Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) who has worked tirelessly on this issue in a bipartisan way in the past.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As we now talk about a bill that a commitment was made but does not exist anymore, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Coal and oil shale have greater Btus, which simply means that, for the same amount of fuel, our fighters, our Humvees, our trucks could go farther or we could do what we are doing now with less energy consumption that we need. The military has attempted to make sure we have a process with alternative fuels to make sure that we have security for the future. 526 stops that. The Rules Committee could have waived the issues of sequential referral and allowed us to discuss that on the floor, but instead they limited and restricted the debate, so that we will not have a full debate on this important issue that is about the security of the military of this country.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on this very unique rule, which I assume covers parts of at least two or three bills. I would like to talk about one section of it, which is the Department of Defense portion. I would also like to first congratulate Chairman Skelton and the two subcommittee chairmen with whom I work, Abercrombie and Ortiz, for producing a bipartisan bill. They have given the image that I think could be used on other committees that if the leadership of the committee wants to come up with a bipartisan bill, it is easily possible to do that. They have done that in this particular committee. They have been fair in their leadership, their staffs have been very helpful, they have produced a good bill. I also want to thank Representative Boren of Oklahoma, who has taken the issue upon which I wish to address very quickly, and continues to move that forward in an attempt to be a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the amendment made in order under his name on this particular issue has very vague language in there and, I am afraid, only codifies the existing problem as opposed to trying to find a solution to it. The problem exists in that a different committee with very little understanding and no jurisdiction over military affairs has passed legislation which has caused a massive problem for the military of this particular country. A CEO of one of the major airlines has said that for every penny of unexpected cost in fuel, it costs them $1 million of unexpected costs for their overall product. The military has the same problem of fuel costs. In 2001, we spent $2 billion a year for fuel. This year, it may go anywhere between $12 billion to $13 billion a year for fuel. And three-fourths of our oil reserves in this Nation are with countries that are at least hostile or potentially hostile to this country. Realizing that fact, the military has tried to make some provisions for the future. We have enough oil shale and coal in this country to provide for the needs of the military. There is 1 trillion barrels locked in my State. Decades ago, the Department of Defense recognized this and established certain of those sections as part of the Naval Oil Reserve, a reserve that is untapped which we could go in today and use in defense of this country, except for section 526 of the energy bill that was already passed, which cuts the knees out from under the military and its efforts. One of the things I think they did not realize when they passed this bill was that coal----

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 355, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding military commander in the United States Army, Colonel Anne L. Davis. As outgoing Commander of the Tooele Army Depot, TEAD, Utah, Colonel Davis has demonstrated exceptional meritorious service during her tenure from June 16, 2005 to July 8, 2008. TEAD is a very large military installation, with 23,600 acres with extensive munitions storage handling an estimated 200,000 short tons of ammunition stocks valued at $2.75 billion. She was responsible for logistical support to 17 United States military units as well as command and control of Hawthorne Ammunition Depot, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant and Ft. Wingate. Colonel Davis is a brilliant leader who makes every mission look easy. Her PhD in Business added to her skills to better manage and transform Tooele into the Depot of the future. The leaders who worked under her took pride in achieving nearly 100 percent on time, on location delivery of ammunition throughout the Western Continental United States and to various ports to support ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Colonel Davis was instrumental in the development, testing, prove-out and eventual preparation of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams Combat Configured Loads. Her ability to safely and efficiently manage stockpile surveillance inspections while enduring personnel shortages in terms of Quality Assurance and Surveillance Specialists was superb. Colonel Davis aggressively sought additional workload at Tooele by meeting with the Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development and by attending numerous business events throughout the country in an effort to reduce life cycle costs on her installation. Her personal attention in all aspects of safety, to include the Department of Defense Safety Voluntary Protection Program resulted in a 50 percent reduction in civilian days lost due to accidents. Colonel Davis, a native of St. Clair Shores, Michigan, arrived at Tooele Army Depot in June 2005 as a highly regarded and decorated leader in the Army having served in leadership positions in Italy, Hawaii, and the Continental United States. She also commanded Hawthorne Army Depot in Hawthorne, Nevada from June 2000 to July 2003. Lean Six Sigma, LSS, was implemented by Colonel Davis to ensure the Army's competitive edge and increase employee involvement. Under her control, TEAD has certified over 70 Green Belts and has an established self-sufficient LSS program with a Master Black Belt and four Black Belts. Involving over half of the workforce in projects, Colonel Davis has overseen savings to the Depot of over $560,000 in the first two years with another $400,000 expected by the end of this fiscal year. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, Colonel Davis has served her nation well and exhibited some of the finest qualities of leadership and good stewardship of her many responsibilities. She will be missed by the Tooele workforce and by those with whom she has associated in Utah over the past 3 years. I join with the rest of the Utah Congressional Delegation in offering our sincere congratulations on a job well-done, and wishing her the very best for her in all future endeavors.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The gentleman is perfect, right on with this one. The problem we have is a simple concept of supply and demand. If the demand is great and the supply is not, the price goes up. And how do you simply get the price to come down? You increase the supply, whether by production increases or conservation increases or new technology increases. But, once again, spot on accurate. If we don't do that, it's kids who are freezing in classrooms; it's elderly who are stuck in their homes by the fear of going anywhere because they can't afford to get back; it's poor people who will lose their jobs because we don't have enough energy to expand the market. That's why we do this. We do this for people who are counting on us to have a wise, comprehensive policy. And we've found also, if you ask, prizes are a wonderful way because people are so creative. People are innovative. And if we allow that spark of creativity and innovation to come forth, we can solve every problem that we face. And it doesn't have to be done by experts sitting in a room in Washington. People have the ability to do that, and they have the ability to do it better than probably we can.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate my good friend and colleague from Utah that clearly understands this particular issue. I want to start by introducing you to a character in American history by the name of Elbridge Gerry. Elbridge Gerry is a former Vice President, Governor of Massachusetts, signed the Declaration of Independence. He is also one of three people who spent the entire time at the Constitutional convention and then refused to sign the document. Now, we have had others; the gentleman up to my left who appear on the ceiling, one of the two Americans that we had in this icon of lawgivers in the history of the world. George Mason was one who stayed there and refused to sign the document. He had a specific reason, and that was it didn't have a bill of rights. Elbridge Gerry did not have a specific reason. He had a litany of little ticky issues that he thought were wrong with the document. They are so small and so insignificant that I have yet to find a history book that actually lists the reasons for his refusal to sign this particular document. In fact, I had a teacher that one time told me that he had a personality that was the kind so prickly that if the Savior said that the millennium will start on Tuesday, he would say, I can't do that, I have a haircut; we have to wait until at least Thursday to do it. Now, that is what he did. Despite the fact that he had a litany of problems with the document, the document itself turned out to be a pretty good document. As P.J. O'Rourke would say, the Constitution of the United States is 21 pages that is the operating manual for 300 million people, compared to the operating manual of the Toyota Camry which is four times as long and only seats five. The document worked. Well, one of the problems and the reason I am introducing you to Elbridge Gerry is we have an Elbridge Gerry attitude towards energy policy. We all agree that we need to be energy secure and energy independent, and we agree we have to do that. But we can't have windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. We need to be energy secure, but we can't have a liquid natural gas port on the East Coast. We need to be energy secure, but we can't do any kind of offshore drilling even if it is 100 miles away and no one can see it because it might bother the tourists who can't see the drilling going on. We need to be energy secure, but we won't go up to the arctic in Alaska to an area set aside by the Carter administration for the simple purpose of producing energy, and we won't drill there, as the gentleman from Nebraska just recently explained. We have this idea that we have all these ticky little reasons and details that we won't do this and we won't do that, and the end result is we miss the bigger focus and the bigger issue, and that is we need to be energy secure for our Nation and for the individuals of the Nation. Our policy towards energy has always caused problems. It has caused problems for businesses, has for several years, and it is causing problems in the way people live their life. Because the issue is not our country's energy policy in the abstract; the issue is, how do people cook their food? How do people heat their homes? How do people create and hold on to a job? Because every time the price of energy increases, jobs are lost, incomes vanish, social programs suffer. Every individual in this Nation suffers with higher and increasing energy prices. Rising utility bills are indeed one of the major causes of homelessness in this country. And that means, when energy increases in price and cost, the poor and those on fixed income, and there is about 43 million of them in the United States, are the first ones who are hurt and suffering. And how do our people react to this? There is a couple in Maryland who have decided to take their kids out of weekend activities. So their daughter that was in dance and gymnastics, they no longer drive them to these activities. A Vermont church found itself recently in a $10,000 arrears simply because it didn't budget enough for its energy. In Maine, in Wisconsin, schools simply have lowered the temperatures in their classes. So, in a district in western Wisconsin the kids in the winter are now wearing fleeces and zip sweaters, to the fact that they even had a fashion show to show kids how to dress warmly as they are now coming to schools. Unfortunately, they held it on a day when it was snowed out, but that is still the fashion show they tried to do. In Louisiana, they no longer run their sprinklers on the ball field. In North Dakota, they are talking about a four-day school week. In Iowa, they have cancelled trips for choirs, athletics, and field trips for the junior high kids. And schools simply don't have a way of handling this. You can't just put more money into the heating salary. Schools are on a very tight budget, with the majority of schools' budgeting coming from the cost of salaries, which simply means if energy prices increase, teacher salaries will decrease. They simply can't afford to do it in any other particular way. We have a Chicago nurse who has cut out her cable television. She can't afford it anymore. Elderly people on fixed incomes especially feel trapped in their apartments because they do not have the flexibility to go anywhere. They can't afford to. We have an example of an elderly gentleman in St. Paul, Minnesota who now travels most of the time on his electric wheelchair because electricity comes with his rent and that is for free, and he can plug it in in the apartment and he doesn't have to buy gas to get around. Now, that is what is happening to real people. It is happening to the country as well. In the military defense of this country, our costs in the last 3 years for energy for our military has risen from $3 billion a year to $7 billion a year. Our increase in prices are putting our Nation at risk, are putting individuals in jeopardy, and we simply cannot afford to talk about it any longer. We cannot afford to have secret plans that we refuse to identify any longer. We simply have to do something. Because for every dollar spent on higher energy costs, it is a dollar you can't spent on luxuries like tuna casseroles; for our energy is the great social equalizer of this country and it is the one that creates economic opportunity in this country. Our energy should not be those who are rich in government or rich in society or rich economically, the elite that can afford this. One of our Presidential candidates went in one day on three different jets, each of which spewed out 25,000 pounds of CO2 per hour. Now, the average American spews out 15,000 pounds of CO2 per year. And the solution to that was simple: Recognizing that they are now adding to the emissions in the atmosphere, they paid $11,000, and urged you to all buy mercury light bulbs made in China by coal-powered plants. Another one of our good friends who makes a great deal of emphasis on the fact of global climate change and global warming lives in a house that consumes 20 times the amount of electricity that an average house does in this country. And his solution to that? Paying offsets that he uses his own company to pay the offsets. We have a concept right here now of the elite who are not cutting back on their energy consumptions; they are simply paying for it with offsets in a similar way as medieval dukes used to pay for indulgences with the church. And yet, while they are still living in comfort in the elite, what we have is a situation that is harming individuals, and especially individuals who are poor, on fixed incomes, and the elderly. That is one of the reasons the Western Caucus will be introducing shortly a comprehensive energy bill, one that realizes that if we are going to solve this problem, not just talk about it but solve it, there are three principles that have to be introduced: We must increase the production of energy in this country. And we are going to have multiple speakers who will be talking on that aspect. That won't work alone. We also have to increase our efforts of conservation. We cannot solve the problem of our energy future without conservation efforts. But, we cannot solve the problem of our energy independence and our energy security needs by conservation alone. It has to work with other principles. Because it is true, every gallon that we save, every watt of electricity that we do not use is a gallon that does not have to be imported, does not become emitted. Yet, even by the strictest standards of conservation alone, we can account for only about one-half of the amount of oil that we import into this country every year. It would be hypocritical to rely on this. In fact, it would be, as the Ron Arnold book title says, our goal would be ``Freezing in the Dark.'' It has to be more than that. In addition to that, though, there is a third element that has to be there that will be an essential part of this bill, which is innovation. If you go back to the turn of the century, Jules Verne could not have imagined what would have happened in the next 100 years. He could not have imagined going from radios to I-pods, and rockets, computers, going from antibiotics to organ transplants. Couldn't even have imagined bottled water. But that has been the reality of the past 100 years. We have technological abilities that sometimes come slow and sometimes come as fast as new cell phone plans that will provide the ability to use these two concepts to reach the needs so that we can become energy secure. We have certain specific problems that need to be addressed in this process of innovation. We have not had a new refinery built since 1976. In 1980, we had 324 in this country; today, there are 148 that are operating. We can produce 17 million barrels of oil per day from our refinery capacity. Unfortunately, this country needs 21 million barrels of oil per day from our refinery capacity. We have outdated processes and regulations that need to be put in place along with tax reform to encourage both conservation and production. We use about 5 million miles of electricity distribution and 1 million miles of natural gas distribution lines. That is not enough. We need to be developing new corridors so that we can more easily transport energy from section to section. One of the other areas we are looking at is also the workforce. There has been a 90 percent drop in the number of petroleum engineers and geoscience graduates since 1982. At that rate, by the year 2010 we will find a 38 percent shortage in this critical profession that we need to try and find our way to use the knowledge that we have to build and move us into the future. We need to come up with smart meters, point of sales generations. We need to use the technological abilities that we have to find solutions. We need to use a system that has financial rewards and prizes to reach our technological goals, because we have found that voluntary innovation and experimentation are always preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation. Former efforts that failed were not driven by market forces, but they were driven into failure by self-serving governments. We need to combine all these three areas into one. But we cannot overlook the first and most important effort, which is simply production. We in the West perhaps have a different attitude. To be honest, the West produces the energy the East consumes. So I think by all rights we have the ability to be a little bit holier than thou, both realistically as well as spiritually. But the issue is, we have the ability in this country to be energy secure. The stuff is here. There is more energy imprisoned in this country than most nations actually have, and all we have to do is simply be wise enough to realize we need to go at it, we need to develop it, we need to conserve it, and we need to be creative in the way we distribute it. We can talk all day as some people do about profits that the companies are receiving, what we should do with those profits. At the end of that discussion, you have to realize it is a useless discussion, because you can talk all day about what we do with profits. Not one new barrel of oil is provided to anybody by that discussion. The only thing we need to do is start talking about going to where the energy is and developing it, conserving it, and being smarter in the way we do it. That means an attitude change. So our goal is to produce, to conserve, and be smarter in the way we do it. And by that method, that method, we will solve the problem. This Nation needs more than anything else to not talk about the issues any longer, not have secret plans about the issues any longer, but simply to do it. We have the resources, we have the capability, we have the ability to provide for ourselves into the future. And it is almost criminal if we do not do that in a comprehensive and intellectual way. I still have faith that this country can proceed into that future, and I hope America will join us in this effort to meet these criteria. And I applaud my good friend from Utah, who understands this issue instinctively, and his effort to bring this to the attention of the American people with a lot of different people who understand elements of this, and hopefully we can bring together a comprehensive plan for the future of this country so that we can have energy security and energy independence for our future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3490 takes 66 acres of Federal land into trust for the tribe's existing reservation for nongaming purposes. In addition, it deems three tracts of adjacent land part of the tribe's reservation in the Sierra Nevada. The tribe will use the lands to alleviate overcrowded housing, to build a cultural center, for agriculture, and for open space. They will also continue to use the land as a cemetery. Congressman Radanovich should be commended for his work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join the administration in support of this particular piece of legislation. I yield back my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3522 implements a settlement agreement worked out by the tribe and Rio Arriba County. As a result, the parties resolve a long-lasting litigation by conveying tribal lands to the county for transportation purposes. I support the settlement along with the administration. I urge my colleagues to do the same thing. We have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate bill 2739 contains around 62 provisions, and I am pleased to see that they're finally on their way to the President's desk. However, this bill is also a testament to the dysfunction of a certain body on the other side of this Rotunda. Many of the sections of this bill are unable to stand on their own and have subsequently been bundled into a $300 million brew to avoid individual scrutiny. To solve the problem and avoid the discomfort of saying ``no,'' this omnibus was created with enough prizes that inevitably the bad will be overlooked and everything, the good, the bad and the ugly, will be able to cross the finish line. Many of these provisions were passed by this House last year, so it's nice to say that finally something is coming out of the Senate, even if it's coming in this very poor form. But in other ways this bill is also symbolic of this session. We have wasted time and then glob everything together and throw it together with one fell swoop without the ability of scrutinizing it as individual issues, and at the same time miss essential bills that address critical needs. This legislation deals with land where energy opportunities do exist, and yet once again we are moving forward with gas approaching $4 a gallon. Today, the average price of gasoline in the United States was $3.61. That's $1.28 for gasoline, $1.57 for diesel, 55 and 59 percent above what it was at the beginning of the 110th Congress. And still, with no plan to solve this issue, we pass bills that exacerbate this conundrum. This particular bill is full of new designations intended to draw tourists, but the only sightseeing that's going to be done in this country will be from the couch watching the Travel Channel if we don't address our fuel crisis. Every time we pass feel-good natural resource legislation with warm and fuzzy titles, we must consider the damage being done to our ability to provide for ourselves. We have locked up so much of our public land from energy development that we are now seeing the results at the pump, and these are our priorities. What else do we do? Our solution is to offer biofuels; in other words, we want to burn food to power cars. Not only is this immoral, it is devastating Third World countries now unable to afford food to feed their starving children. These are our priorities. We could have used forest mass that's dead every year, it would have been perfect cellulose for production of energy and at the same time save our forests from catastrophic fires, but such was specifically prohibited in the ``no energy'' bill that passed this Congress recently. So, these are our consequences. We discussed many of the sections in this bill individually when they first came to the House floor in 2007. We did it the right way, even if I disagreed with some of the outcomes we decided. Unfortunately, they are back without improvements that would have made them palatable. I don't believe private property rights are adequately protected in any of the heritage areas in this bill. And I question why the amendment to protect second amendment rights, which was overwhelmingly passed on the House floor, was stripped from this package. It is flat out wrong to have done that. It is almost unfathomable that the Senate would do such a thing and that we would consider passing this bill with that significant provision not there. Yet again, the second amendment and property rights take a back seat to misguided priorities of the other body. As I stated earlier, there are a few positives I am pleased to support. Congressmen Wilson and Brown of South Carolina have worked to get the ``Swamp Fox'' General Francis Marion Memorial to the President. I congratulate them. Minority Whip Blunt has labored to authorize the Newtonia Civil War Battlefields study that we will move today. I thank him for his fine work. My Resource Committee colleague, Congressman Louis Gohmert from Texas, has an important study to honor the Space Shuttle, Columbia, and I'm pleased that this is included in Senate 2739. Resource Committee Ranking Member Don Young has several provisions that will benefit the country and his constituents in Alaska, and I thank him for his tireless efforts and advocacy on their behalf. Finally, of all the provisions, probably the best one is a dam bill provision for my congressional district. This provision would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to do a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Box Elder County. And given the shortage of water in the West, by increasing storage capacity of this vital reservoir, the residents of my congressional district will have a more secure water supply and water future. Having already spent too many hours debating these bills when they came before us that now make up this legislative Frankenstein, I see no need to prolong this much longer. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun). (Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska, the sponsor of this bill, the author of this bill, Mr. Fortenberry.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1043 honors the life and legacy of Chief Standing Bear, a pioneer in civil rights for Native Americans. This resolution also commemorates the 100th anniversary of his death, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Chief Standing Bear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Senate bill 2457 provides for extensions of leases of certain land by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut. The leased land is for nongaming commercial purposes. I urge support of this legislation as does the administration. I have no additional speakers. Therefore, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding some time. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas who has introduced this particular piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, many of us grew up listening to vinyl records played on phonographs, something that my kids have probably never heard, let alone seen. But for its day, the phonograph was an amazing device. It gave beautiful music, or maybe not so beautiful music, into our homes; it brought great orchestras and bands to those who would have never heard them otherwise. And a few people still use them, but most of them had replaced them long ago with tapes and CD's and MP3 files, and other types of digital media acknowledging that the phonograph and vinyl record are outdated and that better technologies are available. In the same vein, most of us gave up typewriters a long time ago for computers. But there are a few who, for fear or suspicion, cling to their ancient and inefficient typewriters. Admittedly, the typewriter was a marvelous tool in its time, but there are simply better tools available now. So, Madam Speaker, I want to make the point that it's always a shame to see things that last beyond their usefulness, whether it's an outdated technology, a once-great athlete eventually cut from a team, or even a U.S. senator. You like to see things end in their prime and retain their dignity. Madam Speaker, I'm not here to propose a Commission for Involuntary Retirement of Senators. Nor will I suggest an investigation into aging athletes who should call it quits. I think Mr. Waxman could probably do that for us all. I'm here to support Mr. Brady's idea for a Federal Sunset Commission to evaluate government agencies and find those agencies that are outdated and beyond their usefulness. You see, in most sectors of American life, the free market simply dictates that old products, as great as they may have at one time been, are replaced by newer, better products. Unfortunately in the government, that process of creative destruction stops after we create the first version. The old out-of-date programs or agencies don't really get replaced. It stays around. Performing, maybe not performing, duplicative functions and sucking up tax dollars at the same time. Several years ago, the comptroller, David Walker, pointed out that the USDA, the FDA, and 10 other Federal agencies administer 35 different food safety laws; the Department of Homeland Security, Justice, and HHS administer 16 different grant programs for first responders; and USDA and HUD both provide assistance for rural housing. And I won't even go into the Department of Education; that would be too easy. Why do we have such a hard time getting rid of old programs? It simply has to do with public-choice theory. Every government agency and program, no matter how outdated, has a core constituency who benefit from its existence. Those who are employed at the agency or program and those who receive benefits have a huge incentive to fight for its continued existence. I understand this attitude. I basically did the same thing as a teacher. I was not content, as many of the old-guard teachers were, to simply teach the same lesson year after year. So I and other innovative staff members started new programs like the Historical Society, the Renaissance Festival, a scholarship program, an oral history program, and Close-Up, an internship program at our State capitol. Now, fortunately, most of these program enhancements cost the school very little money except my time, but I did it because I always wanted to have a bigger role at the school. The status quo was never sufficient; I wanted to do more. And herein lies the problem for both government programs and for me as a teacher: In our mindset, if a program is not growing, something is wrong. To self justify, government agencies and offices always think of new ways to expand their ``services.'' The goal is always ``bigger'' and ``more,'' which ends up costing the taxpayers. The desire to grow is the natural instinct of any government agency, and it is the natural instinct of us, but it means to control government, a legislative body has to continually fight that which naturally occurs. It's always an uphill battle. We continue the old and introduce the new. Simply, what we do is when we introduce a new program and there is still an old one in place, it puts us in the silly position of using a computer and a typewriter at the same time. Comptroller Walker, before he retired, in the same report that I just quoted, said, ``A fundamental reassessment of government programs, policies, and activities can help weed out programs that are outdated, ineffective, unsustainable, or simply a lower priority than they used to be. In most Federal mission areas, from low-income housing to food safety to higher education assistance, national goals are achieved through the use of a variety of tools and increasingly through participation of many organizations such as State and local governments that are beyond the direct control of the Federal Government.'' ``Government cannot accept as given all of the existing major programs, policies, and operations. A fundamental review of what the Federal Government does, how it does it, and in some cases, who does the government's business, will be required, particularly given the demographic tidal wave that is starting to show on our fiscal horizon.'' ``A fundamental reassessment.'' It's a novel idea. Make agencies and programs continually prove their value. That brings us to Mr. Brady's bill, the Federal Sunset Act of 2008. Sunset commissions aren't a new idea. States, as are often the case, are ahead of us here. I'm told that there are 24 States currently that have some form of a sunset review and have saved millions of dollars through this process, and it is simply about time the Federal Government follows their lead. P.J. O'Rourke once said, ``the mystery of government is not how Washington works, but how to make it stop.'' Mr. Brady's bill helps solve that mystery. It's a practical solution that will make it easier to get rid of outdated or low-performing or duplicative or wasteful government agencies and programs, and I commend him for reintroducing this bill. It is something this government has to have to put some balance and rationality and logic back into the delivery of services by the Federal Government. And with that, I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey in yielding a few moments so we can talk about another issue of significance, I think, right now. It was in the year 2004 that the President outlined our Nation's vision for space exploration; and he gave three goals: Number 1, to complete the international space station by 2010, 2, to conduct the first manned mission of a new vehicle for astronauts by 2014; and Number 3, to return a man to the moon by 2020. Now, these goals won bipartisan approval by Congress in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, and we gave clear directions to NASA to administer this act. In it, the administrator was directed to develop a human presence on the moon, promote exploration, science and commerce, United States presence in space, and to create a stepping stone to future exploration of mars and other destinations. It further codified more specific requirements to use personnel and assets of the current space shuttle program in developing a new crew vehicle and two new launch vehicles. Now, after the old space shuttle, the original one here has fulfilled its mission to complete the international space station, it will retire in the year 2010 and, by law, must be replaced no later than 2014 by a new vehicle, this one at the top, which is called Orion, which will take humans to the space station, to the moon, to Mars and to beyond. This vision is a bulwark of our Nation's space future for the decades to come. You see, the space shuttle will have been in service for 30 years by the time it's retired, and we can expect as much or more from these new systems. NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, has translated these objectives into a coherent program for further exploration in the solar systems. Its name is Project Constellation, and it will include Orion, and be powered by the most effective, reliable and safe launch vehicles to carry our crew into orbit or lift supplies needed for space exploration; and those two new rockets will be called Ares I and Ares V. Now, Orion will give the United States the best capability to transport astronauts to destinations outside of the Earth's orbit and, at the same time, serve the international space station. The development of the Ares I rocket will boost Orion into orbit, and it has made tremendous progress. In fact, the first unmanned prototype test launch of Ares I is in April of this year. Ares I is at least a factor of 10 times safer, and will lift crews into space at a cost significantly lower than the current space shuttle. In fact, Ares I will be reliable and cost effective enough to be used for commercial purposes, delivering on NASA's promise to energize space activities in the commercial sector. Ares V will be the largest rocket ever produced, exceeding even the carrying capacity of the old Saturn V rocket. Now, the Ares V will only be used to take cargo into space. But the combined capabilities of the Ares I and Ares V rockets will support the space station, moon and Mars exploration, large scientific and commercial payloads and journeys to destinations in our solar system that Kirk, Pickard, Spock and the guy on Reading Rainbow only dreamed of. Furthermore, these rockets will reassert our leadership in exploration of space for decades to come, a leadership that is currently being challenged by other countries. NASA's space exploration vision is vital to this Nation's continued global leadership in space and technology. It will inspire a new generation to become physicists, chemists, geologists, mathematicians who will pursue careers in fields critical to our continued economic wellbeing and world leadership. Now, we often bemoan the lack of interest in science and math, and dream up all sorts of incentives here in Congress that will fail because kids really don't want a Federal bribe. They want to be challenged and inspired. And just like the space race of the 1950s and the 1960s motivated a whole generation of students to pursue education in science and technology, NASA's new exploration plans can inspire a sense of adventure and pride in today's kids. The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs provided this kind of dramatic motivation from grade school to college graduates. So within a few years we were turning out growing numbers of highly skilled engineers and scientists as America's space program offered challenging jobs in pursuit of landing humans on the moon. It is not coincidentally, a coincidence at all that scientific and engineering expertise lost its momentum immediately after the successful Apollo program was prematurely ended and our space commitment was de-emphasized. With no greater challenges in human space flight on the horizon, the historic excitement to earn science and engineering degrees simply withered. Improving the quality of education is as simple as firing the imagination of a child. The dream of working on the moon, traveling to Mars, exploring the other planets will spark that drive. An inspirational vision such as space exploration can provide that necessary spark. We need that inspiration, not only to compete in space, but to continue to compete successfully here on earth. Without this motivation, it simply won't happen. While JFK's challenge was to send a man to the moon and return him safely to the earth, and that was indeed an historic accomplishment, the most important legacy of Apollo is that it inspired a generation to do great things. It's more important now than ever that we do great things. Space exploration will motivate the next generation to accomplish feats that we can only imagine today, and will secure America's position as a world leader. The NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, put it in the proper perspective when he said, ``We go not for gold or silver, but for knowledge and experience, and for the expansion of technology. And that occurs when we explore. These are the reasons we do these things, and they are part of what makes us human.'' Previous space exploration has brought tangible benefits that have improved our lives in innumerable ways. When we say space spin-off products, most people think of Tang and maybe Velcro. But we watch the weather reports on television every night and don't recognize this would not be possible without the space program. Or we make a phone call and don't consider that the connection may be via a communication satellite. GPS navigation satellites, originally developed for the military, are now used 95 percent of the time for civilian application. And many of these benefits are so taken for granted that we now consider them intangible benefits. There are many tangible benefits from the space program. The 2007 ``Space Report'' estimated that last year's impact on the economy from space was $220 billion, with 60 percent of that figure coming from commercial goods and services, not NASA nor the Pentagon. In fact, a common misperception about space is that this money is spent in space, when in reality, these funds are spent right here on earth in the most high tech jobs in the world. Another common misconception is the size of NASA's budget. Opinion surveys will show that Americans think NASA's budget is 10 to 20 percent of Federal spending. In reality, NASA's budget is .6 percent of the Federal budget. The returns on this investment are priceless. The President, Congress and NASA got it right 3 years ago. A clear space exploration strategy now exists in the form of the Constellation program being executed by a team led by an Administrator Michael Griffin, who clearly understands not only the technical issues but, indeed, the delicate balance between performance, risk and cost. In short, Griffin gets it. Implementing the space exploration program will not be an easy task, but it will be worth the journey. Retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and replacing it with Orion no later than 2014 is essential. We have to go forward without delay with this vision as it now stands. And let us not hinder and its dedicated partners from achieving it for all of us. In 2010 the international space station will be complete and the space shuttle program will draw to a close. But the future will belong to Project Constellation. Constellation will give us new space vehicles. It will take us to the space station, the moon, onward to Mars. The names of Orion and Ares will becomes as familiar to the world as Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the space shuttle have been. Thank you for your patience, Madam Speaker. Appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for giving me these few minutes to talk about an essential program that we have to push in the future. And I will yield back as we go on to the next topic of this discussion.