Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I want to reserve one more time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to try to correct an inaccuracy that was stated a little bit earlier.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I find these opportunities exhilarating to say the least. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out. We have spent a great deal of time talking about one of the provisions that is in this bill that deals with the drilling of natural gas, which is far different than the drilling of oil would be. It seems in Congress sometimes that we talk so much about the problem of heating in winter. We appropriate billions of dollars for the LIHEAP program so that Federal money can go directly through an individual over to the utility companies, when it would seem logical or at least rational to try to explore in some way a way of increasing the availability so that all people have to pay less for heat for their homes in the winter, and that instead of trying to subsidize the poor, we try to solve the problem at its root. It is difficult to sometimes be here and have people criticize the lack of natural energy, wanting to consume more without producing more, at the same time being critical of any efforts to actually increase that consumption possibility. Not only is this an issue that hits individuals in trying to heat their homes, but it also hits businesses, much of which runs on natural gas. I have farmers in my constituency that cannot fertilize this year because there is not enough fertilizer being produced and because natural gas becomes a critical element in its production and its distribution form. Industries are not being able to operate because of that. I do, though, want to thank Mr. Hastings for the very end talking about increasing fund because this is, after all, a funding bill. I do want to also talk about two issues that were raised in defense of the bill and defense of the position of the Rules Committee. Section 2 of the resolution says that it is essential to allow the House to have the so-called deeming resolution, which means we deemed the budget resolution which was passed by the House last night as having force and effect until we can get a conference report. It is essential to move that forward if there is to be any kind of parameters and discussion over the debate. If we do reject this rule and subsequent rules on appropriations items which do that, we simply have the net effect of this body of postponing any rational discussion in a logical and determined way of any of the appropriations items. We might as well just dust off the old omnibus bill, because that will be the end result of not moving forward in a rational and logical approach on each and every one of these budget areas. I don't think that is the appropriate tact that we as a body wish to take. Secondly, I want to talk also about a couple of other provisions that have been criticized. In section 2 clause b it says: ``A provision changing existing law may not be reported in a general appropriations bill.'' Over in rule 4 it says, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying an appropriations may not be reported by a committee not having jurisdiction to report the appropriations.'' What it basically means is that appropriation bills are supposed to be appropriating, authorizing bills should be for authorizing, and the function of the Rules Committee is to try and make sure those distinctions are clear. To be honest, we sometimes will fudge on that and put authorization language in an appropriation bill if the authorizing committee agrees and does not object. In this particular situation, the Rules Committee did what it was supposed to do and simply said, where an authorizer objects to a provision in an appropriation bill they will have the opportunity to come forward and do just that. One of the speakers said we pulled out certain amendments, or that we did not allow certain amendments to be in the bill. No, they are still in the bill. We did allow an authorizer to come in and exercise his right under the rules to protest that authorization language in an appropriation bill, and then we will deal with that issue when the time comes. I am telling you that what I think the Rules Committee has done here with this open rule, so that any amendment that actually deals with the appropriation side is legitimate, is to protect the process as written in our rules. And if appropriators wish to be authorizers and authorizers wish to be appropriators, maybe they should look at trying to rearrange their committee schedules to accommodate that process. This rule is a good rule because it follows the rules, it defends the process that we have, and it moves us forward in the debate. I feel comfortable with that. I feel comfortable with much of the actual appropriations in this particular bill. I did have times when I was given a kind of start. As an old teacher, every time they said the word education my ears perked up, because I was wondering where education fits into this bill. And then I realized we are debating a whole lot of other issues not necessarily related to this appropriations process. I do want to say something that is extremely personal to me as it deals with potential taxes. The last time my party did not control the House and the Senate and the Presidency, the solution to our budget situation was the largest tax increase in the history of this country, and it started out with the concept of taxing the rich. I was a school teacher. My taxes increased at a greater percentage and with a greater dollar amount than ever in my lifetime. My wife had just taken a part- time job that year. Everything she made in that part-time job went to pay for the tax increase, supposedly on the rich. I guess I should be grateful to the Congress that at that time, as a schoolteacher, I was labeled as one of the rich in this country. But that was the reality. And if indeed we never go back to those days again, I will be grateful and I will be happy. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. This is a good bill. It will be talked about at length today, and I am sure will be amended in appropriate ways as time goes on, but it is still a good bill and I urge the adoption of the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question for H. Res. 818--Rule for H.R. 5386 the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2007 At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in order without intervention of any point of order and before any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for a division of the question in the committee of the whole or in the House. Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as follows: Amendment to H.R. __, as Reported (Interior and Environment Appropriations, 2007) Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and, with gratitude that we are done at this point, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, the other maps were in green and red. Mine is in blue, and my chart is to show in the blue the total amount of each State's land that is now combined and controlled by the Federal Government. You can see an obvious change in States here that in the West who, when they were admitted to the States, were admitted with certain conditions for the yielding of that State land. It was unilaterally changed by the Federal Government in the 1950s, and in the 1970s when the PILT program came into effect, it was somehow to try and offset the impact of those particular changes. The Department of the Interior said 2 years ago when they took over the funding of the PILT issue they would ensure appropriate emphasis. It has not happened to this date. This amendment would actually do that by putting PILT up to what was appropriated last year and to where the Senate purports to be at the end of this year's session. Let me just say that in the short time I have to finish, the Washington Post has endorsed this amendment. You may not have known that because they do not know it either, but last year, they wrote the Federal Government is the largest landowner in Washington, DC, and since this land cannot be taxed, the Federal Government is the principal contributor to the district's chronic fiscal imbalance. That is our point for those of us in the West exactly. This is the problem that we have, and PILT is the one that tries to change that economic impact to mitigate the losses that we indeed have. The Department of the Interior has a commitment to make sure PILT was fully funded. All we are trying to do with this amendment is to help the Department of the Interior to maintain their commitments.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce you to Gene, who is a third-generation sugar beet farmer. That is a root crop that can't grow in wetlands. Nonetheless, his sugar beet farm was ruled by the Federal Government as a wetland. The reason it was a wetland was because the creek was connected to his farm by way of an irrigation ditch with a pipe in it. The water to his wetland went through an irrigation pipe which he allowed to pool so the higher end of his farm could actually be irrigated the same way. In our district, 8 days of irrigation is one of the criteria for a wetland. I don't believe that those who actually wrote the Clean Water Act intended an irrigation pipe to be considered one of the navigable waterways of the United States, but the act is written so loosely and the interpretation by bureaucrats on the administrative side has been so perverse that indeed those kinds of decisions have been made in reality. The SWANCC decision by the courts simply said enough is enough. We need to bring some element of logic, write some rules that actually are the intention of this particular act. So Gene, when he took the irrigation pipe away and the water dried up, was still threatened with fines because he had interrupted the navigable waterways of the United States. And when he and his wife for medical needs tried to use the only asset that they had, which was their farm, and they tried to sell it for their needs and their family needs, the value of their farm was shot, because this is now farmlands. They were forced to sell their property for one-quarter of the value of the exact neighboring farm with the same kind of crops on the same road. What we are doing with the Clean Water Act, as it is being interpreted, is hurting people. We are taking their property rights away without any kind of compensation from the Federal Government and forcing them to suffer. We are forcing them to try and prove to the person who made the original accusation that his accusation was inaccurate. For example, when the water actually dried up on his property, the person who made this request, who made this declaration it was water land, simply said we are in a drought cycle; we have to wait until we have a wet cycle in Utah to see if the water will return automatically by itself. This is unfair to people. And this amendment, well-intentioned as it is, just like the law, well-intentioned as it is, in its practice hurts people. It hurts real people in the United States, and that is not why we are here. I urge you to reject this amendment. Let the SWANCC decision go forward, so logical rules on how we deal with real people can be put into place.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the sponsor of the bill, and recognized as probably one of our experts on forest life and forest health in this Congress.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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, H. Res. 816 provides for a structured rule and allows for 1 hour of general debate with 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by each of the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. There also are four amendments, Democrat amendments, that have been filed with the bill made in order. Each of these amendments was considered in the committee markup and was defeated in those markups, but we have decided in the rule of fairness to allow them all to have a chance of debating those amendments on the floor, giving them another chance to convince a majority of the House Members that their approach to forest management is better than the bill before us. In testimony received in the Rules Committee, it was mentioned that this particular bill has had, approximately 50 times, a redrafting to make sure the needs of individuals were met; it was passed by strong bipartisan support in both the Rules Committee and the Agriculture Committee; it has 147 bipartisan sponsors; it has had nine hearings; the sponsors have traveled to forests from Oregon to Georgia; they have had input from Fish and Wildlife, from Tribal land managers; it has been endorsed by the 25,000-member National Federation of Federal Employees Union, by the 15,000 members of the Society of American Foresters and by the 12,000-member Coalition of Professional Firefighters. This bill has gone through regular order. It is as regular, it is so regular you would think it was sponsored by Metamucil. I am also very grateful to the chairman of the subcommittee who is the sponsor, Mr. Walden, for his work on this, as well as Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Baird, Ms. Herseth, who presented this bill to us, and also to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings, who told me everything I need to know about forests, and if this bill is good with him, it obviously has to be a good bill. Those of us who live in the western States realize that we have enormous tracts of land, both in Forest Service land and in BLM lands, and the forest in those areas has been under tremendous stress in the past two decades. We estimate there are at least 190 million acres of land at risk, over 1 million acres that is currently in a restoration backlog. It has taken us about 2 years to begin the restoration process. If there is any kind of regulatory process, the average is 3\1/2\ years. Yet, in those same areas, non-Federal lands, whether it is private or governmental, can begin their restoration process in weeks using best practices that have been tried and true. At the Rules Committee it was mentioned after the Mt. St. Helens eruption, if you now go to Washington State, you can clearly see where the private forest management, which included selective and partial harvesting of dead timber, has resulted in a quicker and better recovery than adjacent Federal lands where the actions have been hindered oftentimes by litigation. In my own State of Utah, the Dixie National Forest in southern Utah over a decade ago was infested by pine beetles, originally committed to only 6 acres of infestation above the Cedar Breaks National Monument, an area that was filled with beautiful and very tall Englemann spruce trees. The best available science protocols and the Forest Service's preferred alternative was a remediation plan that called for harvesting of a certain size of tree in the infested area. Apparently these pine beetles only like a certain age of trees; kind of like a fine wine of only a certain year is what they would consume. The forestry experts said that by harvesting selectively in this contained 6-acre area, they could contain the insects' further spread. Unfortunately their plan was subject to intense litigation which lasted for over 2 years. In that 2-year period of time, the Forest Service was precluded by injunction from proceeding with their remediation plan. The beetle, unfortunately, did not wait for those 2 years, for the lawyers and the judges in a typical slow, deliberative judicial pace to solve their differences. Instead of 6 acres being impacted, thousands of acres were killed in this particular forest. Today, if you visit this area, the sad legacy of this litigation was that under the guise of protecting our forest, it was actually very extremely detrimental to our forest. What was once a pristine and amazingly beautiful forest is now acre after acre after acre of dead trees. Habitat has been lost, vegetation was lost, mud slides have increased, water and air quality has decreased, and soil erosion has increased. This area is now an extremely high risk of devastating fire. There are events that take place in our life that disrupt our forest system. Last year we passed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to give tools of management to our forest experts for forest health, for community protection, fuel reduction and fire prevention. This year we are now bringing before you the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, a commonsense recovery plan that would follow natural disasters affecting our forest land. This gives tools of rehabilitation. It is not a plantation forest which environmentalists do not like. There is heavy emphasis on alternative energy that can be used for some of the materials that will be recovered. You may hear some opponents of this particular bill talking the same old talking points of yesteryear. The important thing to remember is in H.R. 4200 there are three specific elements to it. Number one, it pursues scientific research in conjunction with land grant universities to improve our knowledge about postcatastrophe treatment. Secondly, it mandates preapproved action, subject to peer review, without blatant proscriptions of actions that will give best science efforts in controlling and preserving our forest land. Number three, it provides firefighter protection. The most treacherous and dangerous situation for a firefighter is always the second fire in the same area. The passage of this bill would eliminate the potential harm and risk not only to species, but also would potentially save the lives of many of our firefighters. This bill is such a good bill that it actually should be on the suspension calendar, but we are here today to consider this legislation on the floor under a rule. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule provided under H. Res. 816 is fair by any standard of judgment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this underlying legislation, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. I believe it represents a model for how Congress can act in a methodical, reasonable and bipartisan manner to address vital concerns on this emotional environmental issue. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution and the underlying legislation in H.R. 4200. 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 816 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for a factual clarification.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to close what I consider to be about 50 minutes of bipartisan support for this particular rule and the underlying bill. This bill, indeed, would give us the rehabilitation tools to combine science and research, preapproved action, and protection of our firefighters, which is why the professionals who know and work and run our forests are all in support of this particular bill and this action. And knowing our goal is to get green and not black forests, and healthy trees not dead stumps, I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 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.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 15 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act. The bill was ordered reported by both the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Agriculture. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4200 which will be printed in the Congressional Record and available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Rules by tomorrow. The amendment in the nature of a substitute consists of the text of the bill ordered reported by the Committee on Agriculture with additional language for section 404 of the bill negotiated between the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in 1781, George Washington, even though he had won the Revolutionary War, kept the Army intact and on alert for 2 more years until the signing of the peace treaty, saying, ``There is nothing that will so soon produce a speedy and honorable peace as a state of preparedness for war.'' Now, this week we will be voting on the Defense Authorization Act, which is not talking about our military in this year or the next year, but 10 and 15 years from now, because those who have our positions 10 and 15 years from now will have their military and their diplomatic options defined by what we do on the Defense Authorization Act this week. The United States is superpower because of the quality of the individuals we have in our military and the technology and weapons system that back them up. As former general and Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``If we go to war, we don't want to be in a fair fight.'' Now, Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s illustrated the awesome air superiority we have. Afghanistan and Iraq clearly illustrate our air superiority. In fact, the United States has had air superiority since the Korean War. However, we have flown a military sortie every day for the past 15 years, and it is starting to take its toll on our equipment. A Defense Department study recently said that there has been a 10 percent decline in the mission capable rates of our aircraft since Desert Storm in the 1990s. Now, this 10 percent reduction is not because we have maintenance deficiencies or trained personnel deficiencies. It is because we are still flying the same aircraft, this time, though, much older and with hundreds of more flight hours on the same airframe. In the 1990s, we took a procurement holiday in Congress and wanted to cash in on the so-called ``peace dividend,'' which simply meant in practical terms the defense budget was cut in favor of other Federal spending and the new generation of fighters, the F-22s, the F-35s, were caught in the cross-hairs of that spending practice and shoved to the outside years, which meant we are now starting to fall behind. We were ignoring the leapfrog of technology that is available to our systems. We are now realizing that the F-22 and the F-35 are going to be that which closes gaps and helps us to ensure air dominance for the foreseeable future. Both the 22 and the 35 employ stealth technology, which provides our warfighters with a critical edge in any conflict, even in low intensity battles like Iraq. Those responsible for planning the air campaign need the protections provided by stealth fighters in protecting other non- stealth aircraft, as well as ground combat. The flight range of the 22 is three times the combat radius, and the 35 is projected to have more than double the unrefueled combat radius of the fighters they would hope to replace. The avionics would allow them for a longer stand-off, which simply means we, the good guys, can see, detect, and shoot down the bad guys before they recognize we are in the area, which is what we want to have in any type of combat. These weapons systems we are talking about are incorporating high- tech advances in composite technologies which result in more durable aircraft parts, reduced corrosion, and lessen the needs of maintenance in the future. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is planning for the future. In 2004, we had a program called Cope India, which revealed that pilots outside the United States are certainly capable of achieving very high levels of proficiency. While we don't count India as a likely enemy, this exercise was an eye-opener for the United States in the sense that it demonstrated the United States can no longer take for granted that it will always be facing an inferior air adversary, even amongst Third World nations. Fifteen years from now we do not know whether we will be fighting a war of terror or a conventional war. But, as Washington said, we must be prepared for whatever circumstances may be there. Because at the end of the day when we are compelled to take up arms to defend our freedom, we don't want to be in a fair fight. We want our sons and daughters to have the very best capabilities, and we want to prevail. We must recommit as a Nation to provide the support and the resources to properly field the next generation of fighters, the F-22 and the F- 35. We have an oversight responsibility to make sure that these programs are carried out in a responsible manner. We need to work together to ensure that they succeed, because they are one of the most important foundation blocks of our future national defense. Terrorism does not take a holiday. We cannot. We must look forward to the future, so that 10 and 15 years down the line we will be able to defend ourselves in an appropriate way.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this country, there has always been some confusion or at least debate over what is the role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the State government. It was President Andrew Jackson who actually derailed the Mayes Bill Road, claiming that it was wrong for the Federal Government to actually spend Federal dollars on road projects. In the post-Civil War time is when the Federal Government started giving more and more grants to States, especially for land grant colleges, which is why so many schools have Aggies, especially in the West. But it was in the 1960s when the Federal Government significantly increased the kinds of programs and the amount of money that was given to cash-starved States, and we ramped up ever since that time with more and more funds and more and more money that have been given to States. Now, I was a State legislator and I understand the problems with the process if you are trying to establish a budget by the State with a four- or five- or six-to-one match, so the States can put a dollar in, and they will get $4 or $5 or $6, even in some cases $10, of Federal money back. States could easily provide services without having to raise State tax money at the same time. It is an easy thing to do. However, once that situation took place and the States accepted the Federal money, then the requirements came in. I still understand that we have somewhere in the State of Utah the computer system back when they were very expensive that the Federal Government required us to buy even though we did not want it, we did not need it and we did not use it, but it was a requirement for us to get vocational education funds coming to the State of Utah. As the old cliche goes, the only thing worse than an unfunded mandate is a funded mandate to the States. Now we can simply say to the States, well, the simple answer is, quit taking the Federal money, which is like asking an addict to go cold turkey after they are hooked on the system. State budgets have been built on Federal money. States bristle at the requirements placed upon them unfairly by the Federal Government. The Federal Government is in a constant quandary of what we do to try and control the rampant spending that we have, and all of us seem to be caught in this same financial trap. As one of the former leaders of this House once said, sometimes if you want to get out of a trap you have to let go of the cheese. Well, Mr. Speaker, tonight several of us would like to talk about one proposal that may indeed do that, one proposal that would turn back the power to the States the ability to have some control over their destiny, and hopefully with creativity. As one of the NCSF task force co-chairs said about one of our education programs being mandated by the Federal Government, that it stifles State innovation, we believe the Federal Government's role has become excessively intrusive in the day-to-day operations of public education. States that once were pioneers are now captive of a one- size-fits-all education accountability system. Now one of those things we need to do is simply go about and review the process in which we have found ourselves. States need to have the opportunity of going back and discovering if they really do want this type of money with the accountability and requirements that are attached to it. Our good friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson) has introduced a bill which talks about this concept of State rights or, more appropriately, called Federalism. It would require States to take a proactive position on issues of whether they wanted to have the Federal requirements and the Federal money going at the same time. It would slowly have a choice or chance of having States to reinvigorate themselves and to judge for themselves whether this is the road they wish to go on, whether this is the proper approach to be, and it would allow us to reinvigorate ourselves to see if these are the types of programs we really do want to fund in the future. It would allow us for the first time to have a clear and decisive debate on the proper role of State and Federal Governments and not simply react to happenstance that has grown up over 40 years of casual and sometimes nonthoughtful behavior. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas who will be addressing us in a few minutes on his effort to try and come up with a bill that puts this all in perspective and does exactly that by restoring the role and balance between State and Federal Governments, allowing States, if they wish to be involved in the Federal Government, to make it as a proactive, positive statement of principle they wish to do. On the Constitution Caucus as chaired by the gentleman from New Jersey, who will also be addressing us, it is our prime effort and our indeed pleasure to be able to introduce this particular bill as one of those things we think Congress needs to address in this particular time at this particular session.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree that this was probably a do-nothing bill, only in the respect that the vast majority of the people on both sides of this aisle will do nothing to violate the procedures and the proposals that we will have placed in front. From my own personal perspective, I was the Speaker of the House in Utah before I came here. Of the 75 members, a far easier body to manage than this, 72 of them were the kind I knew would give the shirt off their back, a sight I hoped never to see, give the shirt off their back for the good of the State. There were three I always had to check on what they were doing. I thought that percentage of good to bad actors was fairly good for the State of Utah. But as I have been here in Congress, I think that same percentage applies to this body. It applies to large industrial groups. It applies to church groups. It applies to the lobbyist community. It probably applies to every group except maybe those who are incarcerated right now. Both sides of the aisle are good, decent people, and laws will not magically change the behavior that has been developed on those few bad actors that will be there. So what purpose do we have in this? It is to establish a means of rules to clarify and certify who the good guys are. I also was a lobbyist for that time between when I was a legislator and came here. And I want you to know that the laws that are proposed in here to change lobbyist laws are good ones. They are effective. They will make a difference, and they will add transparency to that particular group. I am very proud of those. There is one other thing that I think is very important in this bill that is proposed, and that is the mandatory training aspect. It is important to try and make sure that we all understand what the rules of behavior are, the rules of procedure, so as to avoid problems ahead of time. When my predecessor in this seat was the chairman of the Ethics Committee, he instituted the Office of Advice and Education; its goal was simply to make sure that everyone knows what is happening. This bill mandates that all staff will have training in what is considered ethical behavior and will encourage us to do the same thing so we know what is taking place. I am grateful that the chairman, Mr. Dreier of California, has had an open process, has invited everyone to participate in here, because what we are dealing with are simply the guidelines established for those who are the good guys in this body, which is by far the majority of those on this side as well as the other side of the aisle.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. The Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 1 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 4943, the Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act. The Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered the bill reported and filed its report with the House on March 16. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, Justice Brandeis, as we have talked once before, has said States are the ideal laboratory for democracy, for indeed they have the better ability of being creative, and, if the creation goes wrong, can move back from that, from the Federal Government. For indeed when we try to be creative, and it goes wrong, the entire Nation has an impact with it. The idea of a Sunset Commission is one which has been experimented on by various States, various times for a several or a few years now. As our good friend Mr. Brady from Texas clearly said, it has proven effective in cutting away bureaucracy, eliminating inefficient agencies, letting go of outdated programs, and also saving the taxpayers money. Another way of saying that is this Commission can make citizens of America more free, can keep government within its proper bounds and help us to keep more of our own money and rule our own lives, which is another reason why the Constitutional Caucus is supporting the creation of this Sunset Commission. The administration actually started this ball rolling several years ago with the introduction of their Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART, the results of which have been the basis of administrative decisions on budget proposals every year now. The key now is to give these recommendations some legislative teeth, which is something that the former Director, as well as the Budget Director of OMB, has urged us. He wrote, one time, we need to involve Congress more directly in holding agencies and programs accountable for their performance through a Sunset Commission which provides regular formal scrutiny of Federal programs. This bipartisan Commission would review each Federal program on a schedule established by Congress to determine whether it is producing results and should continue to exist. Programs would automatically terminate according to the schedule, unless the Congress took action to continue them. Mr. Speaker, I suggest also that one of the things we might want to do is expand it to one other role. Many States, including mine, have a regulatory oversight committee, which means a committee of the legislative body which meets on a regular basis to review all rules that are established and step in where rules established by the bureaucracy become egregious. Let's face it. All legislative bodies are sometimes sloppy. Sometimes we have a grand idea, and then we will empower an agency to implement that idea. Oftentimes those implementations, those rules and regulations, they go awry. When there happens to be nobody directly accessible or accountable to citizens who can then go to that and attack and change that rule, well, that is when problems develop. That is why we need to have legislative bodies who could step in and set things right. Much of the erosion of States rights in our country's history has come from unaccountable Federal agencies that grow and then wrap their arms around States and people and don't ever want to let go. Congress has certainly done its part to ignore 10th amendment issues. Courts have also siphoned off some power. But a slow and insidious encroachment of Federal agencies is perhaps the worst of these influences. A Sunset Commission would put us on the road to solving this. It would force every Federal agency to its usefulness, review its own mission, justify its own existence, or face some kind of elimination. It would also allow a review of regulations and standards to make sure they are logical, legitimate, and within the scope of the legislative empowerment that created them in the first place. I appreciate the opportunity being here on the same evening when Mr. Brady, the gentleman from Texas, reintroduced his bill to the American people of having a Sunset Commission. I appreciate also being here when the gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Garrett talks about the Constitutional Caucus and the effort it is to try to reestablish the right and proper balance between government; for indeed the purpose of that is to ensure that the power belongs to people to rule their own lives, to States to be in their sphere of government, and the Federal Government to maintain its balance and its purpose where it was constitutionally designed to be.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's premier refuge, the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, is located just west of my home in Brigham City. I rise today in tribute to Mr. Al Trout, who has served as the refuge manager for the last seventeen years and is now retiring after an illustrious career with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Al came to Utah and the refuge in 1989, inheriting a rented office with no staff and little budget. Al rallied hundreds of volunteers who donated nearly seventeen thousand hours of labor and raised fifty thousand dollars in cash to reopen the refuge which had been decimated by floods six years earlier. The refuge now covers over seventy four thousand acres of wetlands, marshes, mudflats and open water. Over one hundred varieties of common and exotic bird species frequent the refuge. Bird counts during the peek migration months are up into the millions, from as far away as Russia, Central America and the Pacific Islands. In 2001, the refuge was designated as the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve. For his efforts, Al was named Refuge Manager of the Year in 2001, the Service's most prestigious award. Al played a key role in the revival of one of the Nation's oldest refuges, created by an act of Congress in 1928. Al was instrumental in the creation of the Friends of Bear River Refuge, which raised 1.5 million dollars for the construction of the recently dedicated James V. Hansen Wildlife Education Center, which is a destination point for birders throughout the world and stands as a testament of Al's vision, determination, and efforts in restoring the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Thank you, Al, for the air boat tours of the refuge and your excellent management of the refuge--you will be missed! Congratulations on your well-deserved retirement. I extend to you, your lovely wife, and your three children my best wishes for success in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).