Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this amendment. This amendment simply gives the Secretary of Agriculture some flexibility to work in relationship with State directors to try and solve problems that exist. In 2007, in my State of Utah, there was a half a million acres that were burned. Four-fifths of that was on Federal property. Unfortunately, fire, being stupid, didn't know enough to stop at the Federal line, and it actually did impinge on private property. There has been too much private property lost. There have been too many young lives that were lost in those fires. We need to have a solution to that. The States of Colorado and Utah have been working on this program, and it has been effective. It's been effective in saving lives. It's been effective in saving property. It's been effective in alleviating the amount of fuel, the intensity of the fires and, over time, that simply helps our forest, it helps life, it helps the environment, it helps clean the air, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for actually presenting this amendment. In Utah it works. In Colorado it works. It can work in other places as well.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a sense of poetic irony that Mr. Holt's language was removed when you amended his bill. I hope you can fix that at some time. You have a pattern of individuals coming down here, speaking of good parts to this bill. There are good parts to this bill. I actually have two measures in here that, I think, are good to this bill, but it doesn't cover up the fact that, within that, there are some problems in this particular bill. It does not cover up the fact that there are heritage areas when the Department of the Interior specifically asked us to wait until they could come up with rules on what heritage areas should be and how they should be constituted, because the way we are doing it right now is chaotic. There are elements in here that create national parks which I will visit when they include a baseball stadium, and not until. Those national parks were actually rejected by the Park Service because they have enough of this generic portion. It did not meet the standards. It was expensive. Even though at one time they said that they might be comfortable with it, last night, in talking to a reporter, they once again stood by that analysis of that park, especially when we have $9 billion of needs in the rest of the National Park System that is yet to be met. I reject it when, in fact, some judge includes the fact that 8 months of study and of public input is not long enough or that NEPA actually has more importance than the second amendment. I actually want to speak a little bit differently right now. I want to explain to my good friends who live east of the Rocky Mountains why I feel so passionate about this particular bill. This is a map of the United States, and everything that is colored in red is owned by the Federal Government. You will notice it is all concentrated in the West. Even though most of our forest land is in the East, the Forest Service land is all in the West. Does this make a difference to people? In a way, I think it does because this map illustrates the difference in education. The States in red are the States that are having the most difficult time raising money to fund their own public education system. As you know, there is a strong correlation between the amount of public land and the difficulty in funding education. In Utah, it is a common statement. We will always simply say: The reason we are having such a hard time in funding education is we do not control enough of our land. If the Federal Government even paid at the lowest tax rate for the land that it owns in the State of Utah, that would be $116 million every year. That does not count government funding; it is just for the education portion--$116 million that we would get every year. When decisions are made in the Department of the Interior that take leases off the land, that is a $3 million cut to education in the State of Utah, not only counting the State trust lands that develop money for education but above those lands that now become sterile at the same time. The New York Times recently wrote an article in which they compared a school district in Utah and one in Wyoming, across the border. The one in Wyoming is awash with money, and will get more money in the stimulus package than the district in Utah. They said: Well, that is simply an anomaly of the distribution formulas that we use. I really don't care about the distribution formula. The amount of Federal money that goes to education in Utah only rates at about 7 percent. What is significant is why the State of Utah has less money to begin with, and it goes back to the issue of resources. This chart shows you the difference in teachers' salaries between the two States of Wyoming and Montana. Wyoming starts their teachers at $20,000 a year higher than Montana's. Why? Because Wyoming is much more aggressive at the way they develop their resources. Even though this particular bill, once again, takes resource land off the table in Wyoming, threatening them, acknowledged by the chairman who says it is not a problem, it could, indeed, be a problem, but for us in Utah, well, this is a problem that we still face. This is the State of Utah. Everything that is a color is owned by the Federal Government. Now, this is the problem that we simply have. The problem we simply have is that two of the three most important decisions recently made by the Interior Department also affect the resources that are in Utah that we need desperately to fund our education system, but when you create more wild and scenic areas in the West, you make it much more difficult for us to fund our education system. When you create more wild and scenic areas in the East, you cut into the PILT money that goes into the West, which is necessary to fund our education system. We have yet to discuss the fundamental issue of the role of Federal ownership of this land--if it is, indeed, appropriate, if it is right, if it should be more or if it should be less or if it should be balanced between the West and the East. I'm sorry for my experience in the legislature in Utah. We have difficulties in Utah in being able to fund our roads and to pay for our colleges and to pay for our public education, and it goes back to this basic fact: We are not just creating nice, pretty vistas again. We have an ancillary harm that takes place to real kids. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. My kids in Utah are more important to me than a park that is created that the National Park Service does not want. It is more important to me than a wild and scenic river that is created when it violates the standards of the Wild and Scenic River Act. My kids are more important to me than heritage areas that are chaotically done because my kids' future is harmed by these decisions. Even though those who create these decisions are well-intentioned and well-meaning, my kids' decisions and my kids' futures are still controlled by what Nelson Rockefeller used to say is the deadening hand of bureaucracy. I realize that this particular bill has had more procedural twists than Lombard Street, but at the same time, there are many provisions in this bill that would easily pass if they stood alone, and there are provisions in this bill that would not. There is no reason we need to lump all of these things together.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, Satchel Paige used to say, ``Just throw strikes. Home plate don't move.'' We do not need to have this omnibus bill to go through these particular procedures, and my kids are worth fighting for: They are worth fighting the provisions of this bill that would not pass if they were standing on their own. That is the problem. That is the problem, and that is why I am passionate.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is just as important as that side of the Capitol. And what we do should be respected. That amendment should have been put in order so that what the House passed and what the House said should be part of this particular bill if indeed it is going to pass. There is no reason why we should have our amendments taken out and let the Senate simply do what it wants to because the Senate failed to work in an orderly process while they had these bills for years and years.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this new bill and the amendments to the bill cover 177 different issues, 100 of which were obviously never discussed in the House before. I think it is important to note that the chairman of this committee, Mr. Rahall, the Democrat chairman, would not have done this. On each of the issues we actually did discuss, he went through regular order. There were hearings. There was a markup. They brought them individually to the floor for debate. This bill is in this condition not because there were Senate filibusters, for indeed some of these provisions have sat over in the Senate for as long as 2 years. This bill--this concoction--is here simply because the Senate failed to do their job. They did not hold hearings. They did not hold markups. They did not bring these issues to the floor in a regular manner. They lumped them all together. And now it is almost humorous to watch the contortions that the Democratic Party is going to go through to try and stifle any kind of debate or change in this bill. Originally it came to us as a suspension in a situation in which it could not be amended, could not have a motion to recommit, even though it did somehow get an amendment on it. Now it is coming back to us in a version of amendments to another Revolutionary War bill. They actually had a Civil War monument battlefield bill over there with a Republican sponsor. They could have at least made those amendments to that bill and appeared bipartisan. But nonetheless it is now here to us as the form of amendments with a closed rule so we can't talk about them again. Now one of the amendments that got into this bill, even though it wasn't actually supposed to get into the bill, dealt with hunting rights. Mr. Hastings of Washington talked about that issue very briefly. Hunting is not the same thing as the second amendment. And we have special interests that went before a maverick judge who ruled that 8 months of study is not the same thing as a quick review. It is not long enough. And therefore that judge, in her own right, changed National Park Service policy that was designed to create consistency and created instead chaos. If the Park Service rule had been left in place without this judge playing around with it, all public lands under the Department of the Interior would be treated the same way. The Bureau of Land Management does not prohibit against lawful concealed carry anywhere that it is allowed by States. The Forest Service doesn't do it either. Only the Park Service. And the Park Service changed their rule to make it in compliance with everything else and bring consistency. This judge changed it to chaos. Now when we think about national parks, we think about Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Zion and Bryce. But the National Park Service controls lands, they control roads and walkways. It is impossible to drive or jog without going in and out of Park Service land which is never signed or notified, so no one really knows whether you are actually legally carrying a concealed weapon or not. We have had people who have been arrested, entrapped, on Park Service land for carrying a concealed weapon where if they had gone a couple of blocks further, they would be in Virginia territory where it was legal. That is ridiculous. That is silly. Yet this provision is now done by judicial fiat, which means that the hunting amendment that was put in by the Democrats in the contortion of trying to get this bill through is now meaningless and it is insignificant, which is why Representative Hastings of Washington has an amendment to reverse that decision and bring consistency back to the Department of the Interior. This is the proper time. It is the proper venue. It should have been made in order. It would have solved the problem. I introduced another amendment in there to simply take four amendments that were passed by this House on the floor, bipartisan amendments, Republican and Democrat, that were voted in a bipartisan way and rejected by the Senate simply because the Senate said they didn't have the time to review what the House did. These were short amendments. If you wrote small, you could put them all on one page. It is wrong that the Senate rejects the work of this floor. This side of the Capitol is just as important as that side of the Capitol.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, with my profound respect for this particular institution and for the job that they do in creating a service for a specific need that is out there, I urge the support of this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 77, a resolution recognizing and honoring the 145th anniversary of the signing of the law that established collegiate programs at the excellent institution of higher learning, Gallaudet University. It was on April 8, 1864 that President Abraham Lincoln signed a Federal law authorizing Gallaudet University to confer collegiate degrees. The signing of this law finally gave deaf students an opportunity to pursue a higher education in an environment specifically designed to meet their communication needs. Gallaudet is still the only institution in the world that focuses on education programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students from preschool through the doctoral level. As of the 2007-2008 academic year, Gallaudet enrolled over 1,600 students. These students have the opportunity to choose from more than 40 undergraduate majors and have the opportunity to take advantage of a state-of-the-art facility. Additionally, each of these students who graduates from Gallaudet will receive a diploma that has been signed by the sitting President of the United States. I extend my congratulations to Gallaudet University on the 145th anniversary of its creation, and wish all of Gallaudet's faculty, staff, students, and alumni continued success in their endeavors. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We do not.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 182, expressing support for the designation of the week of March 1 as School Social Work Week to promote awareness of the vital role that school social workers play in schools and in the community as a whole and in helping students to prepare for their future as productive citizens. From time to time, students face certain challenges in achieving academic success. Emotional, social and behavioral problems can be serious impediments to learning and can have a harmful effect not just on the individual student but others in the school setting. Schools, families and communities must work collaboratively to assist students with achieving positive academic and behavioral outcomes. School social work services provide a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of students through early identification, through prevention, intervention, counseling, as well as support. School social workers are trained, qualified professionals who meet State requirements to practice social work specifically in a school setting. They provide direct services to students who experience academic and social difficulties while developing relationships that will help to bolster self-esteem and reward positive behavior. School social workers support teachers by offering options for addressing students' needs and by participating on the student support team. They also work with students and their families and communities to coordinate services. According to statistics by the National Mental Health Association, 17.5 million children are in need of some kind of mental health services, and these workers address those needs. School social workers help students who otherwise might not receive services due to inaccessibility or lack of availability of services. I commend these dedicated professionals for the service they provide in our school setting, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. For some inexplicable reason, I have no one else here who is requesting time. May I inquire of the gentlewoman if she is ready to close.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In that case, I urge support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all know the old story of the newlywed couple whose wife on her first meal that she prepares of a cooked ham presents the ham, and the two ends have been cut off. When her husband asks why, she says, ``I don't know. That's the way my mother did it,'' and when the mother-in-law shows up, they ask why, and she says, ``I don't know. That's the way my mother did it,'' and when the grandmother finally arrives and they ask why she cut the ends of the ham off, the grandmother simply says, ``I have a small oven. A full ham won't fit.'' There are many things we do in government that are traditions that are as totally illogical as cutting the ends of the ham off. Only in a Federal court in this United States can we find a special interest group that can track down a maverick judge that contends that 8 months of study by the Department of Interior is, in fact, a last-minute review and because, in January of this year, the Department of Interior and the National Park Service finally updated its rules to allow concealed carry on national parks lands and make it consistent with our policy of concealed carry on all public lands. You see, the national forest does not prohibit someone with a valid concealed carry license from going on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management, which manages some of our national parks, does not prohibit a valid concealed carry permit for going on their lands. Even President Clinton gave an executive order saying that our policies should reflect the State prerogative and authority. Only the National Park Service has tried to prohibit that practice, and the National Park Service is not just things like Yellowstone. It is virtually impossible, or at least it will challenge you, to try to get from Virginia into Washington, D.C. without either driving or walking on National Park Service land. You go in and you go out. There are no signs to tell you what you were doing, and indeed, law-abiding citizens have been entrapped on park service land, carrying a concealed weapon permit, where if they had gone a couple of blocks further and had been back in Virginia, they would have, indeed, been legal. That is illogical and it is also unfair. What we should do is what the National Park Service decided to do in January and simply say State laws will be the ruling procedure. If it is legal for a concealed carry in this State, it is legal on all lands that are owned and controlled by the Federal Government, not just some lands ``yes'' and some lands ``no.'' Mr. Hastings of Washington has an amendment that should be put on the bill that will be before us tomorrow to clarify once again that the policy of the United States should be consistent on all of their lands, not on some ``yes'' and some not on the others. It was an amendment that would bring respect back to the policy and the consideration and the study done by the Department of Interior, and it would reject an outstandingly flawed decision made by a judge that actually creates chaos rather than solving this particular problem. It is important that the Rules Committee does open up this particular bill for allowing the Hastings amendment so that we could actually debate this issue on the floor, because this is the proper time; this is the proper vehicle, and it is the right time for us to have consistency on our public land policy, not chaos in our public land policy, created by a judicial decision.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act: Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Economic Development Initiatives Name of requesting entity: Syracuse City Corporation, UT Address of requesting entity: 1787 South 200 West, Syracuse, Utah 84075 Description of request: $95,000 for the Davis Economic Technology Cooperative Master Plan, a comprehensive economic development plan for areas within the communities of Syracuse City, West Point City, and Clearfield City, Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, consistent with House Republican Earmark Standards, I am submitting the following earmark disclosure and certification information for requests I made which are included in the text and/or report to accompany H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. I certify that neither I, nor my spouse, have any financial interest in these requests, and certify that, to the best of my knowledge, these requests: (1) are not directed to an entity or program named or that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; (2) are not intended for a ``front'' or ``pass-through'' entity; and (3) meet or exceed statutory requirements for matching funds (where applicable). Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: COPS, Department of Justice Name of requesting entity: Kaysville City, Utah Address of requesting entity: 23 East Center, Kaysville, Utah 84037 Description of request: $300,000 for law enforcement communications and operations technology Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants Name of requesting entity: Clearfield City Address of requesting entity: 55 South State Street, Clearfield, Utah 84015 Description of request: $200,000 for technology to combat gang activity Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources Name of requesting entity: Park City Address of requesting entity: PO Box 1480, Park City, Utah 84060 Description of request: $200,000 for water feasibility study Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--Solar Energy Name of requesting entity: Salt Lake County, Utah-- Address of requesting entity: 2001 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84190 Description of request: $618,475 for the Energy Efficient Buildings Project Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Small Business Administration Name of requesting entity: World Trade Center Utah Address of requesting entity: 175 East 400 South, suite 609, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Description of request: $385,000 for the World Trade Center Utah to connect the Utah and Intermountain business community to the people, companies, data, and government agencies which make up the fabric of global commerce, through training classes and cross cultural seminars, identification of new market opportunities, creating access to trade missions, and facilitating export financing, controls, and distribution. Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Economic Development Initiatives Name of requesting entity: Clearfield City, UT Address of requesting entity: 55 South State Street, Clearfield, Utah 84015 Description of request: $380,000 for the purchase of blighted lands for use in the development of a private/public project known as West Phase I, a downtown redevelopment project within the city. Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: National Park Service Statutory or Contractual Aid Name of requesting entity: Ogden City, Utah Address of requesting entity: 2549 Washington Blvd, Ogden, Utah 84401 Description of request: $300,000 to implement the Crossroads of the West Historic District. Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Environmental Protection Agency STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Name of requesting entity: Washington Terrace, UT Address of requesting entity: 5249 South Pointe Drive, Washington Terrace, Utah 84405 Description of request: $1,240,000 for water and sewer infrastructure replacement project Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Fund for the Improvement of Education Name of requesting entity: Open Content Foundation at Utah State University Address of requesting entity: 1750 North Research parkway, North Logan, UT 84341 Description of request: $190,000 for curriculum development and textbook materials for Utah's ninth grade core curriculum. Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Fund for the Improvement of Education Name of requesting entity: Weber State University Address of requesting entity: 3850 University Circle, Ogden, Utah 84408 Description of request: $143,000 for a teacher training initiative to prepare teaching assistants to become teachers. Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Health Resources and Services Administration Name of requesting entity: Intermountain Healthcare Address of requesting entity: 36 South State Street Floor 22, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Description of request: $476,000 for the Patient Safety Initiative, including purchase and implementation of electronic medical records and equipment Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: FTA Bus and Bus Facilities account Name of requesting entity: Cache Valley Transit District Address of requesting entity: 754 West 600 North, Logan, Utah 84321 Description of request: $475,000 to construct a new multi-use facility for the transit district Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: FTA Bus and Bus Facilities account Name of requesting entity: Cache Valley Transit District Address of requesting entity: 754 West 600 North, Logan, Utah 84321 Description of request: $475,000 for Cache Valley Transit District Hybrid Bus Fleet Expansion Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: FTA New Starts/Fixed Guideway account Name of requesting entity: Utah Transit Authority Address of requesting entity: 669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84130 Description of request: $81,600,000 for a 44 mile commuter rail project linking Weber County to Salt Lake City Requesting Member: Representative Rob Bishop Bill number: H.R. 1105 Account: Federal Highway Administration--Federal Lands account Name of requesting entity: Brigham City, Utah Address of requesting entity: 20 North Main Street, Brigham City, Utah 84302 Description of request: $285,000 to complete construction on the Bear River Access Road to the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, when I was teaching government, I taught my kids that a suspension was one of those noncontroversial bills for which it could be brought to the floor with a limited amount of debate and no opportunity for amendments. We have, today, a suspension that is over 177 different measures, over half of which have never been discussed in either a House or the floor committee meeting till this morning. Twenty-three were never discussed in any committee hearing over in the Senate. When the true costs are extrapolated out over the time of the authorization, it will be close to $8 billion to $10 billion. And 37 times the description of provisions in this bill were called controversial, but that's okay, this is a suspension. It doesn't matter that this bill has been criticized by the American Motorcyclists Association for taking millions of acres of land out of use for millions of people who want to use recreation, or been criticized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Even ESPN criticized this particular bill. That's okay, though, this is still a suspension. We have been told that there is a $9 billion backlog in needs in the national parks. In the stimulus bill, apparently $2 billion was put in there to meet the needs of the national parks, and now we exacerbate the problem with another 8 to $10 billion in this particular bill. This is the visitors' center in the Dinosaur National Monument in Utah. This is a brilliant place to go. They have been able to take away part of the mountains so a kid can go in there and actually see within the mountainside the fossils that are still there and see what scientists say is the beginning and be able to put them together. Unfortunately, no one has been able to access this building for the last 10 years because we don't have enough money to fix this building, which has been condemned. Rather than fixing these types of buildings, within the bowels of this bill is a $34 million earmark to create a new national park in Paterson, New Jersey, which will protect such natural wonders as a condominium, a butterfly garden and a microbrewery. This is a park that was not requested by the National Park Service or not recommended by the National Park Service. Nonetheless, we are putting $34 million into that while these structures that we currently have in our national park system go vacant. That's okay. This is still a supplemental. We will spend $110 million on heritage areas. Eleven lucky heritage areas will get Federal money to assist them in economic development and tourism development. If you don't happen to live in one of those lucky eleven areas, you will be losing tourists and losing economic development and having the wonderful opportunity to have your taxes pay for that approach. In rough economic times like we have, this is brilliant policy by us. That's okay, it's still a suspension. Falls River in Massachusetts will have the lower Taunton declared a wild and scenic river. The Wild and Scenic River Act was there to protect areas from development. By law or statute, you cannot have anything other than a needful building within a mile of the bank of a wild and scenic river. Now, the last time that we were here, I went off, probably in excess, about showing ugly pictures in Falls River, Massachusetts. I shouldn't have done it. It's actually a very pretty community. The sponsors of the bill actually came back and showed pretty pictures of Falls River, Massachusetts. The point is, it doesn't matter whether there are ugly pictures or pretty pictures, doesn't matter whether you think it's a cynical effort to stop production of some port or whether you believe the spin that this is for economic development. Regardless of whether you take any of those stands, all of those are not the purpose of a wild and scenic river. This is Falls River, Massachusetts. These are not needful buildings within a half-mile of the bank. Regardless of how you look at that particular issue, it violates the spirit and the letter of the Wild and Scenic River Act. And it violates more than that, because it simply says the rule of law can be put apart that any time a majority comes on this floor and decides to vote for an issue that can now replace the standard of which we decide to deal with. We have a problem with the great obstacles to our border control and border security. Within the bowels of this bill is another bill that will make it more difficult for border security, even on bicycles, to try and patrol Federal lands. Those are problems within this structure, and we are told that it's still a suspension. We have about 12 Members, I counted, on the floor, engaging in this debate. Soon there will be 400 more coming through these doors without having heard the discussion, without having heard the debate and thinking this is nothing more than a suspension. We do need regular order. Now, I want it very clear not only do I not own monkeys, but Mr. Rahall is not to blame for this. Chairman Rahall has done a perfect job on the House. Even in the bad bills he has brought forward, he at least went through regular order. This is a byproduct of the Senate. This is a product of the Senate, and the Senate should be ashamed to try and compile 177 different bills into one omnibus package. And we should be ashamed of actually debating it as a suspension.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House we passed a monkey bite bill, and whether one agrees with me that we spent millions of dollars to create a bureaucracy that does not solve the problem is insignificant. What is significant is one considers the time we spent last year and this year. It is arguably the case that we have spent more time on this floor talking about monkey bites than we have in talking about a $400 billion spending package. The President was exactly right last night when he said Americans will work their way through the situation, but history will judge whether the actions of this House have hindered or helped Americans in that quest to work their way through this situation and, indeed, the verdict may be mixed. But history will not forgive us if we abdicate our responsibility to be representatives of the people and know the details of the bills that come to the floor. History will not forgive us if we simply declare an emergency and then wave our hands as billions and billions of American tax dollars just simply pass us by. Shame on us.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. May I inquire if there are any other speakers that the gentlelady from Guam has.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So that we can maintain this in some kind of order, I do not have any other speakers. I would just like to say in conclusion that we start a process here today which is somewhat strange as we enter into this next week. We have eight bills that are coming up from our particular committee--seven of which I actually support, including this one--and yet we are now committing them over to the death now of the Federal graveyard known as the United States Senate, where they shall probably languish for the next 2 years, only to be resurrected in the 112th session of Congress in some kind of omnibus form. We're doing probably the son of S.R. 22 even as we speak. However, having said that, I appreciate the words that have been spoken about this particular bill. And I would be willing, Mr. Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Guam if she would like to conclude on this debate, and then that would be sufficient for me.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been adequately explained by the other side and we support this legislation. I reserve my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman from Oregon has said many things with which I totally agree. First of all, I didn't actually set the schedule. The Speaker sets the schedule. I do have two bills on the schedule, and I agree, those bills are not crucial to the value of this country. This country will survive without my bills. Actually, if we are living in the proper world, since both those bills, as many of these passed last year, the Senate should have dealt with them last year and got them over and we would be done with it. That's one of the problems; we have to deal with the other body. There is kind of a difference between my bills and this one as well. Mine don't cost anything. Mine also have the Federal entity that's involved in the Federal enrollment in support of those, and there is, I think, a cause-effect relationship that happens to be there. Having said that, it still doesn't change the fact that we are facing significant issues that we won't be addressing this week dealing with the economy, and dealing with how we are treating our fellow citizens in this Nation, and dealing with how we are going to ask taxpayers to pay for what we are dealing with, whether it's $1 trillion for a stimulus or a $200 billion bailout for Freddie and Fannie or $4 million a year to enforce a bill that could be done by the States and doesn't necessarily solve the problem that is supposedly the reason for the bill's introduction in the first place. So I hope that we can move on to more significant things, and I hope that we are allowed on the floor the time to talk about more significant things in the future. And, yes, I would include my two bills as insignificant in that pantheon of issues which Congress should be debating. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This time, I do rise in opposition to H.R. 80, known as the so-called ``monkey bite bill,'' which we discussed again last time. Just to clear the deck and make sure that everything is up front, I own no monkeys. I am annoyed by rally monkeys at ALCS series games. Other than that, there is no personal interest here. But it is amazing, at a time when we are suffering economic pain--in fact, I find it somewhat incomprehensible that we are again debating an issue that clearly falls under the jurisdiction of State fish and wildlife agencies. In fact, 40 States already prohibit ownership of monkeys or require a license or permit in order to own a monkey. This is not within the realm of what national government needs to spend its time. As tragic as the incident in Connecticut was earlier with that 200- pound chimpanzee, Travis, there is nothing in this legislation that addresses the ownership of monkeys. There is nothing that would have impacted that particular occurrence, unless the monkey was willing to chase the woman from Connecticut over to New York State. Then maybe there would have been some nexus for which this bill would yield because this bill only deals with interstate shipment of monkeys. In 1975 the Federal Government prohibited the importation of nonhuman primates into the United States. There is no legal way to import a monkey into the United States for more than 30 years. So what, pray tell, is the overriding need for this legislation, which, once again, does not prohibit monkeys from biting; we're only prohibiting them from shipping them over States? If a person is bit by a monkey, it will only have any impact if that hand of the kid goes across the State line and then when withdrawing the hand, the monkey follows it back into a different State. Only then would there be some kind of nexus with this. It was stated that there are 15,000 monkeys in the United States. The vast majority of those are not pets but used in other facilities. It was also stated that there are dozens of incidents of monkey bites. Well, I hate to say this. It's kind of like President Adams once said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' In the decade from 1995 to 2005, there were only 132 documented incidences between captive primates and humans. Of that total, only 80 involved pet bites. That's 8 bites per year. If you really wanted to do something about protecting Americans from pets, go after dogs. You send 100,000 people to the hospital every year from being bitten by a pet dog. That maybe would have some relevance to what the Federal Government is trying to do. They also at some time will say that these nonhuman primates transmit disease. Once again in the 110th session of Congress, the expert testimony found that there is no documentation of pet primates being a threat to public safety. There is, though, a cost to this legislation. Regardless of the fact that the issue is minimal, the problem is minimal, the problem could easily be handled on a State-by-State basis, we will still appropriate to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or we will demand the Fish and Wildlife Service cull out from their budget $4 million to hire additional staff to conduct interstate inspections and investigation to enforce this law. On a per basis, that translates to a half million dollars per monkey bite. It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife testified in opposition to this bill. They have better uses of their time and their money. So I urge my colleagues to resist this effort to try to make sure that everything in life is always fair and equal and controlled from these hallowed Halls of Washington and vote ``no'' on H.R. 80. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), which was not where the dogfighting took place. That was Virginia.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Speaker, if today someone says the word ``Geronimo,'' it evokes thoughts of an icon of popular culture. It is unfortunate that in the reality of this Apache warrior's life and death there is not more interest of the importance for him than simply the pop culture that was developed during World War II. It was in fact in 1940, the night before the first mass jump, that paratroopers at Fort Benning were watching a 1939 movie named, oddly enough, ``Geronimo,'' in which the actor playing this hero yells his name as he leaps from a cliff into a river. Thus was born the phrase that has become known to more people than the actual life of the Native American leader we call Geronimo. This resolution notes the treatment of Geronimo and the Apache people at the hands of both the Mexican and the U.S. Governments. It should serve as a lesson that government is often prone to error, incompetence and corruption, and that the larger government grows in size and power, the more pronounced and frequent these errors and misdeeds and mistakes indeed are made. It should make us shudder to think in a matter of weeks how this Congress has spent more than $1 trillion of borrowed money to grow the size and power of the Federal Government. Today we see problems in this country, problems of poverty, problems of joblessness, hopefully not a massive increase in homelessness, but sometimes hopelessness, and that is a sure sign, and the question is whether big government actually is helping to overcome those issues or is a hindrance to the people in their ability to overcome those particular issues. This resolution I hope will inspire fresh thinking about the direction of our government with respect to all American citizens, Native Americans and non-Native Americans alike, and hopefully will inspire us to consider the road we as a country are taking, and if it is indeed to require greater responsibility for individuals, does it help with individuals being able to succeed on their own. That is the course, that is the question, and I think this resolution does move us in that direction to ask those kinds of pertinent questions that are important, not just for this specific individual, but pertinent for all of us. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.