Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I wish to simply address a couple of the issues that have been brought up again. In comparing this particular bill to two others, one specifically still held up in the committee, it is true that one bill did have a donation, which is what he is patterning after, so the Grand Teton bill is very similar to this: Willing donor. The other bill by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) is with the Jean Lafitte National Park. This is the ability of coming up with area that is necessary for protecting from the devastation of hurricanes. It is also area coming mainly from State and local lands, not from private owners, and we do not actually oppose the boundary revisions because it makes sense on a case-by-case basis in this particular area, especially when the cost for the land is only $1,000 per acre. It would only increase the size of this particular national site by 15 percent, not the 44 percent as in this one.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I take some umbrage at the claim that this is an arbitrary number that is taken out. In our hearing testimony, it was very clear from both the park as well as the county that 5 acres was what was needed for the parking and the visitors center. That is not a number pulled out of the air. It was specifically for 5 acres. That is why I have continuously used that particular number. Things have changed, I admit, since the hearing. When we had the hearing, it was said this would totally cost somewhere between $2 million and $3 million. CBO has said today this will cost $7 million and a continuing ongoing fee of $500,000 every year. I would not be necessarily as opposed to this if indeed donation was the goal. It is unfair to the gentlelady from Wyoming, as well as the bill that deals with a donation of land to the Grand Teton National Park, to compare this with that. That was simply a donation. The total cost is zero. The total expansion of that park is expanding the Grand Teton Park by six ten-thousandths of a percent. This particular bill expands this park 44 percent, and if you divide $7 million by the number of acres, that is something around $64,000 an acre. That would be a cost that would be there. There is an ongoing cost and an ongoing decision that the United States needs to go into if we are going to make these kinds of decisions. Like I said, the amendment is straightforward. There is a need for parking. There is a need for the visitors center; 5 acres meets that need. The rest of it is simply not a need, it is not necessary, and we should reject this kind of pork. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that does what I originally said ought to have been done. There has been compelling evidence that there is a need for 5 additional acres to provide for safe parking enhancement and to provide for a visitors center. In addition, in the testimony we had at the hearing, they asked that this acreage not be made mandatory as contiguous to the park itself to leave them the flexibility as far as the planning process. So what I am asking for this to do is make in order those 5 acres, which I admit is a legitimate request, and it would not include the extra 110 acres that are supposedly for a viewshed protection that no one can see or for a resource that is not related in any way to the purpose of this particular park. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I think it is one of those things that it's a simple question: Do we expand what we have, buy more stuff to take care of, or do we take care of what we have first? And I have to admit that under Republican leadership we have had huge increases in these budgets; however, the need is still significantly there. I appreciate the comments that were made by my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, as to what those deferred maintenance needs may or may not be. Actually, the Park Service has already done that. They have listed out exactly what needs to be done there. In fact, I said $600,000. I was wrong. It's $599,673 worth of specific maintenance that has to be done on this site first. And it just makes sense that we take care of this first before we do any kind of other expansions; otherwise, we are simply not dealing properly with what should be before us. I appreciate, also, the fact that North Carolina bought the 22 acres, but I would remind you also that they bought it from a group that virtually had the land so it could be kept in open space in the first place, and that as soon as we federalize these acres as well as the other 110 acres, this automatically becomes PILT money available for North Carolina. This is the gift that keeps on giving and the cost that keeps on costing the rest of this Nation. 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill authorizes the purchase of 115 acres. I have already said 5 acres is legitimate. There is a need for safe parking and a visitor center, and that is the amount of space that they need. It is the other 110 acres which, unfortunately, fits the title of ``pork.'' This park is about Carl Sandburg. It is supposed to venerate his life and his literary legacy. Unfortunately, the extra 110 acres has absolutely nothing to do with his life or literary legacy. The National Park System said, and some that sit here on the floor, that this land would protect the viewshed. The logical question is what viewshed? The ridge is the natural boundary of this park. The land to be adopted is over the ridge, which means you stand anywhere in that extra 100 acres and you can't see the house from that acreage. You stand at the house and you can't see the acreage unless we give you some complimentary periscopes. Simply, there is no view to deal with. The county came up here and said, well, this park has evolved, kind of like Jurassic Park, and now we are trying to protect some of the historic pasturelands. Historic pasturelands? This is about Carl Sandburg. He wrote about Abraham Lincoln. He did not invent Arby's. They also said during the committee that this is to protect the resources. The resources of this park is the house. You could be on that 100 acres they want to add, and the house could burn to the ground, and you wouldn't know about it until the fire trucks from the town came running by the road to get there. This has nothing to do with preserving and protecting the vast purpose of this particular park. I've got four problems with this bill, this is the first one. The second one deals with the cost. When we had the hearing in the markup, it was said that this bill would cost between 2- and $3 million. CBO has now scored it at $7 million. They have also said it will incur to the Federal Government an ongoing expense of a half million dollars a year. This park already costs about $1.2 million to run. They bring in about $100,000 to $200,000 worth of revenue a year, so it is a $1 million drag on the Federal Treasury at first. This will add to that, making it a $1.5 million net deficit every year the existence of this park is there. Now, some people will say, look, it's only 100 acres. We're only talking about $7 million. In the scope of what we do here in the Nation, that's not much. But if you actually spend $7 million here, 2- or $3 million there, pretty soon you realize that we are in a situation where we have squandered all our money, and we don't have anything for those deserving projects that actually are before us. The National Park Service said this park itself needs $600,000 in maintenance work. It is galling that a park system that is always talking about the need would in any way recommend or that we as a body would adopt that recommendation to try and expand into areas that we are not necessarily dealing with. I show you this picture right now because it is Dinosaur National Monument. It straddles the border between Utah and Colorado. This is the visitors center. I used to go there. This is exciting. The entire mountain has been scaled back, and you can see the fossil remains of dinosaurs. Unfortunately, this is condemned. No school kid can ever go into this building or see the fossil remains. No Park Service employee can go in there because this is on the backlog of stuff that needs to be done. Before we buy extraneous territory that adds to something that has nothing to do with the mission of the park, we should solve these types of problems first, because the money we use to buy this land in North Carolina is money that will not be used in real parks, for real needs, for real issues anywhere else in the Nation, in California, in Arizona, in New Mexico, in Maine. None of those will receive that. It is simply a misplaced sense of priority. Now, this area was represented in the past by a gentleman who used to chair the appropriations subcommittee that dealt with public lands. He could have easily added this kind of money to an appropriations prospect. But having the ability of seeing the overall needs that we have in our forest system, our parks system, our public lands system, he flat out didn't. He did take, instead of a parochial view, a very patriotic view of the needs of this country, and I am hopeful that we will do that as well. There is a third area of concern I have, and that deals with community. To be honest, we are dealing with a community that overtaxed its citizens by $5 million last year. They brought in $5 million more than they spent. They have a general reserve fund of $21 million. If this is definitely needed as open space, because it doesn't really fit the park, but any kind of open space, they could easily do that. Or they could do what cash-strapped cities in the West do, which is simply bond for that kind of an approach. Even the idea that 20 acres was given to the State, and that the State will now dedicate that, still presents another problem because that means that forevermore this county will have additional PILT land, and additional PILT money will be going to that, which, once again, cuts into the amount which is a finite supply for all of us that are left. The fourth reason I have a problem with this bill is simply it's not pork. If this was a significant addition to giving the message of Carl Sandburg, I would not object to it. If this was the 5 acres that is a significant addition for parking, safety and for a visitors center, I would not object to it. But this is simply land that doesn't protect a viewshed, that doesn't have any historical connection with the family. It is land that is simply being gobbled up and will forevermore be subsidized through PILT payments by this body to this county. And when we have these other needs, the question is simply, for what? There is no logic for that. This is a hard place, I know, to deal with logic; but this is one of those bills that simply defies logic. Mr. Chairman, for that reason I have to oppose this particular bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the headlines in the papers could probably read ``Scramble the Eggs Because We're Bringing Home the Bacon.'' We are going to be leaving for Memorial Day weekend. We will have the ability of standing in front of our constituents, looking them straight in the eye, and saying that one of the last things we did before we went back home was to cast a vote for something that can be described as one of the biggest pieces of pork legislation we have. A contingency from North Carolina, both congressional and senatorial side, come to Washington and they brought something back home. Even though this particular bill does not meet the definition of general welfare as was intended in the Constitution, does not meet a critical need, does not enhance the purpose of a specific park that we have, it does spend money upfront and will yearly require this country to have a larger financial obligation. And it does also tell us that enough votes can deliver anything regardless of the merits. We intend to show to all those who may be listening that this bill fails on the size, the cost, and the logic of it. We intend to introduce three amendments eventually within this process. One that will say that 5 acres included in this recommendation has logic to it, that we admit that is truly there. There is a need for safe public parking and a visitor center, which is the 5 acres they requested. We will also present an amendment which will say the first thing we need to do is make sure that we are dealing with the backlog of resource needs that we have. This particular park, according to the National Park Service, has $600,000 worth of construction needs in the regular park itself, which we should be doing before we try any kind of expansion. We will also be introducing, by Mr. Heller of Nevada, an amendment that says if this land wishes to be donated, we will accept it. Had any of these three amendments been adopted in the committee, the committee of jurisdiction, this bill would probably be here as a suspension bill. But when the attitude is it's all or nothing, rejecting any kind of minority input, we will probably object for the logic in this bill. This bill can be jammed through by the numbers but certainly not by the logic. Mr. Chairman, I realize the chief sponsor is here, and I think it would be only fair to allow him to have the opportunity to speak now in defense of his bill before I go on. Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to Lane Beattie, president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber. Lane was honored last week as the Distinguished Utahn of the Year, joining the ranks of many other Utahns who have contributed to the development of the State. Each year the Salt Lake City Chapter of the BYU Management Society recognizes individuals in the State of Utah for their exemplary leadership and service to the community, and Lane is a well-deserving recipient. Lane was a professional real estate broker and developer. He has also given extensive service in the public sector. Lane, a friend and colleague of mine from the State legislature, was elected to the Utah State Senate in 1989. He quickly ascended the ranks of leadership, becoming Utah Senate President just 5 years later. He served as president of the Senate for 6 years and established a reputation as one who had the best interests of Utahns at heart. While in the Senate, Lane proposed and implemented some of the most sweeping changes in the legislative process in several decades, including total internet access for legislators as well as the public. This made the legislative process significantly more efficient and allowed more legislator and citizen involvement. This is just one example of his commitment to truly serving the citizens of Utah by making the process and product of the legislature better. This award is evidence of the high esteem in which Lane is held by all those who know him. His colleagues in the Senate have commented that, under his leadership, the Senate became ``more efficient, productive, professional, and more open to the public.'' For those of us who know something about the Senate, that's saying a lot! One quality that I admired about Lane when we served together in the Utah State Legislature was his ability to build consensus. Having a good leader in the Senate certainly made my life easier on the House side. I always appreciated Lane's commitment to lowering taxes. As leader of the Senate, he made sure the Senate passed major tax reforms and reductions across the State that have saved taxpayers millions of dollars. The Taxpayers Association, in presenting Lane the Taxpayers Advocate Award in 1999, estimated that, during his leadership in the Senate, permanent tax cuts amounting to $1 billion were enacted. Lane has represented our State well, being asked to speak locally, nationally, and internationally. In 1996 he was invited to address the European Union in Italy on Federalism and State's rights. He also served as a representative for all United States Senate Presidents when he was elected as Chairman of the National Senate Presidents Forum in 1998. The following year he headed a delegation from the United States on an official visit to China as a guest of the Vice President of China. In June 2000, Governor Leavitt asked Lane to accept the post as Chief State Olympic Officer for the State of Utah to oversee and manage the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. As State Olympic Officer, Lane was in charge of coordinating the legal, financial and intergovernment arrangements for Utah's hosting of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Other members of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympics commended Lane for his unwavering commitment and tireless efforts at the Olympics. He was particularly effective at bringing together different groups and uniting everyone toward accomplishing a common goal. Lane's effectiveness at finding solutions to problems greatly contributed to the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics. His reputation as a leader extends beyond just the State of Utah. Following the Olympics, Lane was chosen as president and CEO of the Salt Lake Chamber. His experience in both the public and private sector has been a tremendous asset to the business community in the Salt Lake area and his vision for Utah has improved the state as a whole. Lane is truly a voice for the business community in Utah. Working with and supporting Lane in his various civic pursuits is Lane's wife Joy and their three children. His contributions as a legislator, businessman, and Olympic Officer have truly made Utah a better place to live. Lane Beattie is one of Utah's most accomplished leaders and I am pleased to honor him today for his outstanding contributions and achievements.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for giving me this opportunity to discuss the concept of Head Start, which is a significant program that does a great deal of good for kids who are in dire need of this kind of service. If indeed the decisions that we made in life were always of a vast contrast, differences were black versus white, night versus day, even the simple ones of right versus wrong, our life would be easy and our choices would be easy. But, unfortunately, life is not like that. The decisions and choices we get to make are always going to be a shade of gray. We are given oftentimes two goods, and we have to decide which is the better choice. How we make those decisions identifies us as individuals; but it also defines what we are as a society. This particular debate today is dealing with one of those basic choices between two goods. We have one of the big differences with this particular reauthorization of Head Start versus the reauthorization of Head Start that we passed last year, both of them good bills, is the concept of faith-based institutions within these two bodies. One of the things that bothered me also as a speech teacher is as we are talking about this issue, sometimes we are talking different angles, kind of like ships passing in the night, without discussing the same definition of terms. One side will say that faith-based institutions should not be used because of the hiring practices. If this institution decides to hire within their own religious group, a program that is legal both legislatively as well as judicially, then they should not be used in the concept of Head Start, or used as a program for Head Start. It has nothing to do with proselytizing, it has to do with whether they should be used at all. The other side simply says value is what is best for kids. Those are two goods. Neither one is necessarily bad. The issue is: Which is more important to us? I am going to make the argument to you that if we really want to define our society, what we have to do is to say our highest value for this education program is what is best for kids. If, indeed, a faith- based institution is the best program to help kids break the cycle of poverty, understand the importance of education to try to lead a better life and improve their lives and their family's at the same time, then that has to be our highest value. That must be our highest value. What we have to do is avoid the biases that we have on any other issue. The question is what best helps kids. Once again, if a faith- based institution is the best way of helping a kid, do it. For heaven's sake, do it. Do not hold kids hostage to our own social dogma. It may not be a bad social dogma, but the question is, where is our priority? What are our values? With these kids who desperately need this help, this assistance, the most important thing is to give them that help so they can move forward and they can break the poverty cycle, and they can move on with their lives and help themselves and their families at the same time. If that is not our goal, if that is not our purpose, if we are really not talking about how to help kids best, then we are fooling ourselves and making poor choices and kind of demeaning the entire debate and discussion of what the Federal Government will do in the area of education. Once again, Mr. Chairman, we will have a chance to discuss these issues again in some other format, but I would urge my colleagues to remember we have to make a choice somehow, and our choice should be in the best interest of kids, and everything else, everything else, has to be secondary to that goal.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it's my honor to recognize and yield time to the distinguished Representative from Idaho. I yield Mr. Sali 2 minutes and 14 seconds, which is what he says he needs.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is indeed an honor for me to be here with the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee. Through his illustrious career I have been impressed with the way he has run the committee. I've also been impressed with his commonsense approach to issues, except for this one. And I appreciate the opportunity of being here. You know, Mr. Chairman, this is the time of year when everyone has a great deal of hope. This is the beginning of the baseball season, where every team, with the possible exception of the Royals, still has a mathematical chance of winning the division. And as a loyal Cub fan, who is now in my 99th year, consecutive year, of reconstruction and renewal, there is still hope for me. It is also sad because we are about to commemorate very soon the 43rd anniversary of the worst trade made in the history of baseball, according to many scholars. And that trade was a six-player trade in which my Cubs sent three players, including Lou Brock, to the St. Louis Cardinals in exchange for three other players and Ernie Broglio, who was an 18-game winner at the time. Now, on paper this trade made great sense for the Cubs. They were getting an outfielder, a veteran relief pitcher, and a starting pitcher, a 20-game winner who had won 18 games the year before. What happened in reality, of course, is that Lou Brock accepted the role of a lead-off hitter when he went to the Cardinals and spurred them to not only the Pennant but also the World Series victory on his way to a Hall of Fame career. Broglio, a great pitcher, actually developed arm problems, won only seven games the rest of his career, and 2 years later he is out of baseball. Now, this is known as one of those great trades that looked perfect on paper but in reality it simply wasn't there. With all due respect, this bill is one of those great bills on paper, but the reality of it simply isn't there. This is an Ernie Broglio bill if there ever was one. Now, I have to admit that I don't have a great deal of personal knowledge about horses. My reference to horses in the last 30 years is probably helping my kid to choose either the striped or the painted one on the merry-go-round. The unfortunate thing is that most of the people who will be voting on this bill have the exact same background that I do have. I am happy to note, though, that I do have a brother who met his wife while he was the rodeo clown, and his wife was in the barrel racing contest and is one the few people who has actually trapped and trained a wild horse on the open desert in Utah and Nevada. So I am using that background from the history as we talk about this particular bill. And as I looked at this bill as it came out of committee and studied it closer, there are five areas in which I think this bill has significant flaws. The first is that this bill does not do what its supporters claim it will do. Not the sponsor. He's been totally honest in this. But many of those who have been writing about this particular bill have exaggerated what it actually does. Secondly, this bill takes away a tool of management from BLM and does not replace it with anything created to help them in their established goal. Number three, this bill has a difficult system in making the ecosystem of the West, the desert West, a more difficult area to manage. Number four, there is indeed an extreme cost that the taxpayers are paying in this program that actually ends up being more abusive of the animals that we are trying to preserve and to help. And finally, I think there is, indeed, a regional bias that can be seen in this particular bill. Now, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just talk about perhaps that first issue, just that first issues. This bill does not do what the proponents claim. I have seen the Dear Colleague letters from Robert Redford and Willie Nelson, and one came from the Humane Society making all sorts of claims that are actually not done by this particular bill. The reality is, as well-intentioned as this bill may be, there is actually no change in what will happen with the BLM and their priorities. If this bill passes, no horse is actually safer than it would have been. And if this bill fails, no horse is actually going to be eaten in France. The idea is this is a very narrow bill that only deals with BLM and deals with forestlands. It doesn't deal with all public lands, doesn't deal with national parks or wildlife refuges or reservations or military affairs. It has been said there are about 90,000 horses a year that are unwanted. Their owners either cannot or will not maintain them. On BLM lands we are only talking about 7,000 horses, 6,800 last year that were taken off land because of the inability of the land to sustain them. This is only a small portion that this bill deals with, so the overall idea of trying to help all the animals, to stop foreign sales consumption of those, it's not covered in this particular bill. What it does do, though, is take away a management tool the BLM has. And with that, Mr. Chairman, in the coming speeches by my colleagues who will be down here, and as we go through for the next hour this particular bill, I hope to explore those other issues. Therefore, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Representative Price is trying to do. Let me try and put in context, once again, what the issue at hand in this very narrowly crafted bill is. As of today, by rule, by court order, and by regulation and law, BLM, if it sells an animal, may not sell that animal for consumption. If the buyer resells that animal for consumption, that is a felony. It violates the contract they signed, which means the ability of selling, which is different from adopting, is a management tool of BLM. If this bill passes, it would take the option of sale away. Last year, there were 2,400 horses that were sold. That would no longer be the case. And indeed, BLM would then incur a new burden for keeping those animals and providing for those animals. That is why we support Representative Price's amendment that applies PAYGO standard to this bill. There will be an additional cost because the policy will change. If H.R. 249 passes and the BLM can no longer sell, not for consumption, but just sell wild horses, this agency estimates it will cost $12- to $15 million over the next 10 years. Long-term care and feeding of these animals were not considered when the CBO scored this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me just say a couple of things to try and set the record straight about the last couple of speeches which haven't actually been dealing with the amendment nor necessarily the bill itself. There are approximately 33,000 wild horses on public range lands today. There are 28,000 wild horses that are standing in pens today. That is the total amount. Those animals are not slaughtered. If they are sold or adopted, it is a felony to slaughter those animals. That is the BLM practice today. Any kind of talking about animals being slaughtered for consumption are not the animals owned by the Federal Government nor the animals that are subject to this particular bill. All this bill does is take away the opportunity of selling these animals, not for consumption or slaughter, to someone else. And it takes away a standard which the BLM has estimated will cost them between $10 million and $12 million over the next 10 years to try to keep these animals standing in a pen all day. The problem is, we do have an arid topography. This is not the land that can support these animals. All of my good friends in the east have perfect land for that. And, to be honest, if they would open up some of their land so that wild horses can run freely back in their districts, you might be able to solve this problem again. But it is not going to happen unless you actually give them the tools to do it on this limited number of animals we are actually speaking about.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again it is my pleasure to try to say a couple of other elements. As I said, there were five concerns that we have with this particular bill. The first one, as I mentioned, is it really does not solve the problem. This bill does nothing that the BLM is not already doing in common practice. That is why I said if this bill were to pass, it simply would have no more impact on horses than it does now. No horse would be safer. If it doesn't pass, no horse is going to the slaughter, and no horse is going to be consumed by someone in France. This bill is very, very narrow. It only deals with a portion of the public lands and a portion of the number of horses that are there, not the overall situation. But it does do one thing that is harmful. This is the second element. It takes away the tool, as the gentleman from Colorado clearly enunciated, that is used for the management of wild animals, wild horses, on public lands. There are only two things that we can do. You can either allow these horses that are excess, that are destroying the habitat, that have to be taken off the land, roughly 7,000 last year. About 28,000 are being held in pens right now as we speak that are excess horses, about half of everything the Federal Government actually controls. You can either adopt them, which is a year-long practice and individuals are limited to four adoptees per individual. Or you can sell them. Sell them either for $100 to $2,000, if it is especially a unique animal, and it is limitless. That is what has been happening in the past. BLM has had the ability and about 2,500 horses have been sold. None for consumption purposes. Now, you have to realize that if you buy a horse from the BLM today, by law and by contract it cannot be resold for consumption. It cannot be resold for slaughter. If that happens, that is a felony. That is why this bill does nothing that it is not already doing today. But this bill does take away the ability to sell those animals, which means you are down to the adoption, which is a very difficult process to go through. That means it will be harder for BLM and the Forest Service, which actually doesn't run their process, which always works through BLM, to actually find homes and places for the excess animals on public lands. In taking that tool of management away, this bill does nothing to give BLM a creative solution to the situation. Just saying ``no'' may be a good slogan for a drug policy, but saying ``no'' to the BLM does not help them in their chartered task of trying to manage the herd as well as the ecosystem that is going on there. These horses are not native species to these lands. They do hurt the environment. They trample it down. That is why since 1971 almost a quarter of a million, roughly 200,000 horses, have been taken off the public lands because the habitat is not there for them. The bottom line is there are too many horses for the land that is available. The bulk of these animals are in my State, Nevada, a few in Colorado, and some in Wyoming and Arizona. This is desert territory. It is not the natural habitat of these horses. This is not the idea of horses running over the rolling hills. If you did that, you would probably want to send them back east to where the natural habitat is, but there is no BLM land back there. Actually if you really want to help the situation out, you would take about 150 head and put them in Central Park where they could roam freely without any fear of contamination, disease, or muggings like the New York citizens themselves have back in Central Park. That would really help the situation out. What we have to do here is either allow nature to take its course, in which case these horses will die a pitiful, miserable death of starvation, disease, or by the hands or by the mouths of a predator; or destroy the ecosystem; or, worse, both situations happening, unless we give BLM the tools to remove the animals and find an alternative source for them. This is a cost for the government. In reality we are spending $38.6 million every year to run the wild horse program. The overwhelming majority of that, almost either $20 million to $25 million, depending on which source you look at, is simply for holding these excess horses in pens, not letting them run free, not giving them the freedom in the wild that you think of, but actually holding them in pens. Some of the problems for the horses we look at is sometimes we think of Sea Biscuit as we are talking about these animals, an animal that has been bred and groomed and is well taken care of. These animals fight for their own existence. They are not necessarily the most lovable of animals. And, therefore, they have a hard time being adopted, which means BLM has to put them in a pen where they don't move, they don't do anything except sit around all day and eat. And since they eat and are fed and there are no predators around, these animals can live for up to 30 years at a cost of about $15,000 per animal to the Federal taxpayer, to have them sit around in a pen with no chance of activity whatsoever, in actually a miserable condition. We are spending $20 million a year to be more abusive to animals than they would be if we gave them the tools to actually give them to other sources. We actually allow them to sell in some particular way, which is why the Humane Society, from their air conditioned offices downtown, wrote me and told me to support this bill. The Farm Bureau that actually works with these animals and knows what they are talking about wrote me and told me to oppose this bill. And in past years when we had further variations of this particular concept, veterinarian groups, horse owners, cattlemen, over 200 organizations that specifically know and understand horses have opposed the concepts that we are trying to codify in this particular bill. So once again I say the problem that we have here in the House is that most people like me have no access and no understanding or knowledge of these animals. They are like me, where the biggest decision they have to make with a horse is whether to put their kid on the horse or the snail on the carousel ride. And we are making decisions that actually go against the attitude and the advice that professionals that work with these animals and that know the situation are asking us to do. And it may seem emotional. It may seem good on paper. But trust me. This is the Ernie Broglio bill. It is not as good in reality as it looks in black and white. Let me also say that to me there is an element of regional bias within this. This is a map of all the public land that is owned in the United States. Everything in blue is the amount of public land owned in the United States. You will notice that there is kind of a balance towards the West. This is where the public land is. This is where the wild horses are. This is desert country. This is not their natural habitat. All of our good friends who are proposing and supporting this type of legislation, unfortunately, are living over here, where there is no BLM land or very little BLM and no wild horse activity, but this is, indeed, the natural habitat. It is unfair to us to try to impose a solution without creative alternatives by the representatives from here on this piece of territory. We know what the situation is, and that is why we are simply asking you, as best we possibly can, to vote ``no'' on this particular piece of legislation. I have avoided using any cliches and any bad puns so far. And, Lisa, I need to know what my cliches are. Until now, which means I am asking you to notice that this bill is all hat and no saddle. I am asking you that the horse may be with you, and I urge you to vote ``neigh'' on this piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I come here with a sense of disappointment, but, admittedly, not surprise. Last night in the Rules Committee, I had the opportunity of listening to a brilliant amendment that I thought was brilliantly presented. I did it, so it was brilliant. Unfortunately, that amendment, which was a new issue to this debate that has not been discussed in other venues or has not been discussed in another committee, is a technical amendment that was designed neither to inhibit nor to promote the passage of the underlying bill. If Utah becomes part of this bill and it is passed, we would be required in some way, shape and form to have a special election, which would cost the State of Utah about $7 million and require the legislature to come into special session to create new rules for a special election, as well as to appropriate money that does not now exist for that. We all know there will be lawsuits on this bill, and it will take time for those lawsuits to work the court. My amendment, a technical amendment, was simply to say let us start the process of the election in the 2008 election cycle, which would simply say there would be no extra cost to an entity for performance. There would be regular process, and that would give plenty of time for the lawsuits to have their way work through the courts. It seems ridiculous for the State of Utah to have to spend $7 million on a special election that may then be invalidated by a court action later on. I have to admit that in some respects I feel frustrated the way the State of Utah has been treated in this entire process, forced to have a special session to draw a map, a map in which the criteria was for incumbent protection, never before done, and now forced to spend money on a special election, when an alternate is completely there. Not to allow that to even be discussed on the floor does not help the body politic that is here. I also notice that my friend from Georgia has come down here. Mr. Westmoreland had an amendment that was discussed in the committee and passed in the committee. Yet this Rules Committee has stripped his amendment and offered a closed rule, so they deny him the opportunity to even discuss the amendment that has already been passed. Time after time in the last few years I sat where the gentleman from Texas sat and was denigrated by people who said we denied amendments that had failed in committee and were therefore stopping the democratic process. Here we have an example of someone who passed an amendment in committee that has now been stripped out and is no longer being allowed to discuss it on a bill that is purported to be expanding the concept of democracy in the first place. I realize that when we talk about process, that is extremely boring to the American people. It's boring to us. Actually, most of what we say on this floor is boring to almost all of us. But the real inconvenient truth is that poor process equates to poor policy. We will see another rule that comes out here today as well that would clearly illustrate how poor process, in an unprecedented fashion, would clearly result in poor policy. When I was a young legislator, I one time was somewhat of a rebel, I redeemed myself and eventually became speaker, but in my second session I had a position that was at odds with my own leadership and was numerically outnumbered. But they allowed the process in Utah to work so I stayed at the table, and eventually we designed and came up with a product that was actually before for all of us. That is what we should be doing here today. Somehow I heard, over the past 10 years, how the Rules Committee, when a different party was in charge, is where democracy goes to die. Unfortunately, this day the Rules Committee is once again where democracy goes to die. Mr. Westmoreland, who will be speaking in a few minutes, is living proof of how that happens.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in the year 1938 domestic needs were great in this country. The New Deal programs that FDR had actually failed, and the Depression had deepened during his second term to the point that the P-51 fighter plane was considered so insignificant and so costly it was not funded that year. When World War II started, the bombing runs that we took as a country produced 20 percent casualties for us to the point that we suspended bombing runs until we could build enough P-51 fighters to accompany them. It was not until the winter of 1943 that we were able to have superiority over the sky in Europe. The technology of today has made this world so much smaller and so much faster that we cannot afford to make the same mistake this country did in 1938. We cannot predict the type of future combat we will be called upon to participate in. We must be prepared for that future. Decisions we make today, because basically it takes 8 years from design to construction of a plane, decisions we make today have the impact of what kind of options we have both in the military and diplomatic sphere 10 and 15 years from now. This country has controlled the skies since the Korean War, and we take it for granted. We have forgotten that we have flown a military sortie every day of every year for the past 16 years, and we have done so with the oldest fleet in the history of this country. Our newest plane, the F-16, is 30 years old. It is older than the pilots who fly it. There are F-16s at this time that are restricted as to the speed and the distance in which they can fly. We have 63 C-130 cargo planes that cannot fly if they actually have any cargo. We have KC-135s that generals in the field will not accept because the age of the plane makes it impossible to protect. Despite our best efforts at our depots to try and fix these planes and patch them up, we cannot ignore the reality and forget we are in a difficult situation with the capacity of our military equipment. It may take, indeed, a catastrophe, the wings falling off, until we recognize the situation we are in, or find ourselves shorthanded in a time of need. The Air Force has asked for the ability of recapitalization, taking 1,000 planes they have determined to be excess and no longer funding those planes and instead putting that money into new technology. This Congress has failed to allow them to do so on many of those planes. If we had sufficient F-22s, we could get rid of all of our F-117s and save this country over a billion dollars a year over a 5-year period of time. While we have been playing around in America, our enemies, our allies, and maybe those who in the future will become our enemies have not been sitting still. The Chinese have added 10 percent to their military budget every year since 1990. That is a 200 percent increase over the past 17 years. Their navy is expanding. Their medium-range missiles are expanding. In January, they conducted a test to shoot down one of their own satellites which is the same type we depend upon for communications in the United States. And more significantly, their Jian-10 is a sleek new fighter aircraft designed to narrow the gap between the Chinese and the American Air Force to give them numerical compatibility and technical equality to the United States Air Force. The Russians have a new Sukov fighter airplane that they have already fielded which is technologically equal to what we have. We have even found a Third World country like the Indian Air Force has put so much money into their technology and training of their pilots that in many respects they are equal to the United States. We cannot afford to wait for the future. This country needs to build the fifth generation of fighters, the F-22. We need all 183. Actually, we need 300, not just the 183 we have authorized. We need to put money directly into the new F-35s. That is the future: 1,500 planes for both the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force to be the next generation to give us technological superiority in the skies and maintain superiority in the skies into the next decade. If we do not do that, we are desperately playing and gambling with our own future. We forget how long it took to ramp up to be producing the F-16s we fly today. This country should be producing 200 planes a year. Instead, in our budget for next year, we have scheduled to produce six, and two in the supplemental that were taken out. We are gambling with the future of this country because we have taken the past for granted. In fact, as one general half jokingly said, if we are not willing to appropriate the money to let our Air Force build the new equipment and planes they need, maybe we should at least give them the opportunity to purchase the Russian planes so they can be flying something that is new. Mr. Speaker, we cannot gamble with the future of this country. We cannot make the same mistakes we did in 1938. We need to put money into the building of the F-22 and the F-35 for the future of this Air Force.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, the Weber State University theatre arts program in the Department of Performing Arts is known regionally and nationally for providing exceptionally high quality theatre productions. Faculty and students are serious, committed to theatre, and devoted to making theatre accessible to a diverse audience. Weber State Theatre Arts area produces a full season of plays in the remodeled and state-of-the-art Val A. Browning Center for the Performing Arts. In recognition of Weber State University's consistently outstanding theatre program, it was invited to participate in ``Shakespeare in Washington,'' a festival featuring a vast array of events including: theatre, music and dance, as well as films and art exhibits hosted by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts from January to June 2007. Weber State's production of ``Macbeth'' was performed on March 14 and 15 in the Family Theatre at the Kennedy Center. ``Macbeth'' is one of the world's most well known tragedies and has been interpreted in many styles and cultures. Macbeth and his wife conspire to murder their way to the throne of Scotland, but their success is spoiled by guilt, paranoia and madness. Because of the unique presentation, the production was edited to run close to an hour in length, requiring the director, Tracy Callahan, to spend a great deal of time editing the script without losing any of its high-voltage substance. Many know the story, but thanks to the skills of the playwright, director, cast, designers and crew, nothing is lost in the abbreviated retelling. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Theatre Arts at Weber State University, those who had a part in this stellar production, those who have traveled far to support Weber State University as well as the Weber State University Alumni in the Washington, D.C. area.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 759, which has been well explained by the subcommittee chairman. We support the designation of the Bob Hope Memorial Library. We urge the adoption of this particular bill. In 1940, Bob Hope starred, with Paulette Goddard and Richard Carlson, in a remake of the movie ``The Ghost Breakers.'' In that picture, as they are talking about zombies that would be attacking the house that is owned by Paulette Goddard, she said, ``Zombies! That's horrible.'' Richard Carlson said, ``It's worse than horrible because a zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.'' At which time Bob Hope said, ``Oh, you mean like Democrats.'' I am very grateful that the other side of the aisle has taken this opportunity to recognize and reward both the wit and the wisdom of Bob Hope with this piece of legislation. I firmly support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.