Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico coming and talking about these issues, and I think people can realize we feel very strong and deeply about these particular issues. This is what happens in our States. We live with this issue all together. You've heard today about the nature of our forests and what we must do to have healthy forests in the future. You heard about the impact it has on school children in those forest counties. But there is a proposal; it needs to come to the floor that we can debate about that as well. You've heard about the significance of payment in lieu of taxes and what it means to Western States, about oil shale development, natural gas development, mining development, all of these which have an impact. Now, I said earlier on, but once again I'm just an old school teacher. And it does have impacts beyond what we naturally think about. And I'm thinking specifically about my kids, about my salary, my retirement as a school teacher and what we do in the future in our Western States. We noticed before, this is the chart, the amount of blue is how many, how much land is owned by the Federal Government in each State. I'd like you to contrast that, if you would, with this chart. The States in red are the States that have the most difficult time increasing the amount of money and paying for their education. The States that are red have the growth in education but they also have the most difficult time in adjusting for that growth. And if you look at that and then compare it once again with the public land States, you'll find an amazing correlation. The public land States are having the most difficult time funding their education, and I think there is a relationship to it which we have yet to fully investigate, and we ought to. It's a subject for a future time, but it's also one of those things that are important because there are collateral impacts that are extremely important on how we actually follow the advice of Daniel Webster up there, which told us to develop our resources so that we can move this Nation forward. And this is the time we have to do it. And there are right ways of doing it and there are probably imprudent ways of doing it. It's important that we do it the right ways, and we in the West clearly understand the significance of that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who understands this issue. Let me see if I can borrow that one you have in your left hand. I'm not all that hot on a lot of the details of energy and mining, but I am a school teacher, and I just noticed on the back of this chart is a chart which goes through the salaries of teachers comparing Wyoming and Montana. And you find that a step one teacher in Wyoming is significantly higher than a step four teacher in Montana. And I want to tell you, there's only one reason for that disparity. Wyoming does more with their resources to develop them and use them to help fund their education system. It has all sorts of spin-off effects. I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania who understands this concept so significantly and has spoken so eloquently about it. I'd also like to welcome the gentleman from New Mexico who is here, who clearly understands the issue of energy significantly. We will have a potential energy bill before us. We will have next week a potential mining bill before us, both of which could have some difficult situations especially as they deal with Americans. So I'd like to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico to have a chance to talk for a moment especially on what we are doing, once again, as to our constituents.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate it. I hope Mr. Cannon may have a chance to join us a little bit later. We are talking about energy policies. It has an impact on people. We all like alternative forms of energy. That's important. But for the short term, we have to make life bearable for people. We have some options without having to rely simply on foreign sources. Mr. Cannon understands oil shale very well, and he explained how that is one of our options. Another option we have is natural gas, which is a forte of Mr. Peterson at the same time. I guess the question has to be, we understand how high natural gas prices terribly impact citizens trying to live their lives, heat their homes. They impact the job market as well. They impact farmers when it comes time for fertilizer. I guess the question is, can we make domestic natural gas reserves available so it improves the lives of people? If I could ask Mr. Peterson to spend a few minutes, 5 minutes or so, maybe explaining how that part of the energy puzzle can be dealt.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. We are talking about what these lands can do and how we can benefit the constituents that are out there in these western lands as well. One of it deals with the bounties that have been placed in there in these western lands, what we can do if we actually bring them about. I am often amazed how we sit under this quotation from Daniel Webster saying that in actuality if we want this country to move, we need to take the resources that are here and develop them. That's where progress comes. The gentleman represents a State in an area that has a significant amount of natural resources that have yet to be developed, and I am talking specifically about oil shale. I notice that he has been joined here on the floor by Representative Peterson of Pennsylvania, two people who understand our energy policy specifically and who realize some of the energy policies that we have been talking about passing on this floor are going to have a negative effect on people, on real people. I wonder if he could spend some time talking about the potential of oil shale and what it can do. I guess the basic question is, is it really possible to remove ourselves from a dependency on foreign sources of energy?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. One of the things I have been hearing so many times, you may have said this already earlier, that PILT, payment for all these lands, is nothing more than a handout for the poor western counties. Is this a handout or is this a responsibility that we have for these lands?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon for specifically and very eloquently stating what the problems are in our national forests. He, as well as I and many of those who will be speaking this evening, come from what are called public lands States. You see the map that I have to my left. Everything that is blue in those States is the amount of that State which is owned and controlled by the National Government, and you can obviously see that there's a unique difference between the States in the West and the States in the East. Now, a big chunk of this blue in the West is national forests, which Representative Walden understands very definitely, very clearly, and needs to deal with that particular issue. And he's given us some directions on what we need to do to do it right. The other part of this blue deals with land that's owned by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM land, and all of these lands, whether they be forestlands or BLM lands or parklands, have an impact on the States in which we find this particular land. I'd ask my colleague from Utah, Mr. Cannon, if you'd maybe take a moment and talk about how we try to help these Western States that don't have control over their lands but still have the responsibility of providing services not just for the westerners but also the easterners that are coming directly on these lands with a program known as PILT, payment in lieu of taxes. I yield to Mr. Cannon.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. You have long been involved in bipartisan efforts to solve this problem for your constituents, especially with their schools. I wonder if you would just take a couple more minutes before we segue into the next speaker, next area, simply talking about what we practically can do for secure rural schools right now, as well as what we should probably ask our leadership to do that we should be practically doing right now in the long term for healthy forests in the future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon who's been a leader in trying to make sure that we have a healthy forest environment, and it means that we have to change some of the policies that we've had in the past, and I appreciate his leadership in those areas. I would like him to address just maybe one element. Because of mistakes, I think, that we have made in the past on how we have decided to handle the forests in the future, those counties, those areas where citizens live next to the forest and where the forest becomes an integral part of their lifestyle, are facing a huge and significant problem, and especially their kids in secure rural schools. I wonder if the gentleman for just one second would take a moment to explain what we should be doing right now with relationship to secure rural schools, forest area schools.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the GAO report that was just referenced, it is one of those unique things, not wishing to actually criticize the Federal Government for what they do, but in the entire report, not one property owner was interviewed, not a single property attorney was interviewed, nor a Realtor, nor appraiser, nor a local zoning official. Simply put, the report neglected to ask those who actually know what the impact of a heritage area has on the property rights and values of their land. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am actually saddened to rise today on this particular bill. The 16 heritage areas that are either existing or proposed, many of them are very good, things that I would readily support. Unfortunately, they have been packaged into what the government book my high school students read called ``A Christmas Tree'' in a very real way, in which bad proposals can be packaged around the few good proposals that are in here in hopes that people will tolerate the bad in hopes of getting a favorable recommendation from the good. My State and most State legislatures would never have tolerated this type of bill. This bill would be split up in our State so that each proposal would stand on its own merits and go up or down. Unfortunately, we do not use that procedure here. We ought to, but we do not. Even in areas where something like an appropriation can be justified by lumping things together, in an authorization, it should not. That is why I rise in opposition to H.R. 1483. When this bill was originally introduced, it was to reauthorize nine heritage areas, giving each an additional $10 million. Since the reauthorization on these nine original areas doesn't lapse until 2012, 5 years hence, it is interesting why we are taking the time now to revisit these particular areas. Even though some of these areas are simple technical corrections and changes, for most it appears that the reason we're doing it again is because they have gone through their money and they want more. It is difficult when the process of a heritage area is supposed to become self-sufficient. It is an affront to heritage areas that are trying to become self-sufficient and break themselves from Federal dependence. In 1994 when these same nine areas were being discussed, the Democrat hero of heritage areas, the advocate, the chairman of the then subcommittee, the late Bruce Vento stated: ``There is a limit to the length of time or the amount of money the Federal Government can be in a heritage area.'' Not totally grammatical, but you get the point of what he was trying to say. He went on to say: ``In 10 years, we are out of there. Then they are on their own and we get the benefit of that conservation.'' Thirteen years later, that has not been the case. In fact, it has been said that for every dollar spent on these heritage areas, there is $10 to $20 from the private sector that comes back. It sounds like a great return on our investment if it could be independently verified. In fact, during the hearings on this bill, the National Park Service testified that no heritage area has become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, it gets worse. The Heritage Area Alliance, the association which represents all heritage areas, has told us in committee hearing that they should never become self-sufficient and they should always rely on continuous Federal appropriations for every heritage area. In fact, the Heritage Area Alliance has become a cottage industry where groups get grants from the Federal Government to go around telling other people how to get more grants from the Federal Government. And this performance we are now wishing to reward. While a public-private partnership can yield positive results, this program has taken on a life of its own. In the Resources Committee, the bill was amended to cut back additional funds to existing heritage areas from $10 million to $5 million. I compliment Chairman Grijalva for his amendment and the chairman of the full committee for accepting it. It is like taking the balls off the bottom branches of the Christmas tree so the cat won't play with them. And after taking that positive step, they reverse course and tacked on six new heritage areas. They have had hearings, but in fairness, only one has gone through the regular order that the chairman of the full committee established when we first met this year. The Democrats also decided to make changes that were never part of the hearing. The new heritage areas will now receive $15 million each, up from the $10 million that they requested. It is great and lucky to receive a 50 percent bonus without asking for it. This gracious move by the Democrats means the total cost of this bill is now $135 million. Some of our committees thought that was a paltry sum. But $135 million is the total annual Federal income tax paid by 33,276 middle-class taxpayers. And this is how we are being responsible for their particular money. We have some problems concerning some of the subtitles included in this new omnibus Christmas tree bill. A journey through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area has been diligently sought by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I commend him for his dedication to this cause, and there is much of his proposed area that I like and I applaud. However, one of the problems still is there are issues that still persist. There is both support and opposition within this proposed area. Two of our colleagues have asked their particular congressional districts be removed from this designation. In committee, an amendment was offered to remove their districts, but it was rejected. And because this is a closed rule, our colleagues do not have the opportunity of coming down here and on the floor of the House presenting their reasons why they wish to be withdrawn from this particular district. We should not take Federal designations lightly. When we create a Federal designation, a Member who is opposed to that should be respected in his particular wishes. We were told this would disrupt the continuity of this heritage area. Well, this heritage area spans four States and it is supposed to still be locally operated. One must ask how a Virginia-based management entity will represent the local interests of four States. It is a legitimate question, but the bottom line is we still should respect our colleagues' privilege to represent their constituencies. There has been criticism that private property protections in this bill are inadequate. The majority claims that the protections in this bill are sufficient because it states that participation is voluntary. Voluntary. If two of our Members want to voluntarily opt out of this particular bill and are not allowed to do so, how will any property owner sitting in one of these new proposed districts get any kind of confidence that they are safe when it is not voluntary for any Member to remove their districts from these types of recommendations? In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have simply provided for the right of private property owners to withdraw their land from a heritage area boundary. This is the exact same provision that has been on the 12 prior heritage areas. This is the same provision that Mr. Wolf added in his bill and was taken out by the committee even though he objected to the removal of that language from his own particular provision. Why are we treating these heritage areas different than the precedent we established for the other heritage areas? It is not an additional burden to the management. It would go a long way to assuring constituents that their rights would be protected. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated again because the Democrats claim that their language was sufficient, an argument that has proved inaccurate on other occasions. In light of the infamous Kelo decision, we need to be extra cautious in the House when we deliberate on property rights. The other side will claim that there is no risk to property rights. While I hope that is correct, we need to be very sure because boundaries have a consequence, or why should we have them. Proponents of this bill on the one hand say we need boundaries to protect historical properties, but on the other hand there is no regulatory authority. You can't have it both ways. It is an invitation to lawsuits. We have already seen cases brought forward based on these recommendations. I would point my colleagues to Pogliani v. United States Corps of Engineers. It has already happened that lawsuits have been filed to discontinue actions based on inclusion in a heritage area. The right to opt out of the boundary we proposed would have prevented this type of situation in the future. In some respects this legislation is simply not ready for prime time. The Muscle Shoals proposal, which is another one I like a lot, I think it is good, but it has not yet completed a feasibility study. In other words, we don't have the assurance this heritage area could get off the ground before we wish to actually make the check for it. We were promised in this particular bill that there would be a map included. If you see in the self-executing rule of the Rules Committee, they have put a number in place that used to be blank. A small little detail. But we have not been provided with a map of what the boundaries of this new heritage area actually are. So how can we tell people they can be voluntarily in or out of it when we don't even know yet what the boundary levels are? No wonder this has become a closed rule. There is another area in this bill that was created, a Niagara Falls region, at the behest of the very powerful chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. Proponents claim it is needed to protect the falls. Protect the falls from what? What potential harm to the falls can be protected by the provisions of this particular bill? Remember, proponents say there are no restrictions or regulations imposed. Perhaps the totally unique commission that is established in this portion of the bill that has the Secretary of the Interior creating a new entity and staffing it with Federal employees and paying for it can finally answer that particular question. There is little more in this particular provision than using the National Park Service to conduct economic redevelopment projects. The Park Service does not have the expertise, or the funds, or the desire to be burdened with this subject. At the center of the economic development plan for Niagara Falls is a new casino. Niagara Falls, honeymoons, gambling, there may be a nexus there somewhere for us. But while the State of New York has the right to pursue casinos and help their development, it is inappropriate to use national heritage areas to promote the casino. An amendment was offered when the Niagara Falls heritage bill originally went through the committee to put a firewall between the Federal funds in this bill and the casino. Committee Democrats rejected again this simple amendment. Whatever my colleagues feel on the issue of gaming is irrelevant. We should all agree, though, that this is not an appropriate use of Federal funds, especially when one area is given an advantage over the other. Finally, concerns have been raised that these heritage areas and their boundaries may be used to impede the placement of energy transmission lines. While this may not be the full intent of the sponsors, we must proceed cautiously before we further damage our ability to keep up with the demand for energy. The grid is already heavily taxed, and it would be a tragedy to see blackouts as an unintended consequence of these designations. Mr. Speaker, because we do not have an opportunity to improve this bill via amendment as a result of the closed rule, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, unfortunately. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), at the conclusion of which it would be very nice if the other side would have additional time for him because he's supporting your side.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to yield the gentleman 1 minute of our time as well. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), once again speaking in favor, and I would ask maybe perhaps the other side would be a little bit more generous than the last time with their giving him some additional time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The amendments I have actually brought to the Rules Committee were, in my estimation, trying to produce a bipartisan approach, or in dealing especially with one that impacted my State of Utah, an amendment that we were trying to talk about a bill that had been changed significantly in the Rules Committee from what had been discussed in the committee, but trying to do amendments that would have saved my State millions of dollars and allowed us to have the flexibility of creating the process that we wanted to have. Both Mr. Cannon and I presented those in Rules. All of them were totally shut down. The Rules, there is a little bit more to that. Allow me to quote once again from an issue that happened about 20 years ago when a Speaker of the House was forced to resign in a very partisan atmosphere. He said, all year, partisanship had fed on itself, frustrating each side, driven each side apart. The majority at that time, the Democrats, were looking at the majority. The majority group contemptuous of it, the minority, more determined to govern in spite of it, more arbitrary and faced with increasing arbitrariness of the majority, the minority grew more irresponsible and more destructive of the institution. The Rules Committee has a function more than just establishing the parameters of what amendments will be discussed and the debate. They have a responsibility to establish an atmosphere, indeed, a tone, on the floor. And they can either fan the flames of partisanship or they can build a process that encourages bipartisanship and encourages discussion of issues, issues that have not been vetted before on the floor. That is what the Rules Committee should be doing, and I am sad to say it has not been in evidence so far this year on the floor.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. I realize when we talk about procedure, it is boring. People's eyes start to glaze over.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. You are 1 out of 435. But one of the current senior Democrat chairmen 20 years ago wrote that if I let you write substance and you let me write procedure, I will win every time. Actually, he didn't use quite those words, but I don't think the actual verbiage can be used with the rules of our House. But it is the same sentiment that has to be there. Poor procedure has been said creates poor policy. And the ranking member has already said there have been more closed rules, fewer minority Members' rules allowed this year than ever before. I was in the Education Committee when Representative Ehlers made his amendment, accepted by the chairman on a voice vote; and yet, when the bill came out of the Rules Committee, the amendment had magically disappeared, a bill that affected my State in redistricting. Mr. Gohmert from Texas had made an excellent amendment in the Judiciary Committee, but when that bill came out of the Rules Committee, once again that amendment had basically simply disappeared. I realize the Rules Committee is a political type of committee, but it is coming to the point right now when someone says, ``Well, you better go make your case before the Rules Committee,'' you simply abandoned all hope. It is like being on the Titanic and being told that the ship coming to rescue you is the Lusitania. I have been on the Rules Committee, as has been said. I have been chairman of a rules committee in Utah. And I realize that more than just simply moving legislation, the committee should try and find bipartisan solutions; should make sure that we spend time in debate on the floor vetting issues that were not covered in committee, especially when so many bills are being written by the Rules Committee.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for helping to organize this, as well as talk about these topics, and every once in a while to take the process that we probably should be doing more often and simply review our actions and see if they deal with some type of philosophical basis. When the Founding Fathers established this country, they established a Federal system with the understanding that certain powers and responsibilities would be given to the national level and certain powers and responsibilities on the local level. Now, this was not done in some random process. They took the time to try and figure out which would best fit in which category, realizing there are some tasks of government that naturally would be better done if they were done on a unified level, and certain other responsibilities that would be best performed by local government. One of those that they decided would be better performed, and I should say best performed, a superlative, by local government was the manner of elections. And they clearly realized that if elections were the purview and responsibility of States that they had a better opportunity of being effective and less chance of being corrupt in so doing. Some of our European allies when they restructured their governments after World War II also did the Federal system; and once again they divided powers and responsibilities between national and local levels. And one of the powers and responsibilities given to the local level, for obvious reasons of effectiveness and lack of corruption, was that of the manner of elections. The State of Utah, I'm very proud to say, had wonderful registration rolls when I was in the legislature and in a leadership role there, and actually our voter registration I thought was fairly accurate. That's the reason we do have voter registration anyway is to prevent fraud. In the 1800s, we talked about this wonderful process of everybody voting in America, but we don't really know how many people actually voted, only the number of votes that were tabulated, for we had in history this process or this individual known as a floater who was paid between $5 and $20 per vote. In fact, I have to admit within my own family one of my ancestors was given the day off with pay to vote. He voted in his workplace, took a train and went down to the capitol and voted a second time, and then went home and wrote about how he voted a third time. The reason we have voter registration is to prohibit that today. I was in the leadership in the legislature when the Federal Government in its wisdom came up with the Motor Voter Act which took our wonderful rolls and registration systems and bloated them beyond compare. When we were able to purge voter rolls after 4 years, we now had to do it after 10 years. When everyone was asked whenever they got a service from the government if they'd like to register, and they couldn't remember if they registered or not, they re-registered them. If you look at the number of people in Utah who are registered in a State that has the largest percentage of kids of any State in the Nation, the numbers don't fit of those who are registered and those who are simply eligible to vote. So I don't really know what percentage is voting. We're making guesses there. The greatest thing of all in this entire program is the Federal Government gave us as a State the great privilege and honor of paying for it all ourselves. At that time I was sad the 17th amendment was in place because had it not been there and the State legislature selected senators, I can promise you that bill would have changed or our Senate delegation would have changed. Then the Federal Government assisted States again while I was still back in Utah with the Help America Vote Act. Now, I have to admit that we in Utah did not have the problem of hanging chads as some certain southern States that will not be mentioned did have. We had a definition of what a vote was and was not, and we looked at every ballot of those punch cards to determine if it was a legal ballot before it was ever run through the system. Our system was effective, it was efficient, it was cheap; but we complied to the Federal Government's assistance to make everything better with the Help America Vote Act. Now, the Federal Government did give us some money, but certainly not enough to pay for the entire system. So at great expense, the State of Utah and other States changed their election system at the dictate and mandate of the Federal Government. I have to say we may actually probably have a better system, but it's also a much more expensive system. We now have a proposal given to us by Members of the Democratic side that would force another change in the system that has just established under the Help America Vote Act, another system that requires even my State, which has a paper trail system in place, to change it because we don't have the right kind of paper. The reality is I think, and I think that the Constitution and our Founding Fathers would tell us, if you really want to have a good election system just get out of the way and let the States fulfill their constitutional responsibility of the manner of election, and there would be greater efficiency and less likelihood of corruption. We should not be micromanaging States. One size does not fit all. The State of Utah, in a poll conducted by BYU, has a 95 percent competence in our system of government, which if the opposition bill were to pass would have to be totally changed, and we would once again bear the costs and burden of doing that. Now, I know that our good friend from Iowa (Mr. King) has another bill in that would probably address many of these issues and many of these problems. I think, Mr. Garrett, if it's all right with you as the chairman of this caucus, if we were maybe to hear from the gentleman from Iowa at this time to at least express another way of getting around what appears to be another mandate that would change and add significant difficulty to States what they don't need: the heavy-handed help of the Federal Government.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If I could just add a couple of those to it. It is true. When George Washington was first elected to the House of Burgess, he bought a round of drinks for all the supporters. And my students would obviously wonder, well, how do you know who his supporters were? The idea of a secret ballot is a pretty modern concept. In the good old days, when you came into the town centers you said, and when the vote was counted and they asked how many were for George Washington, they stood up. He saw who was voting for him; he knew they were there. Everything was an open process at that particular time. And that is why in England you stand for election; you don't run like we do. Because literally you could come up there in the election and you would have to stand for the election. I used to watch these cartoons on Thomas Nast right after the Civil War. I saw one where there was this globe for which one Union soldier was reaching, I had no idea what it was, it was a clear crystal ball, until I realized what he was reaching for was a ballot box which was clear. And the gentleman is right, you would get a ballot from a campaign; you would go in there, and you would deposit your colored ballots so everyone knew. In fact, in New York City at one time, in case they were color-blind, they would perfume their ballots so you could smell it if you couldn't see it. But the idea of a secret ballot is something that is just recently here.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate what you just said, because almost everything you are trying to explain in kind of a system that would work happens to be exactly what we are doing in the State of Utah without having the Federal Government tell us how to do it. So we do have that voting system where you do see the paper ballots there, and you look at the paper trail that is there as well as the actual touch screen, and you are asked if the paper is what you want. You don't take it with you, but it is there as part of the audit trail. And we actually do require picture IDs when you come into vote. And even I, in my voting district, in fact literally the lady who lived across the street from me was there and I still had to produce a picture ID before I could get my card to go vote. One of the problems, though, that I see and one of the reasons why we need an alternative to what the bill that came out of the committee is, simply, even the State of Utah would have to change its process, even though we are doing exactly what they want, because it doesn't fit the kinds of machines that are mandated, it doesn't fit the kind of paper that was mandated, it doesn't fit the kind of audit process that is mandated. This bill tells you what to do with long lines, it tells you what to do with provisional ballots, it tells you what to do with recounts, and it says you have to do it now. And that is one of the reasons why I am grateful there are some other options out here, because the bill that may be on the floor, the bill that did come out of the committee, the bill is simply flawed in many ways, and it is simply flawed because, once again, it has the mindset that the Federal Government is going to tell you how to do things in the most intricate way of micromanagement. And that is one of the flaws we have. This country is never supposed to be micromanaged from this body.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the ranking member from California. Madam Speaker, I stand, I guess, to oppose the reconciliation bill that doesn't reconcile much. In this particular bill, it encourages direct loan programs, programs that are paid for and controlled by the Federal Government, and whether intentionally or not, a tax to discourage programs like FFEL, which are public-private partnerships where the government actually provides funds, but they are not administered by the government. In a clumsy way of verbiage, by lumping not-for-profit programs, and not-for-profit program lenders in the same category as for-profit lenders, it creates an unintended consequence that does harm to college students in my State. My State has a higher education authority program. It's a not-for- profit-program administered by the State that provides students who have loans under this program with deductions. It's 1\1/4\ percent automatic deduction if you have an automatic payment program. It's a 2 percent deduction on the rate after 48 consecutive payments have been on time, which means for a kid on this program on a standard $15,000 Stafford loan, he could actually save $2,000 over the cost of that loan and over what would happen in a direct pay program. Perhaps I am a little bit sensitive to this because I still have four kids in college, and I know what the expense of college actually means. In this reconciliation bill, by lumping the not-for-profit programs with profit programs, the margins that they have in these not-for- profit programs are so small that these deductions will no longer be available, if, indeed, the program can survive by itself. It will force students in my State either to pay the full government rate without any deductions or go to the full rate of a for-profit lender. I know the intention of this bill is not to hurt kids. The intention of this bill is perhaps to rid FFEL programs; but in so doing, it actually does, in fact, hurt real kids who have programs right now or who may be having programs in the future. Oftentimes when we fiddle around education, we have unintended consequences; but our actions here, because it is at such a gross level, have unintended consequences of hurting real live people. This bill does that. Not intentionally, but it still does that. It would have been far better for us to do the program that the ranking member was always talking about, encouraging and expanding Pell Grants. That would do more to help kids than all the other restructuring we are doing in this particular reconciliation bill. For those reasons, because it does hurt kids in my State, I have to oppose the reconciliation bill.

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 South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the senior member of our delegation to, once again, signify and symbolize the unity that the entire State feels as we face this disaster. I yield as much time as he may consume to Mr. Cannon of Utah.