Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try one thing here. I will ask under unanimous consent.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on that last motion.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, in my short time as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, I have already heard a number of stories from property owners who have been threatened or bullied with the hammer of eminent domain. Thousands of acres each year are taken from private citizens and against their will in order to expand our national parks and our national forests. This is done in spite of the fact that the Federal Government has so much land it cannot possibly manage what it already has. Landowners, when faced with the possibility of a long, protracted war against bureaucrats, land managers and legions of Federal lawyers, often choose simply to walk away. What is most outrageous then is the fact that these people are then labeled by us as willing sellers. This has happened to landowners across our Nation. We've had examples from people living near the Everglades in Florida, to the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts, to Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota, just a few places where there has been, in my estimation, egregious abuse by the Federal Government. I have letters from a family in Maine who endured 20 years in a battle with the Federal Government. They wrote that the negotiations between my family and the Park Service over what could have been a simple land donation exceeded 20 years and had a serious, long-term detrimental effect on my family, the ski area they owned, the surrounding community. Eventually, after millions of dollars were lost and countless hours of time from high-ranking State and Federal officials were consumed, strained professional careers of an entire at- risk community and the negative health and financial repercussions of my family members, this issue was finally resolved. For now. Here is another example of a Franciscan friar who talked about the threats of eminent domain that hanged over his ministry for years and years and years. In his words, again, simply over 118 acres of the friar's property: We offered the National Park Service the opportunity to switch back the trail to the original setting, so that not only the trail could be maintained, but there would be a natural environment for it. But the National Park Service refused this option and threatened to proceed with eminent domain. There is no reason that that friar and his ministry should have had that hanging over his head for years and years and years. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Interior has the power in statute for using this hammer of eminent domain. Even today, when we do authorization bills, we don't even have the sense to try and limit that kind of authority or power. Even in those situations where it is clearly said in the testimony and in the hearings that they do not want to use eminent domain, we do nothing to try and stop that potential authority. If we really say that we don't want to use eminent domain to acquire these lands, we ought as well use the logical step of saying so. In light of the Kelo decision, so many people are now aware of the potential abuse by government entities on private property through the use of eminent domain, now is the time for us clearly to say that private property is important, and it should be respected by the Federal Government. That's exactly what this amendment tries to do, is to clarify that we do respect private property; we respect it, and we will not use eminent domain to take land away from private citizens. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I do have a request before you actually officially announce the voice vote. Does this UC prohibit me from making a request for a recorded vote?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate being able to put the phrase, ``promoting the general welfare,'' into a constitutional perspective, as well as a historical perspective. It is true that Madison and Monroe, both as Presidents, vetoed road construction projects because they only benefited the vicinity of the road, not the general welfare. It's true that the City of Savannah suffered a horrendous fire; and even though people wanted to give money for it, the rebuilding of Savannah, Congress refused because it wasn't the general welfare. Obviously, as Mr. Garrett has said, starting with the New Deal era, we changed our view of what these words mean, so that most times, most politicians today just assume Federal involvement is exactly what was intended. It also says that when these guys wrote the elastic clause of article I, section 8, they must have had a vastly different and a much more limited view on what was the power entailed than modern policymakers or scholars do. The last phrase of the preamble is that we do ordain and establish. It's an appropriate benediction to the preamble. It's a phrase that brought to the 1780 mind the creation found in the Book of Genesis, for religious vocabulary at the time spoke of God ordaining and creating the Earth, as comparison to the Founding Fathers who ordained and established this new government. These men in a very real and reverent sense created a new country. We pass laws almost every week that we either make incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the Founders' words, or we simply ignore them as no longer relevant to our time. Justice Scalia also once again said about the Constitution: ``What it meant when it was adopted it means today, and its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times.'' My students not understanding ``Say goodnight, Gracie'' was simply an annoyance, excusable because they're young, and their view is a tennis player trying to decide whether to date a 20-year-old or a 40-year-old is great television. But for Congress not to understand the meaning of the words of the Constitution is irresponsible, it's inexcusable, and it's dangerous. Let me yield to one last comment to the chairman of the Constitution Caucus.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is this time as we end a week of discussion and debate and we all leave to reconnect with our constituents and find out from the real people of America what we have actually done here that we have a time to sit back and contemplate the significant questions that will be brought to us next week, probably the greatest of which is simply will the Republicans continue to win the congressional baseball game. But at this time in this weekend, I am joined tonight by Congressman Garrett of New Jersey, who is the Chairman of the Constitutional Caucus, who wisely thought that this would be a good time for us to take a moment and discuss once again the significance and importance of the Constitution as we come to this end of this section of our legislative year. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said he understood there were those people who believe that there should not be a strict adherence to the words or intent of the words of the Constitution. But, he wrote, you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism. It is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things. The Constitution is a piece of paper that has words, but each of those words have a meaning. I was once watching an episode of Fawlty Towers, obviously a very old one, and it is one in which John Cleese is trying in vain to talk to his waiter Manuel from Barcelona, who doesn't speak English very well, and in contempt he finally walks away and says, ``Say Goodnight, Gracie.'' Now, my students in school never understood what that line, ``Say Goodnight, Gracie,'' meant. As I was talking to them or other audiences, you would have to be around my age to remember the old George Burns and Gracie Allen routines in which every tagline of one of their routines was simply, ``Say Goodnight, Gracie,'' which had the effect of implying that Gracie Allen was probably the most ditziest, dumbest blonde ever produced. Now, oddly enough, my students understood the phrase ``dumb blond.'' They don't understand the phrase, ``Say Goodnight, Gracie.'' We all have certain cue words which create larger meanings in the mind of the hearer. Those words have meaning based on the usage of time. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution also had cue words that they used to expand the meaning of what they meant. One of the things I am happy about is the academic community seems of late to take a great deal more interest in the words of the Constitution and defining and understanding what they actually meant at the time. I had a college professor who used to say the Founding Fathers had baggage that they took with them, which meant there were common concepts they brought together and they understood. One of them, for example, is they all had read and understood Aristotle. Aristotle loved to divide everything up into categories. He divided up governments into a category of the government of one, a government of the few, a government of the many, and he said that each of those breakdowns could have a government that is good or bad, simply depending on the attitude of the ruling group. And he gave them all names. A government of one, for example, that he said was good, he defined as a monarchy. So in the 1780s, if you claimed someone was a monarch, that was a compliment. The government of one that was bad that had bad intentions, he gave the term of a tyrant or a tyranny. It is not a coincidence that a decade earlier when Thomas Jefferson is writing the Declaration of Independence, that of all the terms he can use to describe King George, he used the word ``tyrant.'' It had a cue meaning to it which ticked up a whole bunch of other ideas in the mind of the reader or the hearer. It is the same way when the Federalists decided to criticize Jefferson, they called him a Jacobite. You cannot understand the significance of that insult unless you have a deeper understanding of the meaning of what happened in the French Revolution. The words have specific meanings and specific attitudes. Akhil Amar wrote a wonderful book exploring the historical context of the words used in the Constitution. Much of what I am going to say is based on many of his works and his research. I would like to take just the preamble of the Constitution to try and illustrate what that is talk about. You see, I thought Gouverneur Morris and the committee who wrote the Preamble to the Constitution at the very end of the Constitutional Convention were merely putting something in there to add some kind of literary flair to the document itself. And even though these words don't have the same status as statute, these majestic words give us a window to see into the minds of those who actually framed our republican form of government. It starts off with the phrase ``We the people of the United States.'' Now, whether intentional or not, it began with the concept of empowering people. And earlier drafts started off with ``We the people of,'' and then it listed each and every individual State. Politically, that would have been unwise if indeed one of those states had eventually not ratified the document, which they thought could easily happen, because, after all, Rhode Island wasn't even there. But by changing it to ``We the people of the United States,'' it is more than just a political maneuver, it is a fundamental mindset of the Convention delegates. This Constitution goes full circle. It starts off by talking about the people and ends with Article 7, which is a new way of ratifying the constitutional document, which is a relatively contemporary concept of having a ratifying convention elected by the people. A new concept of republican democracy. So this document starts and ends with the commitment to the faith in the people. The Constitution doesn't pander to governments, but rather is aimed at empowering the people of this United States who indeed empower this government at the same time. The Founding Fathers never intended to amend the Articles of Confederation. They realized to do so would take unanimous consent, and since Rhode Island wasn't there in fact it would never happen. In fact, 2 years earlier New York had vetoed a new financial management amendment. That act in and of itself had done much to spur the call for a new Convention to try and solve the problem. Because the Articles of Convention truly was a treaty between sovereign states and the national government. This was something that was going to be different. It was going to be different to solve the problem by forming a more perfect union. Now, once again, I always thought that the phrase ``in order to form a more perfect union'' was simply in opposition to the less perfect union under the Articles of Confederation. But it meant something so much more than that. It implied that they were leaving the treaty to join the new supreme law of the land. And ratification specifically denoted leaving the commitment of a flawed treaty to a commitment of a new supreme law of the land. The anti-Federalists got that point. They debated it. They lost the argument. They lost the vote. Confederates did not get that in the Civil War time. Abraham Lincoln actually was wrong about it as well. When he gave the Gettysburg Address, he talked about an indivisible Nation that started four score and seven years ago. That was a reference back to 1776 and the Declaration of Independence. To be accurate, he should have said three score and 15 years ago was when we became an individual nation, because that was the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. There is more to that phrase that Gouverneur Morris meant than simply glossing over once again. This phrase, ``a more perfect union,'' is a specific reference to the 1707 Act of Unification between England and Scotland. The words say ``the union of two kingdoms more active and complete.'' In fact Queen Anne referred to it all the time as her ``more perfect union.'' You see, the attitude of the mindset at the time was they believed the progeny of landed borders was always armies. So they looked at the time when England, Scotland and even Wales were individual countries with land borders and each had an army to offset the other, which meant eventually they would use that army one against the other, and if they were not using it to disturb the peace of the island, than a tyrannical king was probably using it to destroy the liberties of his individual people. Once they formed the more perfect union of England, Scotland and Wales together, the relative quiet of the United Kingdom was in contrast as they looked across the English Channel to Europe, which still had individual borders and was still engaged in border wars and subjection of the individual liberties of their individual citizens. So what we consider to be incomprehensible, the idea that Massachusetts might raise an army for some of their indigenous people, and that New York would respond by raising an Army just in case Massachusetts doesn't stay with their own indigenous people, and Virginia might raise an army then because all three of them claim the same lands in the West. What we thought of as incomprehensible was an actual fear at the time. And they had an option, they will had an option of either eliminating that, or becoming like Europe. They could either be like Europe, with multiple boundaries and all the problems associated with it, or become like the United Kingdom in a more perfect union, eliminating that threat for evermore. And, more significantly, not just bringing peace to the continent, but also providing the protection and preservation of the individual liberties. It is significant the Founding Fathers had a fear of armies. They limited the army to two years. It had to be dissolved. They didn't do the same thing to navies, because a navy boat could not chase you down the street and beat you up--Armies could. The idea of a citizen army is something that comes about in the French Revolution. That hasn't happened for a decade yet. So armies at this time were mercenaries who were not necessarily sympathetic to the people they were supposed to be defending. In fact, the British army that came over here to defeat us and defend the British was actually hired Germans. So the idea in here was an Army was not necessarily nice to people. The militia were the citizens, and those were the ones who were going to be important. Armies were foreigners. Militias were your neighbors. Giving primarily defense of the country to a militia made sense. Allowing a militia, in reality the people, to be armed made sense. An armed citizenry as a check to a potential political abuse made sense. Thinking of the modern National Guard as the same as a 1788 militia when we talk about the Second Amendment makes no sense because we don't understand the meaning of the words. Lincoln also understood this concept of more perfect union when he talked about the Civil War. If the South was successful, even though this was a horrible war, at a high cost and greatly criticized by the intelligentsia at the time, he predicted that if the Civil War was successful for the South, it would not be the Civil War that created the South, but the beginning in a series of wars between the North and the South over regional boundaries and regional issues. This Constitution also establishes justice. The Founding Fathers considered justice lacking on both the national and the State level, and they invented the checks and balances system of Federalism to counteract that. If we truly understand what it means to establish justice, we have to understand the Framers hope to curb the excesses of the State governments, just the way patriots today have to curb the excesses of our national government. So Federalism means we forget the concept of establishing justice. ``To ensure domestic tranquility'' was not only a reference to Shay's Rebellion, but was also the concept that Revolutionary War veterans marched on Philadelphia to get their money from the Articles of Confederation Congress and both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania refused to provide protection, one is of the reasons they insisted on having this place, a Federal District, so they could ensure the domestic tranquility. And the next phrase is ``to promote the general welfare.'' Mr. Speaker, at this time we sometimes have a combination, I think, or conception, conception today, that promoting the general welfare is a door to open up to national involvement in all sorts of areas. I think if you look at the actual words, it was quite the opposite. ``General welfare'' was a term of limiting qualifications, not expanding them. With that in mind at this stage of the preamble, I would like to yield to the Chairman of the Constitutional Caucus, the good gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, to talk about the concept of promoting general welfare.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, as we begin our debate here in this country on the issue of immigration, I think it is important that we remind ourselves of the literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of immigrants who obeyed the law and who entered this country the right way. I rise today to speak of one such individual who is illustrative of the many immigrants that we openly welcome into this country. I wish to speak about one of my newest constituents, one of the newest citizens in this country, Maria Contreras. Maria was born in Michoacan, Mexico, and entered this country legally 14 years ago. Three years after that she met and married her husband, also a legal immigrant, and to this union has been blessed two beautiful daughters, one 11, one a year and a half. About 4 years into the marriage, Maria's husband became a citizen of the United States. It was he that insisted and encouraged Maria to go on that same path. A couple of years ago this couple bought a home on a quiet street in a northern Utah city, Brigham City. They went to work on the yard, planting flowers, trimming the trees in the back. They worked on the home doing some painting, repairing the roof. Both of them did this work after putting in a full day at their regular occupation. They even brought back souvenirs for their neighbors from their family trips. I know their neighbors in Brigham City found this family to be a pleasure and a welcomed addition to the neighborhood, and I can say this because the Contreras family is my next door neighbors. We share the same driveway. It was a thrill for me one day while working in the yard to have Maria and her daughter come over and ask me some questions about government as she was now studying for her citizenship test. On January 27 of this year, this test was administered to her in her second language of English. I am proud to say she passed it perfectly, getting 100 percent correct on this particular test. Many of my students I taught in high school, taking that same test in their native language, would be hard-pressed to have that same kind of score. In fact, it is probably wise that Members of Congress are not administered that same particular test as well. On March 21, 2007, a great day for the Contreras family, Maria was sworn in as a new citizen of the United States. Maria did it the legal way, and as we talk about ways of limiting illegal entrance into this country, it is important also to remember that we should be mindful of ways of making it easier for people to legally enter into this country as well. The Contreras people have the kind of entrepreneurial spirit that we want to welcome into this country, that builds this country and makes it better for all of us. As Maria said, It is great to be here. I love it here. It is a better life with more opportunities. So I am very pleased today, Madam Speaker, to welcome a great neighbor, a new American, hopefully I can convince her to be a voter, because I am very proud of the price she paid to do things the right way, to become a new citizen in this new land. I congratulate Maria Contreras and the entire family as they enter into this new situation and for what they have done and the commitments that they have made. I am very proud of them all.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of sharing this time with the gentlelady from Hawaii on this particular bill that was sponsored by the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui). Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Resolution 406 is a resolution honoring the 35th anniversary of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. I would like to recognize my colleague Ms. Hirono for introducing this resolution. The Education and Labor Committee will continue to celebrate the 35th anniversary of this law with a hearing tomorrow on this subject before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness. President Nixon signed title IX into law on June 23, 1972. The purpose of title IX was to eliminate discrimination based on gender in the education arena. While title IX applies to all areas of education, it is possibly best known for its role in sports. Thanks to this law, and perhaps more significantly from the growing interest in sports in this country, we have seen a dramatic increase in female athletes. This law is far from perfect. Institutions continue to struggle with how to comply with title IX, trying to balance the participation rates of men with those of women. We do not want institutions to build up female participation at the expense of men's teams at the schools. As I stated earlier, title IX is best known for its effect on sports. However, title IX does apply to all areas of education. In a time when we are continually talking about the need to educate America's students in the area of math and science, it is important that we also recognize the increasing numbers of female students pursuing careers in math and science. In 2004 the General Accounting Office issued a report on the participation of women in science. The report found that women's participation in the sciences increased substantially over the past 30 years. However, there is always more that can be done. As Congress looks to reform current programs, we should ensure that the programs being reformed are to encourage all students to enter into the sciences, math, and especially history. The committee has no stated opposition to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 the balance of my time to someone who really understands what he's talking about. I enjoyed Mr. Wizard shows. They were fascinating. I still hated chemistry, but I enjoyed Mr. Wizard. And with that I'd like to yield to the distinguished gentleman and scientist from the State of Michigan, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 485, expressing appreciation for the profound public service and educational contributions of Donald Jeffry Herbert, fondly known to all of us of my generation as ``Mr. Wizard.'' Donald Jeffry Herbert will be remembered as the host of two popular children's television shows about science. A general science and English major at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, he showed interest in drama until his career as an actor was interrupted by World War II when he enlisted in the United States Army as a private. He later joined the United States Air Corps, took pilot training and became a B-24 bomber pilot who flew combat missions with the 15th Air Force, flying out of a base in Italy. As the gentleman from Arizona said, he distinguished himself in combat, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with the three oak leaf clusters. After the war, Herbert worked at a radio station in Chicago where he acted in children's programs such as the documentary health series ``It's Your Life.'' It was during that time that Herbert formulated the idea of Mr. Wizard and a general science experiments show that utilized the new medium of television. Herbert's idea was accepted by a Chicago NBC station, and the series ``Watch Mr. Wizard'' premiered on March 3, 1951. That was even before I was born. The weekly 30-minute show featured Herbert as Mr. Wizard, with a young assistant who watched while Herbert performed interesting science experiments. The experiments, many of which seemed impossible at first glance, were usually simple enough to be recreated by viewers. The show was very successful, and 547 live episodes were created before it was cancelled in 1965. It was briefly revived by NBC during the 1971-1972 season. In 1953 Herbert won a Peabody Award for his work on this program. In 1983, Herbert developed ``Mr. Wizard's World,'' a faster-paced version of the show that was shown three times a week on the cable channel Nickelodeon. This show ran until 1990, and reruns were shown until 2000, making it the longest-running show on Nickelodeon. In 1994, Herbert developed another series of 15-minute spots for Nickelodeon called ``Teacher to Teacher with Mr. Wizard.'' The new show highlighted individual elementary school teachers and their projects and was sponsored by the Daschle Science Foundation. Mr. Wizard inspired legions of children across the Nation. Kids in every town joined thousands of Mr. Wizard clubs and did some of the same experiments that were seen on television, sometimes even without burning up the house. Many of these young viewers went on to careers in science and all were at least taught the practicalities of science in our daily lives. On June 12, 2007, Donald Herbert lost his battle with cancer, slightly more than a month shy of his 90th birthday at his home in Bell Canyon, California. For the immeasurable contributions he made in children's lives and to the field of science, I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing his life and work. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman from Arizona if he has other speakers on this particular topic. I do have one other I'd like to yield time to.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution may deal with the University of Arizona Wildcats, but it obviously honors all people, all ladies who were involved in softball athletics this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 475, congratulating the University of Arizona Women's Softball Team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division Women's College World Series Championship. On June 6 of this year, the University of Arizona Wildcats Women's Softball Team defeated a very strong and successful University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers Team by a score of 5-0 to win the three-game series 2-1 and capture the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Softball Championship. This is Arizona's second consecutive title. Much of the team's success is due to its coach, Mike Candrea. Over the last 21 seasons, he has compiled a record of 1,131 victories, only 228 defeats and two ties; however, you have a tie in the softball game. He has won 18 Coach of the Year awards and is an inductee in the National Fastpitch Coaches Association Hall of Fame. In his career as a Wildcat coach, he has taken the team to the College World Series 19 times and has won eight College World Series titles. During the 2007 season, the Wildcats compiled an impressive record of 50 wins, 14 losses and only 1 tie. The junior, Taryne Mowatt, the 2007 World Series MVP, set a record for the most pitches thrown in the College World Series by throwing 1,000 pitches in a week, pitching every inning of the tournament for the Wildcats. This season she compiled a record of 42 wins and 12 losses. The University of Arizona should be recognized as an outstanding academic institution as well. Now in its second century of service to the State, the University of Arizona has become one of the Nation's top 20 public research institutions. It is one of only 62 members in the Association of American Universities, a prestigious organization that recognizes universities with exceptionally strong research and academic programs. With a world-class faculty in fields as diverse as astronomy, plant science, biomedical science, business, law, music and dance, the University of Arizona offers a rewarding educational experience to all of its students. I extend my congratulations to the University's president, Robert Shelton, the athletic director, Jim Livengood, head coach Mike Candrea and his staff, all of the hardworking players, the fans and to the University of Arizona. I am happy to join my friend and colleague, Representative Grijalva, in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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. 154, recognizing Stax Records for enriching the Nation's cultural life with its 50 years of soul. Stax Records is a name which is synonymous with Southern soul music. The record label began as Satellite Records in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1959. Founded by Jim Stewart, a former country fiddler, and Estelle Axton, the company had its first top 10 hit in 1961 with ``Gee Whiz'' by Carla Thomas. During the next few years, Stax developed a branch of music which was to have worldwide repercussions. With its house rhythm section, better known as Booker T. and the MGs, its tight horn section, which later became the Memphis Horns, and its gospel-rooted recording artists such as Otis Redding and Sam and Dave, Stax virtually created contemporary soul music. The death of Otis Redding in 1967 signaled the end of the first Stax era, but it was soon to be revitalized with a successful new breed of Stax artists, including Isaac Hayes. In his own way, Hayes developed a unique blend, part jazz, part soul, part easy listening. He talked on his records in a mellow, bantering manner, and he used an orchestra in many ways to provide instrumental cushioning. In many ways, Hayes was a founding father of the sweet soul of the 1970s. Stax's roster ran the gamut of black popular music. Albert King displayed his great personality, playing his guitar with a bluesy sense of urgency. The Staple Singers were at their artistic peak when they recorded for Stax during the late 1960s and early 1970s, turning out records that blended a utopian social vision with rhythmic excitement. The music behind these singers was more varied than in early days, and some of it was recorded outside Memphis, but the spirit of Stax was burning as brightly as ever. The thing that made Stax go was teamwork; and when artists visited the studio, they could feel it. The halls were always full of people who seemed to be working furiously, dropping in on friends in their offices, or heading down to Studio A to check on the progress of a mixing session. The cooperation between white and black musicians and producers was practically unprecedented. Indeed, it was one of the secrets of the company's across-the-board success. On August 20, 1972, the Stax label reached a pinnacle of success by representing a major concert, Wattstax, featuring performances by Stax recording artists and the humor of a rising young comedian named Richard Pryor. Known as the ``Black Woodstock,'' Wattstax was hosted by Reverend Jesse Jackson and drew a crowd of over 10,000 attendees, most of them African American. Wattstax was filmed by motion picture director Mel Stuart, and a concert film of the event was released to theaters by Columbia Pictures in February 1973. The influence of soul music permeates nearly all of today's modern music art forms and has deepened American music history and the Nation's cultural life. Today, we recognize the 50th anniversary of the founding of Stax Records and its role in launching the careers of many legendary soul music artists. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand to honor Lieutenant General Kevin J. Sullivan upon his promotion to Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations and Logistics. Kevin Sullivan was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and grew up in an Air Force family. He married the former June Young, also from Connecticut. He is an alumnus of the University of Connecticut, and he and June are Husky fans through and through. General Sullivan entered the Air Force and was commissioned through the Air Force ROTC program upon graduation. His first assignment took him in 1975 to England Air Force Base, Louisiana, as a weapons loading officer. He has since had assignments in the Philippines, North Dakota, Nebraska, here in Washington, Alabama, Germany, Utah, Ohio, Florida, and most recently a return engagement to Hill Air Force Base as Commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center. General Sullivan is the longest serving commander in the history of the Ogden ALC and he has led with superb application of financial, human and material resources during his tenure. Despite living the itinerant life that is part and parcel of the Air Force, and despite his affection and affinity to his alma mater, we consider Kevin and June to be true Utahns, and we look forward to their future visits, official and not-so-official. General Sullivan, please accept my heartfelt thanks for your outstanding leadership and stewardship at Hill Air Force Base during the past 4 years and my very best wishes upon your important new assignment. You exemplify the tradition of ``Integrity first, Service before self, and Excellence in all we do'' that is the hallmark of the United States Air Force.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as I said in the opening remarks, we are going to try to present some amendments that can actually make this into a better bill. This is the first one in which I want to do which simply deals with the backlog we are talking about. This amendment requires the Park Service to eliminate its maintenance backlog at this particular national historic site, the Carl Sandburg site, prior to the purchasing of land. As I said already, there is a $600,000 backlog that the Park Service has said exists already at Carl Sandburg's historic site. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill costs $7 million to implement. Those funds must be prioritized on an ``existing needs'' list, which means the Park Service has the discretion to use the $7 million to buy new land before they actually fix the existing buildings that happen to be there. Overall, the Park Service has a maintenance backlog that's anywhere from $5- to $10 billion. This is not the time to buy more land until we fix the existing problems. Any addition to this park simply exacerbates the problem. And this bill, not only in the overall cost, but also add an additional $500,000 a year on operating costs of this particular park. So once again, Mr. Chairman, this is the purpose of this particular amendment, to say, fine. What we will do, though, is make sure that what we own and what we are operating and what we are using, which is actually the house, it's about Carl Sandburg, should be properly maintained first before the Park System uses any of this money that may be appropriated or any of their dedicated funds that they may have for that kind of appropriation to expand the park. Fix what we have first. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, almost a fortnight ago, one of our colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts, was waxing eloquent about congressional experts, which he considered to be an oxymoron, as he said, similar to jumbo shrimp or Salt Lake City night life. I have the opportunity of representing the central and western side of Salt Lake City, along with my colleague, who hopefully will be here later, who lives in and represents the east side of Salt Lake City, Mr. Matheson. Now, it's true I don't live in Salt Lake City. I live in a much quieter area 60 miles north of a town appropriately called Brigham City. But in my younger, wilder college days, I did live in areas that I now represent in Central City and Capitol Hill in Salt Lake, an area similar to this except about 4,000 feet closer to the heavens. I want you to know in the night life, every evening when you went out, on almost every corner you could find an ice cream parlor. If I ever wanted to forget my worries and drown my sorrows, I could easily have a second glass of warm milk. There are some nights we put our pajamas on before 8:00, the one without the feet. Even now we will occasionally stay up long enough to watch Letterman go through his top 10. Our night life, and he says there is no night life, when we wanted to go out at night, we would take off the working Wranglers, put on the clean Wranglers and go down to 7-Eleven and find the new Slurpee flavors of the month. For a gourmet night, we could even load up the minivan and supersize number 5 with extra mayo, for everyone except for the driver, because we don't allow drinking and driving. That's why some of our cabbies die of thirst. And you say we have no night life? It's true our happy hours are determined by how much green Jell-O is available, because a party is not a party without green Jell-O and carrot bits. Indeed, if you order a mixed drink, it will definitely involve chocolate syrup and milk, but you still have to stir vigorously with the straw. And he says we have no night life? Our baseball fans, after the seventh inning, can order all the root beer they want. Admittedly, it causes road rage. I remember the last time I came out when my buggy was cut off by a buckboard wagon, and I have to admit, I said some expletives, like, oh my, heck, move that frigging nag. But to say we have no night life? Now, lest any other myths continue on here, I do want to tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, if he wants to see Tony Award-winning regional drama, he will have to come to Utah, and he will fly into one of the busiest hubs in the Nation, which is Salt Lake International. If he finds himself seated at Pioneer Memorial Theater or Kingsbury Hall or Rose Wagner Theater, Capitol Theater, he will be seeing Broadway-quality plays all done by equity actors, or he will be listening to some of the finest music done by the Utah Opera Company or the premiere ballet of the West, which is Ballet West, which is headquartered in Utah, or watching the award-winning Repertory Dance Theater. If he finds himself in Abravenal Hall, he will be listening to one of the best symphony orchestras in the Nation. If he is at Franklin Covey Field, he will watch the sun shine on the eastern mountains in the Wasatch over the left field berm as he sits in probably what has been considered one of the nicest and most beautiful baseball stadiums, watching the AAA-Division-leading Salt Lake Bees. He can find private clubs and dance clubs and comedy clubs and concerts and even, although I don't recommend it, get drunk in Salt Lake City. He might even be able to listen to a debate between a publicity- seeking mayor and a radio talk show host about Iraq, in which case he would probably want to be drunk. It may just have been under those night lights that he didn't see much going on; that it was one of the nights when the Utah Jazz, even though they have had two rough difficult nights, were still involved in the hunt for the NBA title, something which a team in his State can't say. In short, I would simply recommend and invite the good gentleman from Massachusetts to come and visit our State. I would suggest, perhaps, though, he should bring an interpreter with him, because in Utah we still do not put an R at the end of our vowels.