Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, of all of the water-related bills that the Resources Committee has discussed, in my opinion this is still the best dam bill that we have, which would expand the growth of the Arthur Watkins Dam and Willard Bay. Yesterday the Science Committee produced several bills that came to this body to try and help with the issue of drought. That was the purpose of this bay and dam in 1957 when it was produced, to make sure that we can provide adequate water resources for agriculture, and the growing population in the State of Utah. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, and specifically the staff and the subcommittee chairman for bringing this bill to the floor, and to fulfill my commitment to the majority leader, I promised as soon as we passed this bill to get a haircut, no later than Tuesday of next week. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3626, the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005. In terms of water-related bills, this is one of the best dam bills the Committee on Resources has considered this year. H.R. 3626 will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study which will consider enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins dam. In my home county of Box Elder, Utah, this facility is better known as Willard Bay. Willard Bay is a popular recreation facility, drawing in outdoor enthusiasts from all over Utah. It is known for its great fishing, water skiing and beaches. Willard Bay is the furthest downstream facility operated by the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. The first phase was constructed between 1957 and 1964, with additional improvements being made as recent as the last decade. Willard Bay is an important water storage facility in my state and district. With its 215,000 acre feet capacity, the water resource in Willard Bay meets the culinary and recreational needs of hundreds of thousands of my constituents in the Top of Utah. As the population of Northern Utah grows, the need for additional water storage capacity is acute. Utah recently emerged from a 5 year period of drought. Winter of 2005-2006 was favorable and helped to recharge our reservoirs, lakes and aquifers. However, being in the Intermountain West, there's no guarantee that every year will be a good water year. In the high deserts of Utah, every drop of water counts. The water engineers of the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District are the brightest and hardest working individuals in their field. They have figured out how to use almost every drop of water in the reservoir. However, it is disconcerting to look out over the reservoir during the hot summer months, when there is a drought, and not see any water in the reservoir. By studying the feasibility to increase the storage capacity, we will hopefully be in a better position to meet the water needs of our people, in the next decade. The administration testified in favor of H.R. 3626 at a congressional hearing last November. H.R. 3626 was subsequently discharged from the House Committee on Resources on a voice vote. It is a good bill and much needed by my constituents. I appreciate Chairman Pombo and his staff for their excellent work in bringing this dam bill--the best of all of them--to the floor today.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am not aware of anything on the calendar.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 946 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to try and address my remarks to the bill we have before us and hopefully keep them germane to the particular issue we have in front of us. We have a very good conference report. It is a conference report which is just what a conference report is, a negotiated compromise between both parties and both Houses of this Congress, which means, in essence, we have 535 different opinions and we have compromised down to one bill, which I think satisfies the base needs of all of us, or at least the vast majority of us who are in Congress right now. This is legislation that reflects legislative priorities as to funding for vocational education. It provides more funds than perhaps the programs that have been assigned to us by the Constitution would do to this particular body. But it does reflect those priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution because a ``yes'' vote moves us forward. A ``no'' vote on this resolution would harm kids. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 946 provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany Senate 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 and waives all points of order against its consideration. Mr. Speaker, I am actually proud to stand in support of this rule the underlying legislation, which reauthorizes important vocational education loans and programs. In our ever-changing economy, it is clear that education and training is more vital than ever before to both our Nation's economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the quality of life for individuals and their families. This conference agreement will, among other things, direct the States to assess the effectiveness of State programs for career and technical education, with an emphasis on math and science, and also establishes performance indicators for those programs. It will enhance coordination between secondary and post-secondary vocational programs and strengthen the role of the States in administering these programs, and this is a funding of a legislative priority. This legislation allows for increased flexibility for States who choose the option to combine the Perkins State Grant with the Tech-Prep programs into one program, leading to greater program efficiencies. This once again is a State option. It allows for the States to provide ``incentive grants'' to encourage and recognize exemplary performances in carrying out career and technical education programs. It also will ensure the continued access to teachers for professional development certification. Mr. Speaker, in 1917, the government first funded training for vocational programs relating to national defense. In 1963, we passed the first Vocational Education Act. It was modified in 1984 as the Carl Perkins Program, and again in 1990. So this program has been here in some way for 90 years in this Nation helping those vocational programs and training our citizens for their future. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairwoman of the subcommittee, and one of the experts we have here in the House on international relations.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 947 provides for a structured rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, and waives all points of order against consideration of this bill, and provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This rule also makes in order several amendments brought forward to the Rules Committee, two of which are Democrat amendments, two are Republican, and two are bipartisan amendments, so the rule is fair in allowing a wide range of debate on issues that will be affecting nuclear technology, U.S. foreign policy and our strategic partnership between the world's two largest democracies, India and the United States. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I acted in a great many plays, one of which was the children's theater ``Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.'' And Willy Wonka has a song that he sings in there called ``Pure Imagination,'' with the wonderful lyrics like ``there is no life I know that compares with pure imagination,'' which may work well for the stage or for a children's book after which it was based but not in the reality of our partnership between India and the United States. There we must face reality, and the reality is India has had nuclear technology for four decades, they are a nuclear power, they have been in the possession of that technology since 1974 when they conducted their first nuclear test, they have never signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, nor do they have the international Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and since that time they have sought to increase the development of nuclear energy to support the needs of their large population. In June of last year, President Bush announced an agreement with Prime Minister Singh of India on increasing cooperation on various fronts, including civilian energy production, which will hopefully ensure that India will join with the rest of the world and with us in the nonproliferation mainstream. This underlying bill, H.R. 5682, builds upon those principles outlined in the President's agreement with India and grants the President certain prerogatives to waive restrictions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to facilitate transfers of civilian nuclear technology and materials, while specifically preserving the right of the Congress to ultimately approve or disapprove those waivers by requiring an unamendable joint resolution of approval by Congress in order for any of the formal detailed agreements to be entered into force. In that regard, the Committee did well in protecting the rights and prerogatives of Congress. The bill also increases congressional oversight of nuclear cooperation with India by requiring detailed annual reports on India's activities. Finally, the legislation requires the President, prior to requesting a waiver of the Atomic Energy Act prohibitions to certify to Congress very specific conditions that have been met by India, which would include: A credible plan for a separation of India's civilian and military facilities, increased safeguards and inspection of India's nuclear facilities, strengthened controls on India's export of nuclear technology, and an agreement that India will work with the United States towards the FMC treaty, which will also certify that the NSG has consensus agreement on the guideline modifications that will be enacted. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the International Relations Committee said at the Rules Committee hearing yesterday on this bill, it is perhaps the single most important bill in this area of international relations that this Congress will have acted upon. Our country has much to gain by working cooperatively with India in exchange for tighter controls than by not engaging them on these matters at all. Without this agreement, India could move unilaterally into a nuclear realm without our Nation's consent or cooperation. Since September 11, 2001, India has demonstrated that it is an important partner with the United States in combating the war on terror. It is a nation of strategic and economic interests, and it is one in which we need to further our cooperation with India. One of the most concise yet persuasive concepts for us to consider as well is that by facilitating civilian nuclear energy in India through cooperative agreements with our country, we will also have a significant influence on the international impact of oil, of emissions and jobs. This is one of those bills, unlike some of the others we do, that does not expand the scope of government, it does not impose a mandate, has congressional authority, and if you are watching or reading one of the newspapers passed around this Hill today was supported by eight different veterans groups today. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5682 is a bipartisan bill. It enjoys a broad range of support. I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 947 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on the rule for the bill that was passed out by a bipartisan vote of 37-5, I reserve my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to illustrate what the Rules Committee actually did do, there were 10 amendments that were proposed to the Rules Committee, one withdrawn, two not germane. The one recently referred to was ruled not germane because it referred to all NPTs, not specifically this particular one. Of the seven that were remaining, six were actually made in order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and his presentation. I am very proud that I was able to go through this entire discussion and I hope to say ``nuclear'' correctly. It was the biggest fear I had. I support the rule; I urge all those to support this rule and the consideration for H.R. 5682. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as many here in the body know, I am an old high school history teacher. And not content simply to teach history in the classroom, I organized different programs for my students. Having worked in the State legislature, I came up with an internship program. So I took kids to the Utah legislature, where they worked for a week as we organized the program, their jobs, their housing, their supervision at night. I organized an oral history program for our school. I organized a Renaissance festival. Tired of only kids in athletic programs getting scholarships, we raised money for scholarships for kids who excelled in history. But it also required that not only did we put on a weekend festival but months of activity. Changing a small gym so it didn't look like a small gym, doing the costumes, writing the script, preparing and providing for a six-course meal that guaranteed there would always be leftovers. As department chairman, I approved of all these projects, and I probably drove my fellow teachers into the ground trying to maintain all these activities. And the question you have to ask is, why did we do it? And it is a very simple answer. Nothing ever stays static or constant. If you are not moving forward, you are moving backwards. And it is instinctive within the human being that they want to expand, do different things. Even since coming to Congress, I am doing the same thing: I have associated among the programs what I think was a very academic program of study and visiting in the Washington, D.C. area; so once again in the fall I will bring 20 to 30 kids from my district here where I will get to be the teacher again, taking them through Washington and the experience of Washington in conjunction with the closeup program. Now, I mention that simply because what we do in our daily lives in trying to expand and grow and what I did as a teacher is the same thing government does. I do not blame bureaucrats for trying to expand their programs. That is the instinct and nature of mankind. In the 1930s and again in the 1960s, the Federal Government expanded all sorts of programs to solve problems. Legitimate. It was good. The question that has to be asked is, what happens once those problems of 40 or 50 or 70 years ago are solved? Do we then eliminate the program or do the programs do the same thing I did as a history teacher, trying to find new things to do, more things to do as you are trying to expand the scope and responsibility of your task at hand? And that is exactly what does happen. We never eliminate programs. We simply add to them, which is why today we have 342 economic development programs, 130 programs serving people with disabilities, 130 programs for at-risk youth, 90 programs for early childhood development, 75 programs for international education, 72 programs dedicated to assuring safe water, 50 programs for homeless assistance, 45 Federal agencies conducting Federal criminal investigations, 40 separate employment and training programs, 28 rural development programs, 27 teen pregnancy programs, 26 K-12 grant programs, 23 agencies providing aid to former Soviet republics, 19 programs fighting substance abuse, 17 rural water and wastewater programs, 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements, 12 food safety programs, 11 principal statistics agencies, and four overlapping land management agencies. Why do we do that? Simply because that is the nature of the beast. How do we solve that? Well, we review those. A Federal review, according to one report from the Heritage Foundation, found that 38 percent of all the programs that are run by the Federal Government fail to meet their core needs, the reason for which they are in existence. So how do we solve that? How do we review that? How do we do that in a safe and fair manner? Well, we had the experience going through the BRAC process of trying to come up with independent agencies, taking the politics out of the issue, and looking at some kind of clear, concise criteria and evaluating where we were and what we should do and need in the future. Representative Tiahrt and Representative Brady have introduced legislation to advance that same process with Federal programs. And so they will look at those programs in bills that will be before the House later this week with four specific recommendations or four specific parts which will make them effective: Number one, they are bipartisan programs that will try to take political wrangling out of the equation. Number two, they will look at every program with a clear and concise criteria, including the constitutionality of that program in the first place. Number three, they will review all programs. And, number four, they will have a legislative process which will expedite the process of review and consideration. Now, once again I do not blame the Federal Government or the bureaucracy of the Federal Government for its ability to expand. That I think is common. That is native practice. What we have to do as a Congress is realize if we do not like that expansion, it is our responsibility to make sure that that expansion is put in check. And these two bills are a perfect way of doing it.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Idaho's having started this process in talking about this particular issue. And I am also looking forward to hearing from my good friend and colleague from New Jersey who will be talking about the 10th amendment in a moment as well. For, indeed, it is one of those central issues that we need to remind ourselves at all times. In the Federalist No. 32, Hamilton tried to persuade people to ratify the Constitution, and the question was, Would this new government with which we now function have too much power? Hamilton wrote that ``I am persuaded that the sense of people, the extreme hazard of provoking the resentments of the State governments, and a conviction of the utility and necessity of local administrations for local purposes would be a complete barrier against the oppressive use of such a power'' by the national government. He went on to say that ``I affirm that under the plan of the convention,'' which he was referring to the Constitution of the United States, the States ``would retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of'' the proposed ``Constitution.'' Now, in recent times we have strayed slightly from that philosophy. We have in this country today the idea that federalism is not when the central government simply graciously allows the States to do this or that, that it is not that the States are simply another form of administration or level of government. Federalism is when the people of the States set limits on the central government. It is true that in the name of States' rights that sometimes harm has been done to individuals. One must remember that the idea of the Constitution, of balancing power between the national and State governments, had one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to ensure individual liberties. And when any branch of government, whether it be States or the Federal Government, harms those individual liberties, they are doing an assumption and they are moving boldly from the concept and the process that was originally intended to be there. Sometimes we forget that back then when the Constitution was established the idea of States' rights or federalism was a given to our Founding Fathers, that those people who wanted to centralize powers were the ones on the defensive at all times and that it was clearly understood that the Bill of Rights, when it was passed, was the way of the States to bind the Federal Government to stay out of certain areas as in ``Congress shall make no law,'' et cetera, et cetera. The only way to preserve civil liberty, then, is for government to check its own power, government counteracting government. And the only way of checking power is to disperse that power and to divide it. The Federal Government will, even though it is against their basic interest, always have to learn to check itself. That is the purpose of federalism. That is the reason there are States and national government. That is why we are here week after week, speech after speech, in some ways trying to pick on issues and prod a conscience to realize the real purpose of federalism has the goal of preserving individual liberty and that when we do that, we are doing good, and that for some reason for the national government, the Federal Government, we here in Washington, if we really want to do well for people, if we want to protect people and their rights, we have to learn to try to limit our own power. That was the goal of the 10th amendment, and it is the goal of this caucus to try to reemphasize all the time that for the rights of people and to preserve people and to help people, the national government has to lose power and share and balance that power with the States. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be looking forward to the comments of my good colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the unused time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity of being here to talk about Mr. Conaway's piece of legislation dealing with the Constitution. In Mack v. The United States, Justice Scalia said, ``The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns,'' that is the national and State government, ``and among the branches of government,'' the executive, legislative, and judicial, ``precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crises of the day.'' The Founding Fathers also understood this when they were trying to sell the Constitution originally. Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined'' and those to the States are ``numerous and indefinite. Those we were supposed to deal with were the external objects like war, peace, negotiations, foreign commerce. The States were supposed to deal with everything which affected the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives and liberties and properties of the people, internal order, improvement of prosperity of the States. So why don't we really do that today? It is not because we are deliberately trying to trample upon the concepts of the Constitution. It is not something that is vicious. It is something that we simply do not do because we tend to base our actions on the traditions of what we have always done, rather than the principles of what we ought to do. So enter Mr. Conaway and his resolution. Why should we do it? Well, maybe if we did read that document more often we would not follow the traditions we have always done instead of the principles we ought to do. It does not happen by itself. I was a poly sci major. Three of my children are. None of us were ever required to actually look at the document itself. When I taught AP government classes, I required our classes to read the document every year. It took a week to just go through it going at a fast clip. But none of my kids were ever required to replicate that experience when they were in college, even if they were poly sci majors. My kids did know at that time what the Gitlow decision in the 1920s did to impact the 14th amendment in the 1950s. They did know the answers that I am repeatedly asked, like how often are congressman up for reelection or which Senator is supposed to represent our part of the State of Utah or when you go down to the Senate Chamber that was restored, why are there 11 chairs instead of nine? They understand the concept of the Supreme Court's declaring things unconstitutional. It is not written in the document itself. It is a precedent that was established 15 years after the document was written. Jefferson always thought the legislative branch should be the one doing that job. Washington, and he was there when this thing was written, always thought the executive should declare things unconstitutional, and that was the purpose of the veto. In fact, the first six Presidents of the United States only vetoed items for constitutional issues. I always ask my students if the Constitution allows you a guaranteed right of a secret ballot. And when they say, yes, I say that is a unique concept, especially since it was not popular only until 100 years after the Constitution was actually written. Why else would George Washington be able to buy a round of drinks for all the people that voted for him for the House of Burgess? Or when Thomas Nast draws his cartoons and there is this round globe there, what is that? In fact, it took a while to realize that was the ballot box of the 1800s. It was clear you got your ballots from the political parties. They were color coded; so everyone knew how you voted publicly. And, in fact, in New York one year, they even perfumed the ballots in case you were color blind so you could at least smell the proper ballot to cast. It is fitting and proper that we and staff read the Constitution. Why? Well, maybe we will start asking the right questions or maybe it is just the right thing to do. If the Boy Scouts of America can insist that every kid wanting to get an Eagle has to read the Constitution first, if it is good enough for a 13-year-old kid, it ought to be good enough for us and for our staffs. In fact, we should thank Mr. Conaway for making it an easy resolution. He is simply asking us to read the document. He could have made it tougher by asking us to understand it at the same time. Maybe it would even allow us to rein in the size and growth of the Federal Government because, as PJ O'Rourke very clearly said, ``The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.''

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, Aristotle once said that, ``All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.'' Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor one of those responsible for educating the next generation of Americans. His name is Chris Brown, who is a principal of Corinne Elementary School in Box Elder County, Utah. Chris is a 2006 recipient of the Huntsman Award for Excellence in Education. Now in its 14th year, this award was created by one of Utah's businessmen to honor his father who was a teacher. It nominates up to 500 teachers every year. The winner is chosen by a panel of their peers, as well as business and community leaders. They are remarkable people. Chris Brown originally planned on getting an MBA, but his wife encouraged him to become an educator, and as she said, he ``just fell in love with it.'' He earned a bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degree from Utah State, and then he taught social studies at Bear River Middle School for 6 years before going on to become a principal now at his fourth elementary school. Chris's focus has been on the students, and it goes beyond the school grounds. Every summer he visits every student who attends Corinne Elementary School to understand their home environment, to reach a friendship with their families, as well as to set goals for the upcoming year. He works hard to ensure that children from all walks of life are provided with the best educational experience. Chris's wife Sharon, who is also an elementary school principal, says, that to Chris, everything about his job is being with the students. He feels an administrative position should give him time to be closer to students. He is in the classroom every day. He teaches social skills to his students every year. He leaves home between 4 and 5 in the morning, very seldom gets back before 7 at night, unless his wife creates some kind of fit, and he goes to work early and stays late so that he can do his administrative duties at that time and has time for the kids during the day. He is kind of leader who is always trying to find some kind of positive interaction with his students. He sees them in the classroom often. He believes if the students see him in the classroom, they will know what they are doing is important. Every Monday and Tuesday he is in the classroom visiting every one of them, teaching social skills that would be expected of them. On Wednesdays he meets with the teachers and the literary teams discussing each student's needs. He wants them to know how to read and gives teachers and aides ideas that fit into the student's ability, not some one-size-fits-all program. On Friday the students come to Chris's office to pass off their spelling words so that they have a positive interaction with the principal. Mr. Brown makes sure that everyone stays focused on the most important issue, which is the kids. When a growing class size met his school and was problematic, he reduced the number by creating an additional third class which he himself taught. At his current school he can be seen on the playground kicking soccer balls with his students at recess. In fact, one parent said, the whole second grade lives for PE with Mr. Brown. She overheard her son Daniel tell a home-schooled neighbor, ``You have to go back to school so you can have PE with Mr. Brown.'' Chris and his wife Sharon were both brilliant, student-oriented classroom teachers. I know, I team-taught with Sharon. They both have taken the same commitment to kids to the dark side of administration. Chris Brown has gone above and beyond the call of duty. Each student under his care knows that he truly cares about them and that he values them. His commitment to the students demonstrates the quality of leader and teacher that he is. It is right that he has been recognized with this award by his peers, because he does education right. And, besides, Chris Brown still did the best audience belly dance we ever had at our Renaissance Festival. It is an honor to recognize Mr. Brown. It is an honor to present him to you as someone who does his job in education right.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one of my top five movies of all time was the 1968 cult classic, the original Producers. And, of course, as you know, that was the story of a Broadway producer who tried to find the worst play possible to produce a Broadway flop, and unfortunately it turned into a smash hit. And there is this wonderful scene where the producer Max Bialystock looks at the audience in the movie and says, ``I chose the wrong play, the wrong director, the wrong actor. Where did I go right?'' Well, to me the Max Bialystock of government, the Supreme Court, sometimes does the same thing, as their best laid plans and correct principles end up in something simply messed up. As my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, spoke a moment ago, this week will be the 1- year anniversary of the Kelo decision. After years of harping and praying and hoping the Supreme Court would actually take the right concept and respect States rights, to respect the 10th amendment, they did it for the first time and once again got it wrong. For in their respect for the process, the majority of the Court forgot the constitutional principle involved. We have talked, as the Constitutional Caucus, a great deal about the concept of federalism. Federalism is not the same thing as States rights. Federalism is the idea of a balance between the national and State governments solely for the purpose of protecting individual liberty and individual property. States rights is decisions and powers being made at the State level, which usually produces the proper result, but every once in a while has a history of abuse of power. This particular situation, the Kelo decision, is one of those, where one of our good States in New England, both the local government and State decided to use eminent domain to take property from individuals not for the public good, but for economic development, a government abuse of property rights for the sake of money. Fortunately, the dissenters of the Supreme Court clearly understood it. In reading the words of the dissent on the Kelo situation, they said, ``If such `economic development' takings are for a `public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the public use clause from our Constitution.'' Further, he said, ``The takings clause also prohibits the government from taking property except `for public use.' Were it otherwise, the takings clause would either be meaningless or empty.'' It was appropriate for this body, immediately after that decision, to pass both the resolution and the law condemning those decisions. It is also appropriate at the 1-year anniversary that we once again understand and review the significance of that concept of personal property rights. The Supreme Court recently made a decision this week dealing with wetlands cases. We are talking, as well as the Senate, about the concept of death taxes. Both of those have at their core the understanding of the significance and importance of personal property rights. It is right and proper for us at the dedication of this anniversary of this infamous decision on Kelo to once again restate and reunderstand our purpose and the purpose of this government, which is to protect personal property.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here and I wish to address the first of the four points that Mr. Cole presented when he introduced this particular rule. I, like the gentlewoman from California who just spoke, and those of us who were elected for the first time in the last two cycles, was not here for the 1998 debate and piece of legislation passed by 360 of our Members and signed by President Clinton which outlined our foreign policy objectives with Iraq; nor was I here for what I was told was the 17-hour debate on the vote that authorized use of force in Iraq. Those two, in my opinion, should have been the definitive debate and vote on what our common policy would be as we move forward. What I would like to talk to you about now is what I find most compelling, and that is the legal rationale for what we are doing in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Iraq violated 17 U.N. resolutions, three of which demanded use of force for the violation of those. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had violated the treaty he signed with the United States. His forces were shooting at American servicemen. He put a bounty on the head of every American airman that could be brought to him. He had offered a cash bonus to every family of a suicide bomber who would blow up either an Israeli or an American at the time. When a foreign country violates its treaty with us and shoots at our servicemen, that is a legal justification for our actions. In fact, it is odd enough that we probably have a greater legal justification for this war than any other conflict with which this country has been involved in the last 50 years. In Korea, we went in after one U.N. resolution, not 17. In Vietnam, we made it a national priority because of a treaty we had, not with Vietnam but with an ally, France. We bombed Serbia and went into Bosnia, not because of a legal pretext or compelling national interest, but because our European allies asked us to assist them with their particular issue. The quarantine during the Cuban missile crisis was an aggressive act of war that was condemned by the U.N. Secretary General and protested in dozens of cities throughout the world, but was, in my mind, not a legal act but a right act of President Kennedy. In Iraq, what we are doing is both legal and it is right. Every war we have had has been littered with protests. Historians tell us in the Revolutionary War a third of Americans were opposed to it and a third were indifferent. The War of 1812, Mr. McGovern's State tried to secede from the Union. In the Civil War, we had the greatest riots proportionately we have ever had in this country, and the Governor of New York inflammatorily said President Lincoln's goal was to kill all of the Irish. In the Spanish American War, the Speaker of the House postwar resigned in protest. In World War I, the Secretary of State prewar resigned in protest. Only World War II has been atypical in those concepts of what we had. As a history teacher, I see mass amounts of parallels with what we are doing now and what has happened in history. I don't have the time to go into any of those. What I simply hope is for this House and this Nation is that we don't have the tunnel vision of short-term policy and we do not reject the lessons of history that will help us understand what should be the definition of our common potential future and policy towards Iraq.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate joining the majority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri, as well as the chairman of the Constitution Caucus, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey. For several weeks now we have tried to come before this body and talk about issues in which the Federal Government in its effort to be helpful has actually caused greater harm than good. We have talked about the significance of sunset reviews, reviewing administrative decisions, mandates, States that would put on specific pieces of legislation that would help solve some of those problems. Again we come before you today, and I am grateful to be able to talk with these good gentlemen about once again the Federal Government, in an effort to be helpful, not malicious but helpful, tipping the balance of power with the net result that people are harmed, not by design, but that is the way that has happened. Consent decrees, which shift the horizontal balance of power, have had the net effect of actually harming individuals. It is something that is a phenomenon that every State has experienced. Federal consent decrees are enforced in all 50 States, which end with judges running prisons, schools, welfare agencies, health care systems and on and on, usually on decisions that are based upon the advice of the advocates who brought original lawsuits in the first place. It has been mentioned there have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions that have talked about these phenomena. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri is one of those great ones in which the Kansas City school district was taken over by a Federal judge. In an effort to try to improve the school system, not only did they use the executive authority to control hires and fires as well as curriculum, they assumed the legislative authority by actually advancing a property tax on the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri, in an effort to try to improve the education system. At least at that time the Supreme Court said in a 5-4 decision that they had gone too far. That kind of usurpation of other authorities does not actually produce the better result. In the case that Mr. Garrett spoke about, Frew v. Hawkins in 2004, the Supreme Court once again said this can lead to the Federal court's oversight programs for long periods of time, even when there is no violation of the law still in effect. Now what does this do for individuals? Let me give you a couple of examples. In a west coast city, they recently entered into a 5-year consent, actually in 2001 they went to a 5-year consent decree, in which certain practices would be done by the police department of this particular city. They recently conducted an independent review on how they had done in compliance with the consent decree. The consent decree had said that every time a police officer uses nondeadly force such as perhaps twisting an arm of a suspect to handcuff him, the captain or above has to write a report of the incident within 14 days. There was a 94 percent compliance with that provision, but not enough to satisfy the consent decree. The police commissioner was supposed to report within 45 days the quarterly discipline report. He actually took 15 days longer than that and was once again out of compliance. The department took 21 days rather than 7 days to send in its audit report to the Inspector General and was therefore out of compliance. In fact, it would be possible to comply with all the decisions of this consent decree if the police department actually hired more personnel to keep the paperwork going. In fact, that is exactly what they did. They did hire more personnel to do the paperwork that was necessary to fulfill the details of the consent decree. One article in the National Review talks about how the city's police department and their supervisors would meet to discuss the issues of the police department, and their topics of conversation tend to go almost universally to how to fulfill the provisions of the consent decree. If I could quote from one article, they said for more than 2\1/2\ hours they gathered captains, sergeants lieutenants, and detectives spoke of nothing but processing the paperwork. Not a single word was uttered about reducing crime or otherwise how to improve the quality of life of people in the area in which they serve. The supervisor who attended this meeting simply called the process pathetic. Oddly enough in the report of how they were doing in fulfilling their consent decree, it also mentioned that what the city needed were more personnel on the street and more supervisor oversight for the officers in the field, which oddly enough, in one of those ironies of life, they could have done had they not spent their money to hire the personnel to do the paperwork for the consent decree. In New York City, they have had, since 1974, a consent decree mandating bilingual education in some of the city schools that has now been going on for 30 years, well past the original intent of it, even though the parents do not want to participate in this particular program. Another west coast city was issued a consent decree in 1991 for their school districts, again claiming there were too few experienced teachers. Again the court stepped in increasing the taxes of these individuals by $11 million a year, and now, 15 years later, finally, the judge declared herself satisfied and declined to extend this decree for yet another 5 years. The problem with consent decrees is very simple. Once entered into, those who are subject to those decrees have no recourse. There is no balance, there is no kind of protective area in which to go, in which case in that particular situation it is why the majority whip has asked us to introduce this piece of legislation to put a time limit on consent decrees.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts, I will appreciate his check, and I look forward to passing this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.