Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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. House Resolution 742 provides for a structured rule and continued debate on several additional amendments to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005. This second rule for H.R. 609 allows for the consideration of the Democratic substitute bill offered by the ranking Democratic member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Miller of California, and allows for 30 minutes of debate on that measure alone so the House will be able to debate and discuss the substitute's vision of whether it is appropriate to support the creation of at least eight new Federal education spending programs which are contained in that language. Mr. Speaker, it seems like only yesterday we were discussing this bill. And with apologies for using baseball analogies; but it is spring training season and for a Cubs fan, hope looms always eternal. But to quote the great philosopher and relief pitcher for the Kansas City Royals, Dan Quisenberry: ``I have seen the future. It is just like today, only longer.'' When we are talking today about how we help kids to fulfill their dreams of a college education, I think he is going to prove not only visionary but prophetic. What we talk about today I think will be the future, just longer. This rule today allows eight important additional amendments to be brought forth, and they will be debated on the floor. I think it is significant of the 117 amendments that were filed on this bill for the Rules Committee, 15 were made in order yesterday, another eight today. Half of yesterday's and half of today's will be either Democrat or bipartisan amendments. This does not even begin to count the number of issues which were already worked out between the minority and the Education and Workforce staff and chairman in the base text of the bill over the past several months, or those items for Democratic Members which were included in the manager's amendment which was passed by a voice vote yesterday. I also want to statistically note that 44 of the amendments that were filed were in violation of our germaneness rule, including mandatory spending on new programs or invoking jurisdiction of other committees, including Judiciary and Ways and Means. Twenty-five of the amendments were filed past the Rules Committee deadline. Members are always advised to be sure of the procedure and the time deadlines for submitting amendments, and once again, we said yesterday, having the additional time before part two would give Members a chance to work out with the Parliamentarian's Office the details of their particular amendments. Eight amendments were withdrawn. Three were duplicative. Four were taken care of in the manager's amendment from yesterday. The underlying bill, H.R. 609, still strikes a very good balance between reauthorizing important and existing higher education assistance programs, while steering clear of social engineering mandates and massive new spending programs. At the same time, it returns the emphasis to the original intent of the 1965 Higher Education Assistance Act, to give students a hand up in helping them to earn their own higher education. Once again, the goal of this bill is still simply to help more kids achieve their dream of a college education and not to try and funnel the money that can be used for them into other kinds of projects and programs. This is still a good bill and, more importantly, a fair rule, and it allows the minority to offer its comprehensive vision of the future with regard to these issues in the Miller substitute. In conclusion, I ask that all Members support and to vote in favor of this rule so that we can complete our work on this important legislation and move closer to ensuring that more individuals and students than ever wanting a college education can indeed receive the help they need to do that. 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 742 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As we have seen today, Dan Quisenberry was right: The future is much like the past, only longer. Yesterday the debate on the underlying bill provided ample discussion, and we realize that the underlying bill is one that has the one goal, the most important goal, to expand the number of kids who have the opportunity of fulfilling their college dream, with a special emphasis on new students coming into the system and those who accelerate their study programs in some particular way. If I can speak for the chairman of the committee, I believe at that point that part of the discussion was done in a very bipartisan manner in the committee. Mr. Miller, the ranking member, will give a comprehensive alternative program and have 30 minutes of debate, and he can include anything he wishes to include in that. We are offering plenty of debate on this particular bill. I would like to say something simply about the rule itself and the process of the rule. If we extend the logic of some who are saying everything should be an open rule, realizing we have four times the number that are in the Senate, we move ourselves into a structural system where we start to emulate the Senate process which should strike fear in the hearts of Members just on that concent. Prior to the War of 1812, we had always had committee work done in the House. It was Speaker Clay who instituted standing committees and formulated a structural policy that the House has used since that time to try to use committees in a different way than our sister body on the other side of this Capitol to try to put a greater emphasis on committees so that Members would become specialists in areas. They would have expertise. In committee, you can have expert testimony in the hearing to assist, and in the committee with expertise in that area, Members could sit down and work through bills before they actually came to the House. There was for this particular bill 79 amendments discussed in the committee, half as many of those amendments in the subcommittee on this particular bill with endless discussion. It was a thoroughly vetted and discussed bill. I would add, of the 117 amendments that then came to the Committee on Rules for further discussion here on the floor, 68 of those were from members of the committee who already supposedly discussed that. Multiple amendments were either withdrawn, were duplicative, or had jurisdictional problems. And more important, many of those amendments presented in the Rules Committee had been discussed and defeated in the committee of jurisdiction. As I look at some of the amendments that were proposed: No. 97 was defeated on a rollcall vote; No. 98 was withdrawn in committee; No. 100 defeated on a voice vote; No. 101 was defeated in a rollcall vote; No. 80 was defeated on rollcall vote; No. 27 defeated on a rollcall vote; No. 83 defeated on a voice vote; No. 43 defeated on a rollcall vote; and No. 45 was actually incorporated into the bill. Amendment No. 9 was defeated twice, once in the subcommittee and once in the committee and then, once again, presented on the floor. What the Rules Committee is trying to do is cull through the process in the committees where this discussion should take place with people who have expertise and people who have developed competence in that particular area, not replicating the entire thing on the floor, which is why if you look at the rules for both yesterday and today, they are both rules which reward bipartisanship for indeed half of the amendments made in order were either Democrat or bipartisan amendments at that particular time. One of the greatest managers of all time, Casey Stengel, once talking about who I still think is the best second baseman in the history of the Yankees' organization, Bobby Richardson, said he was amazed because the guy doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't stay out late, and he still can't hit .250. That is a wonderful non sequitur. Not staying out late, not drinking, not smoking makes you healthy and perhaps play longer but it has nothing to do with the ability of hitting a curve ball. Oftentimes when we come here with amendments on the floor, we bypass the concept of the bill with some amendments or processes that I think are non sequitur. Talking about the various kinds of teachers in various disciplines that we can enhance is good, is worthwhile and wonderful, but this bill is about how kids can have better access to a college education. Talking about increasing the potential of lender profits is great for the lenders, but this bill is about how you expand the number of kids who can get a college education. Having an amendment that deals with National Resource Council to have an environmental health and safety study is a wonderful concept and a worthwhile goal, but it is not the purpose and the function of this bill. I hope as we go through this process we recognize what the Rules Committee tried to do is focus in on what the purpose of this bill is. The purpose of this bill is to try to help more kids get a college education. In that regard, I think this rule moves us in that direction and the underlying bill supports that. 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. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction dealing with higher education issues.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts and his discussion of the budget issues we will be debating next week. It is a good primer for that particular issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee, to speak about this bill at hand.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in our discussion of the rule today, we have heard many things. We have heard discussions of budget issues, which will be addressed when we do the appropriations bill later on. We have heard discussion of rules that were not made into this particular rules order even though we clearly said there will be another rule coming up later to address those other issues, others of those 117 amendments that were made, many of which were made by members of the committee who had full opportunity to debate and discuss, as they have talked about the 79 amendments in the committee, in a committee process that since the pre- War of 1812 days, when Henry Clay established the committee process to make a full and open hearing of these issues in committee before it came to the floor. Nonetheless, there will still be two rules. This rule takes 15 of those amendments, opening up the opportunity for those later on to come. We have also heard rhetoric about a bill that was passed last year. I find it important to remember that even when the Constitution was being debated, the anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, made their case and lost, and then moved on and worked together with the Federalists, who passed the Constitution, to work together for a better country. That is the opportunity we have, to try to emulate that right now. It is time now to work together on this bill, on what this bill does. You have already heard from the subcommittee chairman that it does no harm to those already in the system. You have heard from the chairman of the full committee how its goal is to increase the number of kids who can have access to these opportunities to enhance and reach their dream of a college education. That is the purpose. That is the goal. That is where we should maintain our focus. This rule provides for the first step in reaching that goal, and we will have another opportunity with a second rule later. It is a good and fair rule, and I urge adoption of it because it deals with a bill that moves us forward, a bill where we should unite to move forward because it helps kids in America. 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the former subcommittee chairman who dealt with this issue, and now the chairman of the full committee who has brought this bill to us and done a remarkable job in getting us to this position so far.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 741 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. H. Res. 741 provides a structured rule of 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and makes in order 15 separate amendments to that legislation. I would like to point out that this bill has been significantly discussed in committee markups. Seventy-nine amendments were discussed; half as many, as well, were discussed in the subcommittee markup. Nonetheless, 117 amendments were also filed with the Rules Committee, many of them by members of the committee, some retreads, but some allegedly were rewritten after the committee markup took place. Because so many amendments have been introduced and many of them are those first impression-type amendments, the Rules Committee will be issuing a separate, second rule at a later date that will allow for consideration of additional amendments to H.R. 609. Providing for two separate rules in this manner will allow the Rules Committee some additional time it needs to adequately review the large number of amendments that were submitted, guard against potential duplicative amendments, violation of House rules, ensure germaneness and also eliminate those that would violate budgetary rules. I hope that in this process we will ensure an orderly debate on the key issues of this particular bill with the proposed two structured rules coming to us. This two-step process will also allow many of the sponsors of those amendments some additional time to perhaps redraft their language, with closer consultation with the Parliamentarian and the relevant committees of jurisdiction. The Rules Committee did work hard to listen to the Member testimony and consider the amendments that were proposed. What is filed in this particular rule are 15 amendments, seven of which are Democrat or bipartisan amendments which provide for a wide range of debate on many key aspects of the higher education program and policy. I think it is indeed a fair rule. In 1965, the original Higher Education Act was proposed in order to provide assistance to a high number of students to fulfill a dream of a college education. Since that time, this bill and reauthorizations of this bill have been used for some other purposes. One of the things that is positive about the bill before us is an effort to refocus on the primary purpose and the primary goal of this bill as it was originally applied, and that is public assistance to more students, period. It is an effort on the part of the committee to try and make sure that people have this opportunity to go to college. As such, they reauthorize programs like TRIO and its associate programs like Upward Bound and GEAR UP to take kids who, by virtue of their socioeconomic status or perhaps their cultural background, are given an opportunity to advance to a college degree maybe for the first time to fulfill that particular dream. I realize that my brothers and I are the first ones in my family to have actually graduated from college, and to allow that for many of these kids who will sometimes be the first of their families to have that experience in college and to graduate from college is significant. The committee reauthorized the student Perkins loan grants, which also recognizes the need of a different strain of students to be able to make it through college with the different niche that they provide. It has recognized the role of proprietary schools without automatic recognition but understanding the niche that it plays now as well as in the future. Most significantly, it reauthorizes the Pell Grants. It does so in a way that expands the cap, simplifies the rules, changes the eligibility so a greater number of individuals will be eligible and participate in this particular program. It adds new emphasis on the highest-achieving first- and second-year students, which in the past have had the greatest need but maybe have not had the proportional advantage of this particular program. It accelerates the opportunity for course work to be done in a way that helps the students to actually get through their college careers. In essence, it is one of those programs that does well. I hope as we proceed on the discussion of this rule as well as the underlying bill that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this particular bill, which is to provide assistance for more students. And I also hope that we do not lose sight that we are dealing with the bill at hand, not other extraneous issues. The original act, the original act never intended that the Federal Government pay for all of college education but rather was an assistance, a helping hand to those wishing to go to school and allowing those students themselves to earn their own way in the higher education world. I feel I have a personal stake in this particular concept. I have five kids, four of whom have been in college, unfortunately, at the same time. Since 1998, I have had the wonderful opportunity of funding multiple students in college simultaneously. And if my third kid goes to graduate school, I will have a chance of adding the fifth kid in college at the same time in both law schools, undergraduate work, as well as perhaps graduate work, and I did it all on a schoolteacher's salary. Both I and my credit cards understand the significance of this particular piece of legislation, and I am also convinced that it is a remarkably good balance by reauthorizing existing programs while at the same time increasing accountability for Federal dollars spent, increasing consumer choices, creating incentives for institutions to control tuition costs, and actually increasing the overall number of low- and middle-income students who will be receiving that particular assistance. We will probably hear, as the discussion unfolds, both in this rule and the next rule, of many programs trying to institute social engineering projects into this particular bill; perhaps to expand the role in the Federal Government at the State and local education prerogatives; perhaps those amendments to micromanage institutions; perhaps those that will change the authorization levels in an unrealistic fashion. It will be an interesting debate. But what I hope we do not lose track of, again, is that this bill makes progress in helping kids receive a college education, and progress is always paid at some particular price. It also does not diminish the other role besides assistance in the cost of education and college, which is tuition increases. By providing specific incentives to schools to hold the line on tuition increases, by simplifying the process and by studying this issue and reporting back, it does make a significant stand in this particular area without forgetting that the Federal Government is a partner in this situation. The institutions of higher learning belong to the States and the private and religious organizations. We are simply exercising a partnership with them. I have to commend the former chairman of the Education Workforce Services Committee, our current majority leader, Mr. Boehner, for his efforts in trying to work across the aisle to come up with a good bill. I also congratulate the new chairman, Mr. McKeon, for his hard work in seeing this bill through to this point. I also congratulate many Members of the minority. Many of their ideas and provisions are incorporated in the base bill, 609, that we have before us. Forty-eight hours ago, this was a good bipartisan bill, and I am under the assumption that, when we finish our work and go home Saturday, we will also recognize that we have passed a good bipartisan bill. In conclusion, I ask the Members to support this first rule and vote in favor of this resolution. We will have as a body two chances at the plate in this particular bill. And as Satchel Page used to say: ``Pitch strikes. Home plate don't move.'' This is a good bill, and it ain't going to move either. With that, I hope we continue to make progress in moving this important piece of legislation forward at an orderly pace. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, when we have the opportunity of bringing tourists to this great Hall, we show them the ceiling, the cameos of all the great lawgivers in the world, two of whom are actually Americans. On the Speaker's left up there is George Mason, one of three people who stayed through the entire Constitutional Convention and then at the end refused to sign the document because it did not include a Bill of Rights. It was important for him because he thought that was the purpose of actually preserving individual liberty for people. I sometimes find it unique that those great Founding Fathers, the people we venerate, Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Dickinson, and others, refused to add a Bill of Rights. It was not because they were opposed to individual liberty. They found an alternative form of providing that particular liberty in the structure of government that we have. One of the unwritten foundations of our system of government and the Constitution is the concept of federalism. We eventually did add a Bill of Rights, which is misnamed. It actually should be called a ``bill of wrongs.'' It is a list of things that are wrong for the government to do no matter how many people want to do it. But in addition to that, the Founding Fathers instilled within them a system of structure to preserve those same individual liberties. They realized that increasing the number of competitors of power is more significant than increasing the number of prohibitions listed. And what Madison said in his Federalist Papers about ambition counteracting ambition, they recognized very clearly as they established a system of government that had a horizontal separation of powers between the three branches of government but equally important to them was a vertical separation of powers between the national government and States, and the sole purpose of that structure was to preserve individual liberty. The Federal Government has its role and function. There are certain things the Federal Government does. Well, what we bring to the table as the Federal Government is uniformity, which sometimes is a necessary need. If, indeed, uniformity is important, it is the Federal Government that can preempt States. But on the other hand, our States also bring something to the issue of governance. It is a State that can be innovative. In one of these dissenting opinions in the 1920s, Justice Brandeis, and I will paraphrase, simply called the States the great laboratory of America where experimentation could be made without actually harming the entire country, where, indeed, creativity takes place. It is the States where justice can be maintained because there are mitigating circumstances in the lives of the individuals who make up this great Nation; and when you have a system that is uniform of one-size-fits- all, it cannot take account of all those mitigating circumstances. And, indeed, in having uniformity, we often harm people in the process of doing that. The Federal Government is not vicious. It does not intend to do harm. But its very design of one-size-fits-all means that individual needs cannot be met and only State and local government can do that. Our goal as the Congress should not be to create a more efficient government, a kinder and gentler way of controlling people. Our goal as the Federal Government should be to do less, to move the decisions of power from this city back to States and localities where creativity, where justice, where innovation can actually take place. If we do so, if we move those decision centers, we ennoble the spirit of this country. We empower people to solve their own problems in creative ways, and we may even learn something in the process. In so doing, I am very grateful that the gentleman from New Jersey, who will be speaking in a minute to you, Representative Garrett of New Jersey, has initiated a 10th Amendment Caucus aimed at trying to once again bring back those principles so we clearly understand this important lesson, the structural need that the Founding Fathers put into our system of government. The 10th amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, is still there. It clearly states: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' If we, indeed, learn that lesson, what I hope will be happening through this effort, spearheaded by Congressman Garrett, will be an effort to illustrate, as time goes on, how the overhelpful hand of the Federal Government can actually harm people, not intentionally, but unintentionally actually harm people. We hope, as time goes on, to bring specific initiatives which will help this country reach the goal the Founding Fathers had of providing personal liberty by a strong balance of power between the national and State levels. For if Congress is willing to lose that power, the people will gain personal liberties in the process.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Deficit Act of 2005 has the noble goal of being a first step in a long time toward bringing fiscal sanity to the federal budget. Forty billion dollars is a small but correct step in regaining control of our budget, and we can not retreat and drop this burden on the backs of our citizens. For that reason it is important to pass this legislation, but like all bills with multiple titles there are some negative aspects hidden within the 700 plus pages of monetary policy. I am very disturbed at the introduction of a certain new entitlement program with new mandatory spending in this reconciliation bill. The Academic Competitiveness Grant Program, inserted in Conference under Title VII, section 401 of S. 1932, authorizes $3.5 billion in new spending. It is wrong! This new entitlement offers scholarships to worthy kids who have completed a ``rigorous secondary school program of study''--that part is justifiable--``established by a state or local government education agency''--that part is obvious--``and recognized as such by the Secretary.''--that part is illegal and indefensible. Current law specifically prohibits this control of state curriculum by the federal government. It reads, ``No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.'' (US Code, Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter ill, Sec. 1232a) The simple phrase, ``recognized as such by the Secretary'' will potentially extend federal intrusion into what is Constitutionally a state and local responsibility. The language does not openly insert the federal Education Secretary into education curriculum control, but opens the door for such control for the first time in history. A state not willing to subject itself to the deadening hand of federal control and regulation, will seriously harm students in that state and in their ability to finance a higher education. No state will be able to resist this type of financial extortion, and will ultimately succumb to the control of the federal Education Secretary. One can only hope this was not the subtle intent of the Senators who snuck this provision into the Conference Report, but it is the practical result. Also frustrating is the lack of deliberation over the merits of this new program and its new spending. The Academic Competitiveness Grant Program was slipped into the Conference Report for S. 1932 after versions without the program passed both the Senate and House. This new federal program of mandatory spending was never heard by a committee in the House or Senate. It was never voted on the floor of either House or Senate. It is a clear violation of the Senate's ``Byrd Rule.'' This program managed to bypass the scrutiny, input, and deliberation of regular order and was unwisely attached to a must-pass savings bill. In a bill dedicated to limiting spending, The Academic Competitiveness Grant Program creates a new almost $4 billion spending entitlement, diminishing the savings or making even deeper reductions in other legitimate programs. Even if the Academic Competitiveness Grant Program is the panacea for poor student scores in math and science, it is the wrong approach. It threatens to undermine the responsibility of states over education; it threatens to undermine federal law; and it threatens to undermine freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce to this body Major General David Tanzi, the Vice Commander of the United States Air Force Reserve, and to honor him on his forthcoming retirement, which will be January 11, 2006, at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. In his duties as Vice Commander, General Tanzi is responsible for the daily operations of the Command, which consists of 76,000 Citizen Airmen, 400 aircraft, guiding 36 wings, three flying groups, one space group, 620 mission support units and two draft choices to be named later. He manages $20 billion in assets, a $3.9 billion annual budget and has successfully led this command through major transformational changes in force structure and in organization. General Tanzi is a command pilot with over 4,055 hours in various types of planes. He has been honored with numerous awards and decorations, including two Distinguished Service Medals, two Legion of Merit Awards, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Air Medal. General Tanzi is a native of New Hampshire and a graduate of Ohio State University. And although he has been stationed throughout the United States in his tenure in the military, we in Utah claim him and his family as our own. Since the year 1993 through 1999, when he was the Commander of the 419th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force in Utah, he has maintained a home in Utah only minutes away from that base. We warmly welcome General Tanzi and his wife Deb and their new son, Anthony, back home to Utah on a permanent basis. For, indeed, the Air Reserve Command's loss will be my State's gain. General Tanzi's contributions to our Nation's security, his years of sacrifice on behalf of others, his superior leadership have paved the way for Air Force Reserve excellence and innovations for generations to come.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in this chamber, we often hear rhetoric of great praise for athletes, authors and statesman. With great fanfare we announce legitimate accomplishments, Other times the rhetoric is to trumpet our own actions and plans with grand gestures, receptions and press. An American humorist, Al Capp, once said, ``The man who is not trying to reform the world--will!'' Those who truly change our world are those who labor daily, without praise, to create a better life for themselves and those around them. Today I would like to introduce the body to a man who is changing the world--not by doing something no one else can, but by doing something of which everyone is capable, but few choose to do. This gentleman is changing the world one person at a time. Ron Cefalo, is a science teacher at Box Elder High School. He was recently recognized for his outstanding efforts in exciting kids on a regular basis to the world of physical science. That by itself is something not easy to do. The Air Force Association, after a rigorous search, first named Ron the AFA Teacher of the Year for Northern Utah. Later he was also chosen from the regional winners as the Air Force Association Teacher of the Year for the State of Utah. In his 37th year of teaching, Ron can claim such accomplishments as sending two projects into space on the shuttle and coaching an award winning Academic Olympiad Team. Each year Ron takes students to the annual Utah State University Physics Day at Lagoon, an amusement park in Utah, which competitively demonstrates the properties of physics to 5,000 kids from Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. Earlier this year Ron Cefalo's group took home seven awards in four different categories. Ron also won first place in the instructor competition for Curriculum Development. Utah State physics professor JR Dennison noted, ``Ron has been participating and winning since the inception of USU Physics Day at Lagoon in 1990. In fact, Ron was one of the participants at a summer workshop for secondary teachers held at USU in 1989 when the idea for a USU Physics Day was founded. Ron has been a tremendous asset to us . . . in connection with the American Association of Physics Teachers' regional activities and as a source of some of the best students in physics here at USU.'' His greatest achievement is his ability to draw students through hands-on projects into his lessons. Even though setting up student lab projects takes extra time, money and effort, it is these demonstrations that shook the school, once literally, and had students clamoring to enroll in his class. Ron Cefalo knows that the success of a teacher is only as great as the success of his students. As a dedicated teacher, Ron instructs year-round, spending his summers at Johns Hopkins University, working at a center for gifted youth from all over the world. One summer, a gifted, but troubled student from a dysfunctional home intentionally broke a number of items in one of the classrooms. Another instructor considered the boy to be ``too dangerous'' and kicked him out of the class. The Principal, faced with the option of sending the boy home early, asked Ron to give the kid one last chance. Ron Cefalo willingly stepped forward and took this troubled youth into his classroom and taught him without further incident. As expressed in the lyrics of Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch in the song, ``Every Day Hero'': Some people have helping hands that go a second mile They're willing to love and lift a brother for a while Everyday Heroes live in every neighborhoods. Everyday Heroes, helping in the way a neighbor should. Giving just a little time; sharing just a little love. God bless each one of those everyday heroes. It was an honor to teach alongside an ``Every Day Hero'' before coming to Congress, and I personally know the commitment Ron brings to his job and the ``helping hands that go a second mile''. Each of Ron Cefalo's students recognize his uncommon talent for making them personally feel important and realize that they have value and someone cares. Every year Ron helps kids mature and learn. Every month Ron gives of himself for others. Every week Ron creates a learning environment in which kids want to participate. Every day Ron makes the world a better place.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, Senator Orrin Hatch of my State has penned words to a song entitled, ``Everyday Heroes.'' The lyrics in part read: ``Some people have helping hands that go a second mile. ``They're willing to love and lift a brother for a while. ``Everyday Heroes live in every neighborhood. ``Everyday Heroes, helping in the way a neighbor should. ``Giving just a little time; sharing just a little love. ``God bless each one of those everyday heroes.'' Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce this body to an everyday hero whose efforts make the world a better place to live. If you think about that in that respect, it is actually quite spectacular. This hero is an outstanding educator at Box Elder High School in Brigham City, Utah; and I had the opportunity of teaching alongside him before I came to Congress. I know from personal experience the dedication he brings to his job, and I know how he helps kids every day. At Box Elder High School is a charismatic head wrestling coach by the name of Mike Ripplinger. He was recently named the Class 4A Coach of the Year, shortly after leading his team to the fourth State title in 6 years, his fifth overall. That goes along with a record 18 region championships in the 20 years he has been a head coach. In a sport like wrestling, which is very competitive in Utah, that is indeed quite an accomplishment. The measure of a coach, as our good Speaker well knows, is not based on his success and the wins and losses but the quality of the students with whom he works. More impressive than any championship title is the impact Mike has had on the wrestlers off the mat, as he has produced not only outstanding athletes but also gentlemen. On the occasion of hosting the 20th Richardson Memorial Tournament in his tenure, Mike's athletes returned from years past to give him tribute. I wish to review a few of those and also add to those tributes myself. One of these young wrestlers noted that when he was a junior he broke his sternum not once, but twice. It was very difficult for him to just sit on the sidelines and cheer on his teammates, realizing he could not contribute to the success of the team. Most kids would have just dropped out at that point. Coach Ripplinger, realizing the pain of lack of participation, gave an extra effort to include this kid as part of the team. Through his encouragement, this young student learned how to persevere and, as he later noted, he made many successes in preparation for life that year even though he had no activity on the mat. Another former student said that the coach expected us to live with dignity, honor and respect for others. Another admitted that, when they were disciplined, the toughest thing was feeling like we had disappointed the coach because we had all the respect for him as a person and as a leader. All teachers seek respect. Very few of us actually earn it the way Mike Ripplinger has. Those lessons were as important to the student athletes as the trophies that they earned. When Mike was hired, his principal said, I wanted a coach who could build a strong wrestling program but an individual who could also build young men. He said this is one of the best hires he ever made. ``On a personal note,'' he also wrote, ``my son Joseph, who has found success in his personal life as an orthopedic surgeon, found out what life was all about from you and your program.'' Even though a three-sport athlete, he had little wrestling skill. Through your program, he found out what it was like to rise above losing. He found the encouragement and desire to keep picking himself up and going on, and from people like you he found out how to succeed. Sometimes in our environment today we actually do not want people to display any outward religious conviction, but through Mike's demonstration he showed his goodwill, his strong moral character and his relationship with his God. At one point, when one of his students seriously injured an arm by sticking it through a glass window, one of his other students noted that he admired a coach who was not afraid to have a team prayer for the cut student. Mike Ripplinger is to be commended for not being afraid to help his students become better people, as well as better wrestlers. Students of Mike recognize that he has a rare ability to make each individual student feel like he or she is important, has value, has someone who cares. Every year, Mike helps students mature and learn. Every month, Mike gives himself to others. Every week, Mike creates a learning environment in which kids want to participate. Every day, Mike makes the world a better place. Mike Ripplinger is one of our everyday heroes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity of addressing this body and illustrating a problem that we have, especially in the West. I think that problem can be illustrated best by two charts that we have here. The first chart, everything that is in blue in this chart is the amount of land that is owned by the Federal Government in each State. The second one is everything that is in red are the States that are having the difficult time of actually funding their own education systems. Those are the States having the slowest growth in education. Now, I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to realize there is a correlation between the red States having problems funding education and the blue States that are controlled by the Federal Government with all their land. It is not because these red States do not have high taxes. In fact, they have a higher tax than the yellow States. It is not because they do not have a commitment to education; they actually spend a greater percentage of their budget on education than the yellow States. The difference is, we have a cavalier attitude about public lands that we should realize hurts kids and it hurts their education in the West. Now, there is a solution to it; and it comes with a simple fruit, it is an apple, which stands for the Action Plan For Public Lands and Education. I wish I could say I was smart enough to have thought of it, but it was actually designed by some State legislators working the Council State Governments West that recognized this problem and came up with a solution to it. There are two bills that we have which can deal with those solutions. The first one would say, all right, take all this blue land and allow the Federal Government to pay property tax on it. If the Federal Government paid the lowest rate of property tax on the land that is owned and controlled by them in the West, in fact, in the entire Nation, they would add another $4 billion every year to the funding of public education. That is a whole lot of money for us to come up with, although you could also look at it as the fact that the Federal Government prohibits States from raising $4 billion to solve their own problems and fund their own education processes with the way we control public lands. Now, since that is going to have a difficult time, there is a second bill. This bill is number 3463, which says that this map was never intended to be the way it was supposed to be forever. When the western States, those from Montana down to New Mexico that have all the blue space in there, the Federal land, when they were originally admitted as States, everyone except one had in their enabling act the idea that the land should go to the Federal Government until such time as the Federal Government shall, not might or if or may, but shall dispose of the land, and 5 percent of all of the proceeds were to go back to the States for a permanent education fund to fund their education. To be honest, actually three States did not have that. They said their 5 percent was supposed to go for infrastructure and roads. But everyone was supposed to get something back from the Federal Government. In the mid-1970s, this Congress changed the rules of the game without consulting these States and passed legislation that said our official policy will now be to keep the land and not pay the 5 percent. What bill 3463 intends to do is say, okay, fine, let them keep the land, except have the States choose 5 percent of the land that is available, and we will take some things off the table, like national parks, monuments, reservations, military installations, things that are not valuable to the States anyway. But of the remaining land that is there, let them choose 5 percent of that land for their own to put it in for the purpose of building education funds in each of those western States. If these western States could take the 5 percent of their land that is available and couple it with the school trust lands already open to them, they could create amazing economic zones, especially in rural parts of their States, which would not only build the economy, but which would also pay for the education of their kids. Since we are in an energy crisis, much of this land would be dealing with the growth and energy and potential for that growth. One of the things we have is a cavalier and sometimes a flippant attitude about these lands in the West. I had an administrative official say, Why are you worried about all this land? It is a bunch of useless land where nobody lives anyway, or it is all our land, so we recreate on it. What we have to realize is that this policy has actually hurt kids. The educational ability of kids growing up in the West is depressed because of this land policy. What we need now to do is to realize that and take constructive efforts to try and change that. Allow the States in the West to have the vehicle and the ability to raise the money to fund their education system in the way they wish to do it, and House bill 3463 would actually do that.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to stand here and speak about this particular substitute. As it was brought to the Committee on Rules last night, I noticed that it has been consistently called the ``bipartisan substitute.'' It does have eight cosponsors that are bipartisan. But I would note that the actual bill itself has 95 co-sponsors and it has four times as many Democrats on the bill itself as the so-called ``bipartisan substitute.'' So I would like to speak a bit about the bipartisan bill that is actually before us as well. I have one of my good constituents, Mr. Child, who bought 500 acres of land and found an endangered species on it. The snail. The problem is not that the snail was on it. The problem is he also had 11 geese, and the Federal Government threatened to sue him at the rate of $50,000 for every snail the geese happened to consume. This meant that the Federal Government went in there and captured all 11 geese, forced them to vomit to find out how many snails were actually consumed by the geese. This gives us some idea why a small private property owner, as soon as he finds an endangered species, the goal is to get rid of the endangered species. And the problem is not the big guys. The problem is that 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property. Our goal, if we are really serious about trying to preserve endangered species of all kinds, is to get control and cooperation with small private property owners. The main bill does that by providing a grant program for the cooperation, whereas the substitute eliminates that provision. It puts us backwards to the same old process of trying to threaten and intimidate, which does not work. That is why the recovery rate is so abysmally low with the Endangered Species Act. In fact, it moves us somewhat backwards by weakening scientific standards and creating potential for more litigation. We have agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which year after year is bankrupt by rampant litigation. This means they have little money and little funds left for actual recovery of species. What we need to do is to make sure that we are engaging the private property owners so that they assist and work in cooperation with the Federal Government. You cannot do that by supporting both the substitute and the main bill.