Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, kind of.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a wise choice of action, and I will yield back my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, sir. If I had known we were having a vote on the last one, I might not have fished for the first one. It's a wonderful opportunity for me to introduce this particular amendment from the gentleman of New Mexico who spends so much time in this area and understands it so well. We're facing, obviously, an energy crisis in the United States, and we do have a dearth of solutions that have been forthcoming in this particular body. And we have repeatedly passed legislation that actually has, over the last 30 years, restricted access, limited our resources. This amendment is once again simple. It calls upon the Secretary of Interior to provide us the full accounting of the resources this bill may take away from the American people. Simply, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and private industry, if it remains, shall complete and submit a report accounting for the energy resources withdrawn from future development by designation of this land and waters included in the Taunton River bill. Specifically, the report shall identify, among other sources, the amount of geothermal, wind, solar, biomass energy and any impact on electrical transmission. The amendment is simple. If Congress is acting to take energy resources away from the people, we should know if there is a true impact by these actions. I would urge your support of Mr. Pearce's well-thought-out and significant amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The words of this amendment are hauntingly familiar. As Yogi Berra would say, ``It's deja vu all over again,'' but I don't like to use cliches that are that old. However, this amendment is a wonderful, positive, good amendment. It's been mine up until the last couple of bills. I like this amendment. I am proud that the gentleman from North Carolina has seen conversion to this point of view. To be honest, in our committee, on H.R. 1528, this same amendment, you voted against. I'm happy for your conversion. I welcome you over to the side of truth, right, and justice and where words have meaning. For that reason, we are more than happy to accept this amendment. We will be supportive of this amendment. It's the right thing to do. It's the positive thing to do. It's brilliant verbiage because, to be honest, we wrote it a long time ago. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though to be honest, I'm not in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the July 4th holiday, my wife and I rented the movie 1776. It's one of my favorite ones. It has some historical accuracy, a lot of historical inaccuracies, but it's a fun movie. In the exposition of that, to show John Adams's frustration at Congress at that time, he was called down to vote on a motion by Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire, which is an effort that says that during the hostilities in which they are in, they shall dissuade any kind of dissipation, any extravagances, any gambling, or any horse racing. That is when John Adams explodes and goes out on the street, with the classic lines in his opening song, which says about Congress in 1776: We piddle, twiddle, and resolve not one--I can't use a swear word here, but it's in there--not one thing do we solve. Now, the issue at hand in 1776 in Philadelphia was independence. They had already been fighting for a year. They had raised an army and appointed George Washington to do battle. Yet, they still refused to talk about the key sole issue of the day, which was independence. Instead, they talked about everything else, every small, piddly idea they could come up with, rather than coming to the core. And that was John Adams's frustration with that. As I was watching that movie, I thought, Gee, that is exactly like Congress today. We are doing the same thing. I have to admit that I have a sense of frustration with congressional leadership. It's a 4-hour flight for me to come back here. Yet, every week I have been coming back on that 4-hour flight to deal with non- issues. We haven't dealt with homeland security, we haven't dealt with the appropriations, we haven't dealt with energy issues. Instead, the key issue of this week is to federalize a trail that already exists, that is controlled by local governments, and there is absolutely nothing, nothing the Federal Government can do on this trail that couldn't be accomplished by States and local governments through a well-written interlocal cooperation agreement. The sponsor does not live in the area of this trail. It encompasses nine States. Not all of the Members of Congress who are impacted either in the trail area or abutting the trail area are cosponsors. The other side cannot even refute how many people understand or know that this trail is going to be impacting their lives. The estimates we have are less than 10 percent are understanding about this. Yet, the key issue is not necessarily the trail, because it's already there. The key issue is who will be making decisions in the future about this trail. If it were possible that everyone involved in this particular trail was happy about it, they liked the idea, they wanted it, but at some future date would like to make a decision about that trail, by passing this bill, all of a sudden we change the process and the place of that decision from localities back here to Washington. It's about power, it's about where do you actually make decisions in America. It's about empowerment of individuals. This bill simply takes the decision-making process away from localities and puts it back here in Washington, where we have too many decision-making powers that we are already avoiding as is. They did take one amendment of mine and they eviscerated it, an amendment that dealt with second amendment rights, an amendment that dealt with all second amendment rights. Yet, the issue at hand that is now part of the underlying bill through a self-executing rule only deals with hunting, not all second amendment rights, which was the goal and the idea and what should have been in place, which simply means that if I'm hunting, I'm okay on this trail. If I'm trying to protect myself, I'm not. If a mugger tries to attack me, I cannot protect myself unless first I'm trying to hunt the mugger. Or if a moose is shot by me, I better shoot it in the posterior because if a moose is charging me, no longer is that hunting, that is now self-defense, and that is not allowed with the amendment that came in here. It is simply an absurdity of situations, and it's not an unrealistic absurdity. Even the Washington Post did a recent article about serial killers along the Appalachian Trail. It is not a false fear in there, it's a realistic fear. It's a realistic fear that will be noted that when the Democrats made this self-executing rule, they did not defend all of the second amendment, only the so-called hunting rights, which is not, not the purpose of the second amendment. But this is now simply the only bill that we will have of significance today. It's basically the crux of this entire week, which simply means Democratic leaders don't want to address other issues. Specifically, energy issues. There is no issue of comprehensive policy of what we will be doing to address the energy crisis the Americans are facing. The appropriations process has simply shut down over the potential of doing that. So I fly back for 4 hours to come back here last week to talk about banning pet monkeys from crossing State lines. The week before, about the Chesapeake Bay. This week, I came back here so we could talk about a trail. Mr. Chairman, in all due sincerity, this is nothing but legislative filler. We are not dealing with the real issues that affect people or should be affecting this Congress, we are dealing with the small stuff, the triviality, the legislative minutia. This is like junk food, like cotton candy. It's there. It's fluffy, it's airy. But it is not filling and has no fiber. It gives the illusion of activity, but in essence we are dealing with a cotton candy agenda. We have in essence a Democratic de facto filibuster against energy, against ever talking about it in any way, shape, or form. Instead, we have a trail. A trail that already exists, a trail that would be federalized, a trail that encompasses more power back here in Washington, instead of allowing people to help make decisions for themselves. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, while this legislation prohibits the use of eminent domain by the Federal Government, it does not prohibit State or local governments from doing the same thing, in essence doing the same dirty work. So my amendment is very simple and clear. It prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from accepting lands from State and local governments that were acquired through eminent domain to expand this particular trail. We are talking about George Washington and the Revolution. I think it is fitting to remember how strongly George Washington felt about ensuring private property and that his soldiers respected the property of civilians, even if they were a Tory sympathizer. He gave orders that forbid looting even though plunder was the norm of the time. And even though his men were hungry and dressed in rags, it is remarkable that in so desperate a situation with such a noble cause for which he was fighting, he imposed on his side such a high standard of conduct and a high respect of individual priority property rights. In our world, the post-Kelo decision world, we cannot allow our constituents to fall victim to any abuse of power from any level of government that disproportionately attacks them, sometimes even disproportionately attacks those on the lowest level of our economic scales. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a favorable vote to an amendment that simply says that the Federal Government will not accept land that is taken by eminent domain. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for starting out here with my old profession as a teacher coming out. But the gentleman from Connecticut and a couple of others on this floor have said some things that I think bear discussion simply as a review on the fundamentals of how legislative government works around here. Outside in the hallway we have the distinguished Speakers. Most of them are the most recent ones, but there are the four that I always consider to be the four great speakers of this House, one of whom was Thomas Bracken Reed, who is the one that transformed this House from a minority body into a majority body. He is the one who determined, in fact he said: If the tyranny of the majority is harsh, the tyranny of the minority is unendurable. And he was the one who prohibited the practice of calling a roll call and then not allowing people to say ``here''; therefore, not having a quorum to conduct business. He forced the counting of a roll call, which made this from that time on a majoritarian body. The problem we have over in the Senate is that has never been a majoritarian body; it will always be a minority body. It takes 60 votes to cut off the debate and move onward. So even though today the Democrats have the leadership positions in both the House and the Senate, I would never jump to the conclusion or the inaccuracy of saying that the Democrats control Congress because the Democrats will not control the Senate until they have at least 60 votes there. It is a minority body. In like manner, the conversation that Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years and didn't do anything has the same problem because in none of those 12 years did Republicans have 60 votes in the Senate. And, therefore, a minority body was actually in control. We have had split government. We will probably always have some form of split government in that respect. But to assume that because there was leadership of both parties is not to assume the same basic core that goes along with that factor. And, indeed, over the last 5 to 10 to 12 years, there has been a great deal of energy discussion from this body, and when Republicans were in control of this body, there was a great deal of legislation dealing with energy that was passed in this body only to be prohibited from going through the entire process because this majoritarian body could pass something that the minority- controlled body on the other side could not do. I appreciate the distinguished chairman from West Virginia of our committee speaking so passionately, especially about coal. I share that passion. We have a great deal of coal in my State. The only difference between the two is, unfortunately, the coal in the State of West Virginia is on private property. I was so impressed when the chairman had a bill that dealt with wilderness and the coal companies were there to advocate for wilderness because it did not impact them. They were on private property. In the State of Utah and much of the West, we have the exact opposite problem; the coal is found on public lands. And so I appreciate his commitment to the concept of coal, and even though it may indeed be a form of competition at some time in the future, I take his words as a commitment to try to work forward to try and free up the coal in the West that is on public lands so it can all be part of the energy solution that we are looking for in this Nation. You know, we are talking about a bill that dealt with Washington. Washington led the troops in an era where he simply was out of ammunition. He had the opportunity of failing, but he did not allow it to be so because the American spirit worked out the details and then worked out the process so he overcame those competitions, those difficulties. The United States today is in the same situation. We are out of energy ammunition, and it is a significant problem for those who are on fixed incomes, the poor and the middle class. If you are rich, this energy problem which we face is merely an annoyance. If you are on a fixed income or a limited income, or if you are poor or middle class, then it becomes a significant life situation so that every dollar that they no longer can spend, that they now have to spend to energy on consumption, is a dollar that they can't spent on such luxuries as Hamburger Helper. In this particular bill the Democrats accepted an amendment from one of the great young Republican freshmen from Virginia, Mr. Wittman. It is an amendment that is still part of this bill that aims to protect energy production and transmission in this particular trail system. It is a microcosm. It is the appropriate thing to do. The real question then is why not? Why not do this same thing not just in this trail bill, but throughout this entire country so we can honor and protect to do that. Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with now is simply the concept of the future of where we are going. We can either find scapegoats or we can find solutions. I think it is time that both sides of the aisle look very carefully at trying to find solutions. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) such time as he may consume.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) such time as he may consume. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. Bill Veeck was an old baseball owner and entrepreneur who used to say, ``I don't ever break the rules, I just test their elasticity.'' Apparently the Democrats on the Rules Committee are doing that same standard of testing the elasticity. When the time for amendments to the Rules Committee was closed, I did have one that was filed that dealt with second amendment issues, the only one that dealt with second amendment issues. After the filing was closed, apparently Democrat staff then took that amendment, without public hearing, without any Member input, they amended that to leave the most important part of second amendment protection on the floor, and then introduced it as a self-executing rule. Self-executing rules were originally intended for technical amendments only to help the process along, but more and more we see the Democrat Rules Committee using substantive amendments now under self- executing processes. Now, in the good old days, I tried to get Chairman Dreier to do that for me, but he always said I had to give him my first born son, and it still had to be technical. I am willing to give the gentleman from California my first born son--actually, he's out of college now, it won't help me at all, but I'm still willing to do it if that's what it takes now to meet the process. But I realize, you're not breaking the rules, you're just testing the elasticity. There are groups out there that rank Congressmen. There's even a fantasy congressional league that's out there. They give us all points for how many bills we introduce, committee assignments, amendments that are passed. I've known the pain of having a fantasy baseball team where half of the members were on the DL. So I'm asking the gentleman from California if he would have the courtesy of calling these groups and letting them know that this self- executing rule that is now part of the bill was actually mine so I could get those points. Not because of me, mind you. I'm just worried about my friends who have me as part of their fantasy congressional team because I know you're just testing the elasticity of it. In fact, it was suggested that sometime in the future we should start copyrighting our amendments before we actually give them to the Rules Committee staff. This is not necessarily the first time this has ever happened, as the gentleman from California mentioned. There was another lands bill where I introduced an amendment with the same topic that once again was redrafted, this time refiled with a Democrat as the sponsor of it and it did pass this House and I was happy to vote for that because it was a good idea. It was my idea, but it was still a good idea. But I realize you're just testing the elasticity of it. I'm not saying you're stealing, mind you. I am not saying anyone is stealing. But John Stockton has called and wondered if his NBA steal record still exists. The Patriot coaches are wondering why they're in trouble. The 1919 Black Sox want their title back. And Henderson has actually discussed it because he could have beat Ty Cobb's record years earlier had he had these same techniques in line. In fact, to be honest with you, I had a softball game last night that we won and we are now 9-1. And I'm wondering if the gentleman would actually do another self- executing rule to make us 10-0. That would actually do something for me. And since we're pulling stuff out of thin air without committee assignments, without floor discussion, I think it would fit within the concept. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we're doing all the work and someone else is taking the credit. Because we're used to that. We work with the Senate all the time. We understand how that works. But if indeed we are becoming the Puff Daddy of legislative efforts in here, I would suggest that if the Rules Committee really wants to do something to further discussion and actually do something positive to make it worth the 4-hour flight we had to come back here for this particular bill, why don't you take my Americans for American Energy Act and do a self-executing rule to put that in. At least that would be a meaningful discussion that we would have on the floor of a meaningful bill and would make it worthwhile for us to come back here and finally start talking about something that is meaningful and useful for the American people.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, we have heard before that Big Oil is trying to gouge the consumer, and now Big Oil is down there trying to hide this stuff, in an effort to find another scapegoat or say there is a big conspiracy that is causing our problems, rather than 30 years of failed policies on behalf of this Congress. And now we are doing this on a suspension where we have half the time to debate, no amendments are possible in an effort to stop discussion. The fact of the matter is 68 percent of all oil leases and 87 percent of all natural gas leases are done by small companies, small companies who need to produce to put food on the table. Is it logical that they are actually part of a conspiracy to hide the oil beneath the ground? This bill is nothing more than another law with a layer of bureaucracy put on it than we already have. But maybe, for the gentlelady of Oklahoma, maybe the Democrats have something here. Maybe we should be looking at this tactic for other areas. Like we all know 18-year-olds and women have the right to vote. Maybe we can pass another law to let them vote; this time, they can use it or lose it. Or I know free speech is in the Constitution. Maybe we can say we all have free speech, unless we use it or lose it. I think there are some Members of this body who would never lose it. Or faith, use it or lose it. Or maybe a brain. You can use it, or you can become a Member of Congress. What we need to do right now is to stop finding scapegoats and find solutions. This bill is not a solution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Chairman, first of all, I wish to thank the two gentlemen from California, Mr. McKeon and as much as I hate to, Mr. Miller as well, for continuing to work on this particular bill. To say that this bill that is before us today is vastly better than the one that came out of the committee is definitely one of the understatements of the century, and so I appreciate their efforts to continue to try to make improvements on this particular bill. I still have some problems. You know, this is the era of the NBA draft, and every team that's involved in the NBA draft is going through all of the data. They are going through all the pictures, they are going through the reviews, and they are checking the schedules of all the players. Not one of them is basing their decisions on a couple of comments in the yearbook written in the high school year of one of the kids. Unfortunately, this bill is based upon a GAO report that is spotty at best which dealt with anecdotal evidence, several deaths of teens that were reported in this program. My office received a very emotional call from one of those who was cited, one of the programs that was cited, saying that the death had been found to be an accident, but GAO had never asked them about it. In fact, the GAO investigator admitted the eight anecdotal cases that were brought before us, only one resulted in any kind of criminal activity which simply meant either these problems were dealt with in a professional way or the legal system failed us miserably. The GAO investigator admitted not knowing how many problems existed and the depth of the problem, if there was any, because no official study had been done on those particular areas. Instead, perceptions were made on these particular programs which are designed to help troubled youth, youth in difficult situations to begin with. One of the studies I did see indicated that in a study that was done, wilderness programs like this designed for troubled kids estimate about 1.1 injuries of all kinds per 1,000 days of participation. High school football camps have 19.7 injuries per 1,000 days of participation. In fact, even average kids living at home who have a driver's license are estimated at 4.5 accidents per 1,000 days. We are dealing with a situation here which is more anecdotal than actual, and we are still coming up with a bill, much better than what we had in committee, but still has a few problems. Subsection (J) still insists on a sex offender registry that is yet to be up and running. Subsection (M) deals with parental requirements in which the parent is supposed to give information yet there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure the parent actually gives that particular recommendation. So there is still work that needs to be done on this. Perhaps I can end with a quote from a parent whose daughter was actually in the same program as one of those who testified in front of the committee in which she said: Improvements can only happen when they are based on reality rather than generalizations and politics. The reality is that there are three basic approaches to residential placement of youth, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses and a different route to improve each. First, there are juvenile justice institutions; second, treatment facilities including psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment centers; and the third general type are those that we refer to as parental-choice schools and programs. We can and need to do better, but a solution will come about from reasoned discussions and step-by-step improvements that address the real problems in each type of approach. I am dubious that the Federal Government has the ability to improve the situation. This is partly based on what I have seen in the committee hearings where the emphasis was on wringing political condemnations, blurring boundaries and appealing to ideology and biases, and partly because of chronic problems existing in the current public-funded and controlled programs. In short, this is an approach in which the States, especially my State, are actually solving the problem in a better way right now. We do not need the Federal Government to be involved in this particular program.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am told that one of the quirks of the system we have right now is in the State of California. Anyone who is age 14 or older can check him or herself out of a situation or a program, which may be one of the reasons why programs in other parts of the country have almost 30 percent of their residents in these parent-type choice programs coming from the State of California. Maybe in the future we should work on how California deals with the situation internally instead of having a one-size-fits-all program here when the States are close to the problem and actually have stepped up to the plate and are doing a better job in trying to emphasize and control these programs than anything that we can do here on the Federal level. With that, once again I thank the chairman and the ranking member for improving this bill from where it was.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to express my appreciation to a fine public servant and military officer, former Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael T. Moseley who recently resigned on orders from the Secretary of Defense. There are a few lingering questions regarding the scope and unfortunate timing of this unprecedented decision to dismiss both top Air Force leaders at the same time only days before the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was scheduled to issue its decision in the hotly contested $40 billion tanker program. The dismissals also come during a time of war and great stresses on Air Force personnel. No one will argue that it is not within Secretary Gates' authority to take that drastic and unprecedented action even if some of us question whether or not it was really the right thing to do given the totality of circumstances. Every military and civilian officer knows that they serve at the pleasure of the President and that they stand to be dismissed for any reason whatsoever. As professional leaders, General Moseley and former Secretary Wynne accepted that fact. Unfortunately, the entire record of their decades of public service, notable achievements, and personal sacrifices for our country, are at risk of being lost or pushed aside due to media focus of these recent headline-grabbing events. And I regret that a handful of individuals, including Members of Congress, may be tempted to seize upon Secretary Gates' action to somehow legitimize unrelated claims in areas of disagreement with these two Air Force leaders. That would be patently unfair and unjust, and I feel an obligation to remind us all of a few points. With particular regard to General Michael T. Moseley, it would he hard to find a more competent and experienced Air Force Chief since the service's inception over 60 years ago. Having entered the Air Force in 1971, he rose quickly through the ranks and his competency as a top F- 15 pilot led him to command responsibilities at the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School. In addition to other command responsibilities in different parts of the world, General Moseley served as the combat Director of Operations for Joint Task Force-Southwest Asia. Like no other Air Force Chief in a generation, General Moseley demonstrated that he knew how to command air power during combat operations. Between 2001 and 2004, he served in combat, having commanded coalition air forces in Afghanistan and Iraq that employed greater precision and air- ground coordination than ever before. With advanced post graduate degrees as well, he is regarded by many as a military scholar and historian, which has given him a level of rounded perspective that has benefited the Air Force. He served as both Vice-Chief and Chief of the Air Force during very tumultuous times in the Air Force. He became Vice Chief in 2004, and confronted with extremely challenging budget and personnel cuts posed by the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and still additional cuts mandated by the Administration, General Moseley helped to steer the Air Force through some very tough times. In so doing, and to his great credit, he always put the airmen and their families first. He recognized that our Nation unwisely took a ``holiday from history'' in the 1990s by delaying and deferring aircraft modernization, and as a result, our pilots are having to fly aircraft that are on average nearly 40 years old. We have F-15's literally flying apart in the air due to age and corrosion. We have F-16s that are nearing the end of their service-life. We have 40-year-old tankers, and 50-year-old bombers. We have third-world nations that are fielding fighters that are, or soon will be--peers to our fourth-generation fighters. At the same time, our Administration has not been as committed to recapitalizing our fighter fleet with the F-22 and F-35 in the numbers necessary to meet validated military requirements as it should be. The Nation has taken for granted our traditional air superiority. General Moseley was right to have pointed out these vulnerabilities. We never know in advance where our next adversary will spring from and what the origins of conflict will be. We must be prepared and strong across the full spectrum of air based threats, from both asymmetric threats and resurgent adversarial nations. General Moseley understood this very well. Even as military operations continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force is called upon around-the-clock to undertake combat operations, and targeted air strikes, or to fly troops and cargo in and out of theatre, or provide intelligence platforms, and the list goes on and on. Our ground forces have come to rely on our United States Air Force mainly because--they're so capable! That's no accident. General Moseley understood this, because he was there, actually commanding airmen in fighting operations! It's because of visionary leaders like General Moseley that the Air Force is reliable. It takes almost 20 years to develop, test and field a new advanced weapons system like the F-22 and F-35. If we take more ``holidays from history,'' then we leave our Nation and future generations at great risk of falling behind the technology curve. In 1938, U.S. defense planners considered the venerable P-51 (Mustang) fighter aircraft too insignificant for full funding and production to replace the more vulnerable P-38 Lightning aircraft. Once World War II was underway, it took the U.S. a few years to ramp-up production of the P-51 in sufficient numbers so that it could be useful in Europe to establish air superiority against the Germans. Back then, we were able to recover the shortfall over a few years' time. In these modern times with technology development increasing at exponential rates throughout many third-world and hostile nations, we no longer have that luxury. Just like we're learning with the sky-rocketing costs of oil and gasoline--even if we were to immediately increase U.S. domestic production of oil resources, you can't just turn the spigot on tomorrow and have the oil flow. It takes years to do that, just as it does in the weapons procurement world. General Moseley understood this and was it forceful and persuasive advocate for modernization. This advocacy is something which, though he was absolutely correct on the facts and merits--earned him criticism when he should have found support. General Moseley was also forward-thinking in recognizing the seriousness of the military and national security implications posed by the growing cyber security threat. His leadership resulted in the launching of the Air Force's Cyber command initiative. More than any other military department or agency of the federal government, Moseley did more than just wring his hands about the threat. He took concrete actions to demonstrate that he recognized its seriousness. He should be commended for that vision. He oversaw the dramatically-successful and historic deployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in combat, and also instituted training to help instill a ``warrior ethos'' through training in hand-to-hand combat, survival and evasion skills required by the types of conflicts demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud of General Moseley--that his sense of responsibility to the Air Force's overall mission led him to voice legitimate concerns on matters like the serious deficiencies in Aircraft Modernization with Congress, even at risk of his career. To me, that is real integrity. When we have hearings on the Armed Services Committee, what we're after is the real truth--unvarnished and unblinking. We're not looking for the sanitized version of the truth. The Secretary of Defense cited a failure of leadership within the Air Force with regard to its nuclear mission. Those are, indeed, serious charges and certainly corrections within the Air Force as to procedures must continue to be made. But I want to point out that many of the systemic problems in the nuclear area mentioned in the Admiral's report are not General Moseley or Secretary Wynne's fault. The Department of Defense and the Administration share in the responsibility for the impacts of both Budget cuts and BRAC mandated targets of the past. Those cuts clearly de-funded and de-emphasized nuclear matters. Cuts in the ICBM modernization budgets and programs that were not necessarily the Air Force's preferred choice have also taken a toll in these recent incidents, and those budget cut impacts must also he acknowledged and corrected by this and future Secretaries if we are truly going to address shortfalls in nuclear surety matters. I know first-hand because during my six years in Congress, I have had to request that funding be added to the budget to cover documented shortfalls in Minuteman III modernization programs. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking General Michael Moseley and Secretary Mike Wynne for their dedicated public service to our nation and our fighting men and women. From where I sit as a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I believe that both of these Air Force leaders can hold their heads high. I believe they are men of great personal integrity. I wish them both well in their future endeavors.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my appreciation to a fine public servant and military officer, former Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael T. Moseley, who recently resigned on orders from the Secretary of Defense. The timing of this unprecedented decision to dismiss both top Air Force leaders only days before the decision on the tanker program, and during a time of wartime stress on Air Force personnel, is unfortunate. Nevertheless, every military and civilian officer knows that he serves at the pleasure of the President and can be dismissed for any reason. As professional leaders, General Moseley and former Secretary Wynne accepted that fact. Unfortunately, the entire record of their decades of public service may be at risk of being pushed aside. In particular regard to General Michael Moseley, it would be hard to find a more competent and experienced Air Force chief since the service's inception over 60 years ago. Entering the Air Force in 1971, he quickly rose through the ranks, and his competency as the top F-15 pilot led to command responsibilities around the world. Like no other Air Force Chief in a generation, General Moseley demonstrated he knew how to command air power during combat operations because he led coalition Air Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq that employed greater precision and air-ground coordination than ever before. He served as Chief of the Air Force during a very tumultuous time. He confronted the challenging budget and personnel cuts posed by the Quadrennial Defense Review, as well as additional cuts administered or mandated by the administration. He helped to steer the Air Force through some tough times, and in so doing, and to his credit, he always put the airmen and their families first. He recognized that our Nation unwisely took a ``holiday from history'' in the 1990s by delaying aircraft modernization and, as a result, our pilots are flying aircraft that average nearly 40 years of age. We have F-15s literally falling apart in the air. We have F-16s that are nearing the end of their service-life. We have 40-year-old tankers and 50-year-old bombers. And we have Third World nations that are fielding fighters that are, or soon will be, equal to our fourth-generation fighters. And, at the same time, we have not committed to recapitalizing our fighter fleet of F- 22s and F-35s in the number necessary to meet validated military requirements. It takes almost 20 years to develop, test and field a new advanced weapons system. If we take more ``holidays from history'' we leave our Nation and future generations at risk. This Nation has taken for granted our traditional air superiority. And General Moseley was right to have pointed out these vulnerabilities. We never know in advance our next adversary. We must be prepared and strong for both asymmetric threats as well as resurgent adversarial nations, and General Moseley understood this very well. The Air Force is still called upon around the clock to undertake combat missions, targeted air strikes, deliver troops and cargo and provide intelligence platforms. Our ground forces have come to rely on the Air Force, mainly because, well, they're so competent. And that's no accident. General Moseley understood this because he was there actually commanding airmen in combat operations. General Moseley recognized the national security implications posed by the growing cybersecurity threat. He did not just wring his hands. He took concrete actions to establish the Air Force Cyber Command Initiative. He oversaw the historic development of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in combat, and also instituted training to help instill a ``warrior ethos'' in the Air Force. He should be commended for that vision. I am proud of General Moseley. His sense of responsibility to the Air Force's overall mission led him to voice legitimate with Congress on matters like serious deficiencies in aircraft modernization, even at the risk of his career. To me, this is real integrity. When we have hearings on the Armed Services Committee, what we're after is the real truth, unvarnished and unblinking. We're not looking for a sanitized version. General Moseley was an advocate for modernization, and this advocacy is something which, though he was absolutely correct in both fact and merit, earned him criticisms where he should have found support. The Secretary of Defense cited a failure of leadership within the Air Force in regards to its nuclear mission. Those are indeed serious charges, but the Department of Defense shares the responsibility through the impact of both budget cuts and BRAC mandates. These cuts clearly de-funded and de-emphasized nuclear matters. Cuts that were not the Air Force's preferred choice have taken a toll, and those budgets cuts must be acknowledged and corrected by this and future secretaries if we are truly going to address shortfalls in nuclear surety matters. I know that first-hand, as even I have had to request funding additions to cover documented shortfalls in the Minuteman III modernization program. So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank General Michael Moseley, as well as Secretary Michael Wynne, for their dedicated public service to our Nation and our fighting men and women. From where I sit as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I believe that both these Air Force leaders can hold their heads high. I believe they are both men of great personal integrity, and I wish them well in their future endeavors.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the bill that was introduced by our committee colleague, Doug Lamborn of Colorado. The Leadville Mine Tunnel was supposed to be used for a nearby Federal water project but has ended up becoming a public danger. It has been on the verge of bursting and sending what is presumed to be chemical-laden water toward local homes. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the tunnel and must be responsible for resolving the situation. And that is what this bipartisan bill accomplishes. The Leadville Mine, addressed in this bill, was used during World War II and the Korean War to supply critical metals to help our Nation. Years ago, our Nation smartly invested in mining our natural resources. Yet today, the mining industry is under attack by some and by many. And the net effect, of course, has been to outsource U.S. jobs to countries that have commonsense environmental regulations and an increase in consumer prices to those here at home. It would be nice if Congress would promote our own mining industry and not destroy it by 1,000 cuts. America does deserve better. This bill, though, solves a particular problem that is faced in Colorado. It is a bipartisan bill. And I urge its adoption.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Once again, I have no other speakers on this particular bill. Does the gentlelady have any other speakers?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlelady from Guam has, once again, in her role as the bill manager, adequately explained the legislation that has been introduced by our colleague from New Mexico, Tom Udall. And it is also supported by our committee colleague, the ranking member on the Energy and Mineral Resources subcommittee, himself an expert on energy, Steve Pearce. Both of them are trying to seek to provide alternative water sources to communities in eastern New Mexico. One thing that is not contemplated in this bill is, of course, how much energy it will take to pump the water over almost 100 miles of pipeline. Water pumping costs for this project will require massive amounts of electricity. It is unclear on how we, as a country, are planning on generating that electricity in the future. But since commitments have been made to work on specific committee report language involving land owner rights and military contributions to this particular water project, we certainly have no objection at this point to this bill and would also urge a favorable vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to another of the good representatives of southern California, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).