addition to nearly $1 million a year to operate the park. Most of us are aware of the estimated $9 billion in maintenance backlog created currently with the National Park Service. Consequently, it becomes very difficult to justify why additional land acquisition is advisable at this particular time. How do we explain to taxpayers that, while unemployment soars, their government is conspiring to buy beach- front property in the Caribbean? Is adding these luxurious 2,900 acres to the Federal land inventory the priority of this particular Congress? Nearly every acre of the dry land that is to be acquired is privately owned. It's our understanding the majority of this land is owned by one family. According to testimony heard by the Committee on Natural Resources, this family is supportive of the proposal and even initiated this process. We heard that it is their desire that this land not be developed, but be preserved in its current condition. It seems to me that they are in a perfect position to accomplish that goal as landowners. May I suggest that they also possess the power to determine the future of the property without any interference of Congress. In addition, to complicate the issue further, sources within the Park Service have told us that there is discord within the family itself over whether this designation is indeed in the family's best interest. Apart from this family, we have heard nothing from the other property owners affected by this bill, both on land and in the water. Is it fair for us in Washington, D.C., to place them in a restrictive designation without their consent and also not knowing whether the consent exists or not? It is not only these 2,900 acres of dry land that's affected by this legislation. In addition, this bill includes the park-associated submerged lands out to the 3-mile territorial limit of the Virgin Islands. This could mean that fishing in the area would be prohibited, just as it is at the Virgin Islands National Park that surrounds two- thirds of the island of St. John. I hope that this will not impact struggling fishermen, but it is a possibility that deserves attention and has yet to be addressed, but would have, had the feasibility study been completed. Again, these are questions that need to be answered, and I would hope that some of them will be answered in the final study when it is finally signed by Secretary Salazar. If this legislation does move forward today, I hope the current landowners and their descendents are aware that the National Park Service will now be their zoning board. I would also like to note that there is no ``willing seller'' provision in this legislation. While ``willing seller'' provisions are minimum at best protections, at least with this language Congress is on record that landowners should not be hounded or harassed into selling their land to the National Park Service. I cannot in good conscience support this legislation, yet that does not guarantee the right of private property owners. Our constituents deserve better than that. If the intent of this proposal is to preserve historic landscapes, certainly that can be done locally without Federal funds, interference, or bureaucratic red tape. So I urge my colleagues to demonstrate some fiscal responsibility and demand respect for property rights that are not yet in this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2996, the Interior-Environment Appropriations Act, 2010. Requesting Member: Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 2996 Account: Forest Service Land Acquisition Legal name and address of requesting entity: The Trust for Public Land, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20003 Description of project: The Bonneville Shoreline Trail was initiated in 1990 to complete a trail corridor along the prehistoric shoreline of Lake Bonneville and along the foothills of the Wasatch mountains from Ogden to Provo. This partnership has been so successful that the communities in Cache and Box Elder counties have worked to extend the trail north. The 150-acre North Ogden property is a priority for protection by the U.S. Forest Service. The property serves as important habitat for deer and elk and as an important buffer for fire protection for the rapidly developing area along the Wasatch Front. The property also provides watershed protection for neighboring areas in addition to key recreational resources. The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to fill in the boundaries of the national forest along the BST in North Ogden and Pleasant View. In 2005, a five-mile stretch of the BST along North Ogden and Pleasant View was secured through a trail easement along an existing utility corridor granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. The property available for protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it will bring Forest Service ownership to this stretch of the BST and add critical trail access to the citizens in this area of the state. Protection of this property will also protect beautiful views of the foothills of the Wasatch Front and Ben Lomond Peak, one of Weber County's most important landmarks, while conserving important wildlife habitat and winter range along this rapid growth area.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, individuals like Hazen Hillyard deserve to be remembered and honored, and that is why I'm happy to sponsor this legislation to name the Smithfield Post Office after him. His life was a hallmark of dedicated public service, at the level closest to the people where it really matters and makes a difference. That service included time as President of the Kiwanis Club, many years on the City Library Board, work as Chairman of the Smithfield Historical Heritage Society and multiple terms on the Smithfield City Council. He was an active member of the Cache Valley Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and in 1961 received the Silver Beaver Award in recognition of his long time service in the scouting program. The Smithfield Lion's Club honored Hazen in 1974 with its Outstanding Citizen of the Year award. Hazen Hillyard was appointed Postmaster of Smithfield in 1934. At the time of his appointment, there was no house-to-house mail delivery in the city, so residents were required to go to the Post Office for their mail. Hazen enjoyed interacting with the people as they stopped at the general delivery window for their mail and for other mail services. He was very involved in the Utah chapter of the National Postmasters Association and was even elected President of the state chapter in 1952. He visited all of the post offices in Utah during that year of service. As the population of Smithfield increased, Mr. Hillyard recognized the need for expanded and better postal facilities. He was successful in getting a new, larger building for the post office in 1957. In 1963 he completed arrangements for city delivery of the mail to houses in Smithfield. A letter from the city manager of Smithfield says, ``The citizens of Smithfield City have long appreciated and admired the legacy of W. Hazen Hillyard. As a city we strongly encourage and support an effort to rename the Smithfield Post Office in recognition of his lifetime of service and achievement.'' When Hazen grew older he still was very interested in the improvement and advancement of Smithfield. His life and service clearly prove that he loved the people and the community, and I'm honored to help the United States House of Representatives acknowledge and recognize that.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We justify those kinds of decisions all the time. I recognize that the Rules Committee will take its orders from leadership. That has to happen. They cannot ignore those things. But at the same time, had the Rules Committee followed the wishes of the gentleman from Oregon, we could actually be setting a precedent to help kids. When the Rules Committee failed to heed the request of the gentleman from Oregon, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, when he was justified and correct in coming before our hearing, what it simply said was that we put kids at a lesser priority than other protected kinds of issues. Once again, this is the problem. It is this amount of land that causes the difficulty of Western States--all of our Western States on a State level--to provide for their needs. And that's what our amendment could solve. That amendment was not made in order. That is simply wrong. Please vote down the rule so that we can put this amendment back in place.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman from California, and I think I tried to state those comments earlier on. The letter we received from the Association of O&C Counties--that's Oregon and California--concerned about this particular issue does include and specifically mentions these 411 acres in this National Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. I also recognize that the gentleman from Oregon, who is the sponsor of this bill, has since sent a letter that says that it does not have an impact. It does not have an impact because of bad administrative decisions made earlier that have already taken this out of timber production. What we are doing with this bill is now putting that in statute so that we cannot at some time reverse that with the ease with which we took them out in the first place. We have made bad decisions time after time after time, which has impacted the timber industry in these States and has impacted their ability to fund their local governments and especially their education system. That was the fundamental reason it was ruled out of order. It violated PAYGO because, if you actually did put that, those funds would have to be shared with the local States.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the rule because an amendment that was under my name was not admitted in the rule by the Rules Committee. However, the issue at hand in both that amendment and the underlying bill is very small. It's 400 acres in Oregon. That is truly, in the scope of things, an insignificant number. What is significant, though, is the concept behind it, because it represents a larger, more pernicious issue that simply the leaders of this Congress are failing to address or even acknowledge. Now, I have to admit that the fact that I am an old public schoolteacher is part of the problem. I spent 16 years in the Utah Legislature serving on the Public Education Subcommittee. I understand how difficult it is for those of us who are in the West, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from the other side, how difficult it is for us to fund our public education system. And part of it is from the example that I have before me. This chart simply shows the amount of Federal land that is owned in each State. As you notice, there is a somewhat disproportionate amount in the West. The Speaker's State of Arizona has a great deal; my State does; the State of Oregon, a little bit less. But nonetheless, there is a significant amount of land that is controlled by the Federal Government. Many of our friends in the East who don't have that same opportunity have a hard time understanding what it's like to be a public land State. However, the second one, perhaps the more difficult one, is this chart which simply shows the number of States in red are the ones that have the most difficult time funding their public education system. These are the States whose growth in public education funding is the slowest, the most difficult. You will notice that there is a unique correlation to the amount of Federal land that is owned and the inability of States to fund their public education system. It's almost a one-to-one relationship that happens to be there. So the 400 acres that would be taken out, the potential timberland that would be taken out of potential production in this particular bill, actually is land that no longer produces timber today. That's part of the problem. It's one of the reasons why we received a letter from California and Oregon county officials who have what's called O&C land. O&C land is land that is dedicated for timber production. This 400 acres is not considered O&C, but it is the same concept. It is land that could be used for timber production. What this bill will do in taking this small amount of land is to finalize and put in statute the bad administrative decisions of the past which have taken it out of production so it no longer can produce the revenue that we desperately need in these States to try to fund public education. The sponsor of this piece of legislation understood that. He got it right. When he came before the committee in our hearing, he simply used this statement when he asked the ranking member and the chairman to find an offset so that they did not lose the value of this small amount, 400 acres. Unfortunately, we did not find an offset, and that was the crux of my amendment, both in committee as well as before the Rules Committee. There needs to be some kind of offset. It says something even more disgusting as well, that if the Interior Department--of all the vast acreage of land that the Federal Government owns, 1 out of every 3 acres in this Nation--cannot find 400 acres as an offset for the State of Oregon, there is something terribly wrong in the mindset of the Interior Department here in Washington. The issue is schoolkids. Are we going to try to help States fund their education system or not? I recognize that my amendment was ruled nongermane. Our germaneness rule is used more in its absence than in its regulation. But the issue at hand is simply, the gentleman from Oregon was right in the hearing--he got it right when he wanted an offset. The leadership of this Congress was wrong when they decided not to heed his warning and not to give his request. Today it's 400 acres. Tomorrow it may be 16,000 acres in another bill or 9.8 million acres in another bill. It simply says, our kids are props for political purposes around here, but we really don't care about trying to find a long-term funding solution. The Rules Committee made this amendment out of order. I recognize that they can justify that on the grounds of germaneness. They could have just as easily incorporated the amendment without that as well. We do it all the time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. I am sorry that the gentleman from Oregon came in late during the discussion and has left that side of the aisle. I want to make it very clear, when I was making my first statements, I did not say that these 400 acres were O&C lands--I made that very clear--but they are treated like O&C lands, which is why the local leaders from Oregon and California sent the letter and specifically asked any kind of lands taken out of the ability to be used for timber production be offset. They specifically requested in a number of other areas this particular area that will be made wild and scenic. This is the request that comes from the local leaders in California and Oregon which recognizes what happens when these lands are taken out of production, and they clearly, as I do, understand that there is economic development from tourism. There is also economic development from manufacturing and there is also economic development from timber harvest, and they each have a different role to play. And each have a different amount of money they do to help kids. These local leaders recognize that fact which is why they supported what the sponsor of this bill originally wanted to do. Unfortunately, the House leadership has not recognized what his wishes were and has not done what the sponsor originally wanted to do. Though he has now changed his mind, he says these lands are not now producing timber, that is not the issue. The issue is will they ever be useful in that particular effort. That is what we are trying to do with the amendment which should have been made in order. It should have been part of the original bill that came out of the committee. There is no reason why it should not have been. Now, I recognize there is a significant issue, Mr. Speaker, and let me do just one thing very quickly, because what these local leaders are talking about is specifically allowing them to have some kind of control over their own destiny. We see that played out in bill after bill and issue after issue on this floor. The other week we passed a small bill, maybe some of you have read about it in the papers, about health care. One of the issues of that bill is it stops local, creative, alternative approaches. The State of Utah started a local approach for health care reform. They got it right. It was based on empowerment of individuals by employers who would now have a common understanding of what they would have to spend on health care, to be able to give that to their employees, so the employers go to a State index where they have presently 66 options from which to choose. It was an effort to empower individuals. It is an effort of States to solve their own problems because States understand the unique demographic needs that they have in those particular States. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed, if it were to go all of the way through the system, stops the States dead in their tracks from actually implementing their own local reforms, just like this would stop the local areas from implementing their own local reforms. Now, I hope we understand how significant it is that you can't get enough experts here in one particular room to solve all of the problems in the world, and we should look at the concept of States and local governments having their own ability to experiment and their own ability to meet their local demographic's needs and their own ability to come up with unique and clear ideas, and we should be empowering local governments to make those decisions, not restricting them with a one-size-fits-all mentality or telling them what they will and will not do on the local level.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And by controlling your own money with your own choices. When I go into a grocery store to pick up cereal, there's an entire wall of choices. I pick the kind I like. You would go in with me and you'd go over and pick another one. Why isn't the role of government to allow people to have choices? I have one of my fellow teachers who was upset because in his plan the district only allowed him two options. If you actually go to a single-payer system by the Federal Government, you get one. The State of Utah is saying there are 66 options, which is a comparative advantage of that. It also means one of the situations that we have in large business provides insurance for its workers. The owner or the manager picks what company it is and everybody has to follow along. In this program, the large business already providing insurance could do the same thing by providing the amount of money to an individual who could then go on the State index and pick what he or she wants to do. Here is the kicker: this is a great idea.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I can add one thing here, because I notice that we have been joined by two other colleagues who have given their entire professional career in this area. They know what they are talking about. I would add our Founding Fathers, sitting over there with their knee britches and their powdered wigs, knew exactly what we needed today because their highest goal was to provide individual liberty for the citizens so that people could make choices for themselves. They realized it is not the role of government to tell people what is best for them. That is a risk-aversive system of nanny government where we tell people what to do because we know what is best, and it is cheaper as we see it. Our goal should be to provide people with choices and options that ennoble their souls and allow them to control their own destinies. The only way of doing that is allowing States to move forward on their own, as Utah is trying to do, and not be stopped by this Pelosi care bill which will stop the States' progress and all of the innovations that are taking place out there. Some time we have to realize that you don't solve problems by putting a lot of experts in a room in Washington, D.C. There is a font of knowledge out there that is waiting to blossom and provide new solutions. Our salvation as a Nation is to go back to the Constitution and believe in federalism. That is how we move forward.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We may be comfortable today with what is defined as qualified. Unfortunately, and this is what the Supreme Court Justice was saying, the Constitution protects us from our own instincts of doing this, that by creating a commission that in the future will tell what the private sector will do when it is in competition with the Federal Government. What may be qualified in the future is not necessarily what is qualified today. As you stated very convincingly earlier, if you have a specific need, what is your need may not be what some distant bureaucrat in Washington determines to be qualified. And, in fact, one of the biggest problems we have when people talk about health care, no one has ever really defined what health care actually is. Is cosmetic surgery part of it? Is mental health part of it? Nursing homes, are they part of it? What is the goal or purpose of it? We have yet to do that. See, that is what we are allowing a bureaucrat in the future to do as opposed to what some of the States wish to do in allowing citizens, employees, to have options and choices so they have control over their own lives.