Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Resolution 930, which supports the goals and ideals of Career and Technical Education Month. Eighty-five years after the passage of the first piece of Federal vocational education legislation, career and technical education continues to evolve from its original and sole focus of preparing students for work immediately following high school. Today, the goal of career and technical education is to empower students to participate effectively in an international economy. Career and technical education programs contribute to broad educational achievements of students. These programs may include classes in basic skills, but also higher level skills, such as the ability to utilize technology, the ability to think creatively, solve problems, and the ability to work independently and as part of a team. Career and technical education is offered in middle school, high school, 2-year community and technical colleges, as well as other post- secondary schools. And career and technical education is designed to prepare high school students to transition successfully to post- secondary education. It is also designed to help college students acquire the skills and knowledge that are needed to find gainful employment. And it is designed to help workers acquire job skills in new fields or to refresh skills in their existing career path. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 18 of the 20 fastest growing occupations within the next decade will require career and technical education. And according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 40 percent of employers report that job applicants need better skills in this area. Career and technical education programs are an integral part of the public education system and are designed to educate for careers. Career and technical education prepares students for more than just a good- paying job; it is the beginning of a career path. And in today's workforce and economy, it is essential that students and workers remain life-long learners because the cutting edge skills don't remain cutting edge for long. Access to formal and informal training opportunities is critical to remain competitive. Career and technical education programs are the solution for securing this type of training. Today's career and technical education programs are increasingly incorporating rigorous and challenging academic content standards. They provide a non-duplicative sequence of courses leading to an industry- recognized credential or certificate, or an associate or baccalaureate degree. The programs of study offered through career and technical education are essential for our students and our workforce. For these reasons I stand in support of Career and Technical Education Month. With that, I also thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for introducing this bill. At some time I would hope he would answer whether skiing is considered part of career and technical education in his bill. And I ask my colleagues, in the bipartisan spirit that permeates our committee, to support this bill as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 944, which honors the distinguished career of Army Lieutenant General Russel Honore, who is retiring, as has been said, after 37 years of service to this great Nation. The United States Army is known for its tradition, strength, and valor, and Lieutenant General Honore exemplifies what it means to be a soldier. The general has had a career that young soldiers dream about. He saw action in both Iraq and Kuwait during the first Gulf War. He has earned 15 awards and decorations and has served overseas in both Germany and Korea. But perhaps his most significant contribution to the Nation was as commander to the Joint Task Force Katrina following the devastation of the gulf coast in 2005. The general commanded troops from all branches of our military in one of the worst natural disasters that our country has ever experienced. He was working not only to help repair his native State of Louisiana, but he was working to repair his country, and he did so in exemplary fashion. I wish to honor Lieutenant General Honore and his family, Beverly, Stephanie, Kimberly, Stephen, and Michael, the best in what comes next for them, and I thank them for their commitment to this country as a family. I congratulate the general on his magnificent career, and I urge all Members to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. I rise today to support H. Res. 978, which expresses the support for the designation of the week of March 3-7 of this year as the School Social Work Week. And it will promote the awareness of the vital role of school social workers in schools, and in the community as the whole, where they help students to prepare for their future as productive citizens. From time to time, students face certain challenges to achieving academic success. The emotional, social, and behavioral problems can be serious impediments to learning and can have a deleterious effect not just on the individual student, but on others in the school setting. Schools, families, communities must work collaboratively to assist students to achieve the positive academic and behavioral outcomes. School social work service provides a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of students through early identification, prevention, intervention, counseling, as well as support. And school social workers are trained, qualified professionals who meet the State requirements to practice social work specifically in a school setting. They provide direct services to students who experience academic and social difficulties. They develop relationships that bolster self-esteem, reward positive behavior. School social workers support teachers by offering options for addressing student needs and by participating in the student support team. School social workers work with families and communities, coordinate services to the students as well as to the family. According to the National Mental Health Association, there are between 17 and 18 million children who are in need of mental health services, and those are just the ones I taught in my classes. These workers address those particular needs. School social workers help students who otherwise might not receive services due to inaccessibility or lack of availability of services. So I commend these dedicated professionals for the service they provide, and I ask my colleagues also to support this resolution which would identify School Social Work Week this coming March. With that, 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 before us is truly a technical amendment that deals with the Native American $1 coin. It is a good bill for collectors. It does no harm to the Nation. It does not cost the taxpayers a dime, or in this case, it doesn't cost them a dollar. I urge its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a technical amendment only. When the Native American $1 Coin Act passed the House last spring, it was envisioned the one-dollar coins with a regularly changed reverse celebrating different Native American themes would start being issued by the Mint last month--January 2008. However, due to the press of other important business, the Senate was unable to pass the bill until the end of July and the minor changes made there required House approval. The result was that this very laudable program did not get to the President's desk until September, which triggered language in the text intended to ensure that the U.S. Mint had enough time to properly design the first coin, and so the program wills start next January instead. To avoid having to send the bill back to the Senate again and further elongate the timeline, no attempt was made to change language that ended the production of the then-current design of the Sacagawea dollar coin, so that there would not be two designs co-circulating. That meant that the Sacagawea dollar by law cannot be produced this year, for the 5-10 million U.S. Mint proof sets that otherwise would have contained it. Mr. Speaker, this bill merely corrects that issue, so that collectors will be able to get the last of that design of the dollar coin during 2008 in their collectible sets. Next year new dollar coins will start circulating alongside the Presidential dollars, still bearing the image of Sacagawea on the front but once a year having a different reverse design representing the contributions of Native Americans to our heritage. This bill will be good for collectors, will do no harm and will not cost the taxpayers a dime--or a dollar. I urge its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 29 was introduced by our colleague, Darrell Issa, and authorizes the construction of the groundwater recharge and pumping project in the lower Santa Margarita River basin in Southern California. If constructed, the project would provide much-needed water to the local water utility district as well as to Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps base, for its military training needs. This project would augment the local water district supply, would relieve future additional demands for constantly limited imported water supplies, and would set aside and preserve valuable environmental habitat. This project is an excellent example of local and Federal agencies working together to secure safe, dependable water supplies for future generations. This bill is good for water consumers, and it is good for our soldiers. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, which has been considered by the House twice already. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona has adequately explained the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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 appreciate the kind words from the gentlewoman from Texas in support of this particular resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 209 and yield myself such time as I may consume. The resolution has been adequately explained again by the gentleman from Arizona. I would like to commend Congressman Whitfield for his work on this resolution that designates the Museum of the American Quilter's Society in Paducah, Kentucky, as the National Quilt Museum of the United States. It's a designation that brings us all a great deal of warmth and comfort and helps tie together the loose ends of our society. I am grateful this resolution has been brought to the floor so that we can finally put this to bed. The bill's author, Mr. Whitfield, wanted to be here today, but his flight has been unavoidably detained because of weather conditions. I urge the adoption of this resolution and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have no other speakers. I urge adoption of the resolution and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The gentleman from Arizona has adequately explained H.R. 2251, and we're prepared to accept this legislation with a brief clarification from the chairman of the subcommittee on the intent of this bill. The question we have is, is the proposed intermodal transportation center intended to limit the access to the park by automobile, or is this part of a larger plan to abolish the public's ability to travel through the park by private automobile? Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona if he is prepared to address that issue right now.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that statement. And with that assurance, we can accept this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3332 and yield myself as much time as I may consume. The gentleman from Arizona has again adequately explained this particular bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I'm once again appreciative of the remarks by the gentlewoman from Hawaii, and I'm also appreciative that now I know how to say ``Kalaupapa.'' Her staff was very kind enough to send over the pronunciation guide, but they didn't put where the accent marks should go; so I didn't know where the emphasis was on this particular word. But with that, I am still very supportive of this particular act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Washington yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, if you remember back in the 1960s when Volkswagens were very popular and they had this wonderful self-deprecating campaign going on for their advertising. For instance, putting a Volkswagen in a carport and the caption would read, ``It makes your house look bigger.'' My favorite one was taking a Volkswagen, ripping off the fenders, putting big tires on it, putting even a spoiler in the back, a painted stripe, jacking it up on the back, and the caption read ``Is nothing sacred?'' Sometimes while I've been here in Congress, I have often wondered if nothing is actually sacred. Education, even higher education, is still the purview of States. The 10th amendment gives them that parameter. And yet it is possible that we often ignore that. It is possible to soup up a Volkswagen, but we never should. It is also possible for us to tell States how to run their policy on education and how to appropriate their money to education, but it never should happen. The provision to which I object is called ``maintenance of effort.'' This is a provision that was added to the Budget Reconciliation Act, or was attempted to, and was removed. And most of the people in local government are surprised to see this effort coming back here in this particular bill. This was also not discussed in our committee to any detail. It is one of those things that the Rules Committee will always talk about how these things should be discussed in committee. But when we, in committee after committee, have major pieces of legislation held close to the vest and only brought forward only hours or days before the actual markup in a committee, oftentimes we find things within those bills that are surprising. This provision was found in this bill, and it was not one of those pleasant surprises. The maintenance of effort amendment that was put into this bill requires the States to maintain a 5-year rolling average of their funding for higher education, and if they ever go under that 5-year average of education, their LEAP funds, which are now renamed in this particular bill, will be yanked from those States, unless they go to the Department of Education and grovel before the Secretary of Education to try to get some kind of penitence so they can get those moneys back. This proposal is counterproductive. We all know that States have cyclical budget years like we do. In 2002, the average State increase in higher education was 1.8 percent. In 2006, it was up 9.3 percent. If I was a State legislator again responsible for those budgets, realizing this proposal was in here, when we had a chance to add more money for higher education, knowing we would now be judged on a 5-year rolling average, there is no way I would ever put that kind of increase in there. This is going to be counterproductive to actually States funding their higher education system. But even if this policy worked, we should not do it. H.L. Mencken once said, ``There is always an easy solution to every human problem. It's neat, it's plausible, and it's wrong.'' Even if this Federal stick to States was effective, it is wrong. It is wrong to tell States how they will appropriate their money. It is wrong to give them more Federal mandates. Now, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller, will soften this proposal in the manager's amendment. That is good but doesn't nearly go far enough. Mr. Hoekstra had a perfect compromise amendment that was refused to be considered by the Rules Committee on a technicality. It is wrong. It should have been considered. And I had an amendment to remove this, to put it back to the status quo so we could have a chance in the committee to discuss this issue, and it was not allowed to be made in order. That is wrong. The proposal is wrong. The discussion process is wrong. If we're not going to discuss these issues in the committee, it should be the purview of allowing people to come here on the floor and discuss these issues, which are not just technical in nature but philosophical in nature, of what the Federal Government ought to do and what it ought not to do. This particular provision in here should be discussed. We should know full well what we are doing to States if we move forward in that area. And for the Rules Committee not to make that in order, I think, is wrong.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, as we said at the very beginning of the discussion of this entire bill, there are some amendments that are made in an effort to slow down a bill or stop it from coming to passage. This is not one of those. That is why you will notice very carefully the verbiage here is ``forthwith.'' We want to try and fix the bill so it can go on with its process, not send it back to committee. What I have in front of me here is the poster of the language that you find in the Trail Act itself. What we are debating is not the Trail Act. It's simply an amendment to the Trail Act, and in the act itself it says the appropriate Secretary may utilize condemnation to acquire private property without the consent of the owner. That is the language about which we object. It would be nice if at some time we could actually go in and attack this language and perhaps solve the problem once and for all forever. But as the time is right now, this condemnation power is still in the act. It's still in the bill. It's still in the act. It is still out there as a potential and a possibility. We do not believe that the sponsor ever intended this to be the way of things. But the bottom line is the National Park Service still has the ability of condemning. The Federal Government still has the ability of condemning. As we said before, the committee, the sponsor, tried to solve that problem by saying land will only be taken from a willing seller. That may deal, hopefully, with the Federal Government aspect, but the Federal Government has to take the land from a willing dealer, but it also leaves a loophole for some other entity to do condemnation powers. The State or local government could still condemn property, and then they would become the willing seller who could offer this land to the Federal Government. Please remember, the Federal Government is empowered in this act and bill to acquire property. They are encouraged to acquire property coming from a willing seller. I don't have a problem with that, if the willing seller is truly a willing seller. And so the motion to recommit tries to cover every potential in the future, with once again the concept being that you want to make sure that individuals will always be protected in every circumstance in the future, many of which we cannot predict. It would be nice if everyone was simply wonderful and courteous, but that's not the way the real world is. We have to make predictions and plans for the future to protect individuals. This bill says the Federal Government may not acquire land from anything other than a willing seller, but it also says they cannot accept land that has been condemned, regardless of whether it comes from a willing seller. It prohibits State and local governments from doing an end-run from the purpose of this act and protects private property. We told you before that one person was able to come here and say I don't want my property part of this bill because she had the financial resources and the time to come down here to Washington to lobby. She's exempt. That's right, it's fair. It's the right thing to do. The committee should be commended for that. The question is, are there others in like circumstances? And in the committee testimony there are. What we just put in by unanimous consent, there are, and that is the concern. Our concern has to be for the little guy whose home, whose property, whose heritage, whose farm may be put in danger by an overzealous local government that uses condemnation power to try and expand the scope of this particular trail. It is possible. And the language should be crystal clear that that may not be what we do. That may not be our concept. If only one individual is harmed by this act because we do not close every potential loophole, that is one individual too many. Our goal should be, and must be, to ensure that wherever a possibility of a loophole exists, we will close that loophole, and that we will make sure that every potential to save somebody's property will be there, and that no opportunity to do a laundering of land and make an end run around the purposes and goals of this bill will be there. The language in the motion to commit is crystal clear, that no land may be taken by any level of government for any reason to be used in this trail. In our post-Kelo world, it is important that we make sure that every word in this bill make sense; it is clear, it is precise, it is our goal, it is our purpose. That's what this does. It solves this problem. And it solves it in a way that makes this a very, very good bill. Without it, it's a huge loophole that could be used to harm people in the future. We can never do that. Madam Speaker, whatever time I don't have, I yield back.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment is one of the key concerns that we do have with this bill, that if it were solved would go a long way to satisfying our concerns with this particular bill. It is one of the unique concepts that a power has been given to the National Park Service that is not given to the Bureau of Land Management or to the National Forest Service to regulate gun laws and hunting laws within their jurisdiction, even if it violates something that the local government in that jurisdiction would like to imply, something that happens to be different. This trail, as we said, has been around for over 70 years, very efficiently and very effectively on private and state lands. And the argument that we made is that there is no reason that you should deny Park Service authority to curtail these activities because they're not going to get these activities or they're not going to get control of the land. The problem is that there is a unique history on this trail of voluntary cooperation. That is not necessarily the same thing that takes place once the Federal Government takes ownership or the Federal Government takes administrative control of this particular trail. The Park Service does have the authority to change the rules of local government. This is the language that's given in the bill. It is not modified by this particular act. Even though the intent may not be as we have heard to have the Federal Government take over property in this land, it is the intent of the management plan that is there. If you look at the management plan, it talks about a blueprint for recommendations to utilize restrictive zoning, height restrictions, land acquisition easements, et cetera, et cetera, going through all sorts of other concepts. This simply means this: this legislation authorizes and encourages the Federal Government, the Park Service, to gain land in the future in this trail system. Once the Park Service has gained control of that land, then Park Service rules and regulations which limit and restrict hunting rights and gun rights would take precedence over it. There is also a unique concern that none of us really know the answer to. If the National Park Service is the administrator of these lands, do they actually have the ability of imposing the rules and regulations on these lands, whether they own it or not, which is something that today we may know the answer, but you cannot predict what will happen in the future with some legislator, some judge, some administrator somewhere along the line; and as I said very early in a concept of this particular bill, often times the Federal Government does things, and we don't intend to hurt people but we end up hurting people. What this amendment clearly says is that along this trail we will protect what has historically been done for the last 70 years. But whether the Federal Government, the Park Service, in particular, has administrative control or whether they access and acquire land in the future, that local ordinances will take precedence, that local ordinance on hunting rights, on gun rights, on fishing rights, will be what will take precedence in this particular situation. This to us is important. We want it to be crystal clear. But what I think everyone intends in this trail is in reality what happens both now and in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.