Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that both sides of the aisle have recognized the need of some modifications in the Endangered Species Act. I would like to, Mr. Speaker, introduce you to a man by the name of John Gochnauer. John Gochnauer was the shortstop for the Cleveland Indians in 1902 and 1903. In 1902, playing full-time at shortstop for the Indians, he hit a paltry .185 and committed a whopping 48 errors in that position. Nonetheless, he came back the next year to play for them in 1903, where he once again, full-time player, hit .185, and this time set a major league record, which has yet to be broken, of committing 98 errors as shortstop, which means out of every five times, he touched the ball, he booted or threw it away once. The Endangered Species Act has established 1,300 species for preservation and has been able to preserve 12 of them, giving that act a batting average of .010, if you round up. Whereas John Gochnauer hit .185, the Endangered Species Act is hitting .009, which means the Endangered Species Act is the most inept program we have in the Federal Government. The Endangered Species Act is the John Gochnauer of Federal programs. The reason is quite simple. The Endangered Species Act creates more harm than it does good. Because if you are a good steward of the land, your practices which create and preserve habitat make you then open to government control and government regulations and produce an attitude of distrust and hatred. The Endangered Species Act is not there to prevent development or to change land use. It actually penalizes the practices that help in the process, which is one of the reasons why this bill before us recognizes that, and especially in 13(d), a section that is in the bill but not in the substitute. It is there to provide grants to encourage cooperation to solve the problem, not to encourage people running away from the fear of the Federal Government's control. I think that is probably one of the reasons why this bill is one of those unique bills to come before this body in which a majority of both parties in committee voted to support this particular bill. This bill is indeed one of modifications. It is a modification. I want to introduce you to one other person. I will call him Jim, simply because I do not want to give the full name. Jim should today be a middle-aged person with a family, running a business, and living a healthy life in California. But in 1995, in California, there was a levee that was in need of repair. On that levee they found 43 bushes. The bushes were not part of the Endangered Species Act, but a beetle who could potentially live in those bushes was, even though no beetle was found in those 43 bushes that grew up on that levee after it was built. Nonetheless, a mitigation plan was mandated, even though the directors of the levee said that it would weaken the levee. Sure enough, 1 year later, that levee broke. Five hundred homes were destroyed and three lives were taken, including Jim's. Mr. Speaker, the record of the Endangered Species Act over the decades here has been one of jobs lost, of property restricted, of homes destroyed and, sadly, of human lives lost. That is why it desperately needs modification. The bill before us does that type of modification.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the debate on this rule, I would remind people that the underlying bill provides for the Head Start program in many different areas. It provides for academic refocusing on class readiness and to close the class readiness gap. It provides for competition to improve the quality and to meet questions of mismanagement of financial abilities. It provides for a closer tie to State curricula and to local ties which will improve it, and it also provides, if the amendment is adopted, for faith-based institutions to actually help kids. We have an opportunity to discuss 12 amendments plus the underlying bill, and we have an opportunity to hit a home run for kids. That is the goal that we still have. Mr. Speaker, this is a good and balanced rule, and I urge the Members to support this rule. 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

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. The resolution before us provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005, and makes a good number of important amendments in order and will provide for a full and wide-ranging debate on all the aspects of the Head Start program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2123 was passed out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously. It reauthorizes the Head Start program for fiscal 2011. At the same time, the bill incorporates a number of wide-ranging and widely supported commonsense improvements to Head Start which will improve teacher education standards, increase the accountability for the use of funds, and enhance outreach to the most deserving students. The underlying bill does not include provisions which were deemed by some controversial in the base text, such as providing hiring protection for faith-based Head Start providers. Instead, the rule does provide for this and other items to be debated and voted upon separately so that the House may work its will and the final outcome will reflect the views of the majority of the Members, which is an understandable approach. The Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income and disadvantaged children since the mid-1960s. Today, almost 1 million students are involved in Head Start. The Head Start program is good. In some places the Head Start program is great. I do not want to be a little bit parochial here, but being well acquainted with those involved in Head Start in my particular area, they do a great job and I am very proud of my association with them. But in each of these situations, the program still could be better. For that purpose, this bill focuses or attempts to focus the academic program more clearly in particular areas. They put greater emphasis on language skills, prereading, premath, and cognitive skills. They insist that any new money above and beyond the funding skills, 60 percent of that be tendered only to teacher quality, which is where that emphasis needs to be. The Head Start program is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and is accomplished through grants that directly go to applying entities. The Head Start program has been largely successful because the Head Start program is locally designed and they are administered by a network of 1,600 public and private nonprofit and forprofit agencies at the local level. Because of this local emphasis, educators can tailor their approaches to fill the specific needs of the populations they serve, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that too many other Federal programs, including other Federal education programs, have. Especially important is this particular thing, that in the text of this particular bill it puts a greater emphasis on tying Head Start programs to a State's curricular standards. To be a priority grantee in the Head Start program, they have to show a pure correlation to a State's curriculum standard. This is for the benefit of the kids coming through the system. Of increasing specific importance to me is the local tie-in that is demanded by this particular bill. The Head Start programs have to demonstrate an active support in trying to tie their programs into local school districts. This is essential in the long run if you want to have a smooth transition between Head Start and the local schools. Too often programs running contrary to that simply have a disconnect; and, therefore, there is not local support for these programs. This bill recognizes that is a serious problem and a serious error and attempts to try to bridge that gap by insisting that Head Start programs work closely with their local school districts to provide a seamless entry for those kids going through Head Start into the regular school programs in the States where they are. The GAO was critical of some financial management standards of the Head Start program. To solve that without losing the purpose of Head Start, which is to help disadvantaged kids prepare for school, they have increased the element of competition within the program. The competition that will be new in this particular program will drive improvements in Head Start; at the same time it will meet the needs of a recommended financial management that the GAO suggested. By looking for and rewarding success in Head Start programs and also looking for and punishing deficiencies in any 5-year cycle, there is an element to try to improve this program, taking a program that is good and great and in every situation making it indeed better. There are also within this guarantees that there is a guaranteed share of the money that will go to Native American programs, migrant and seasonal workers, the most disadvantaged of the groups that Head Start is trying to help and assist, who will never be placed at a disadvantage in the overall process. In addition to that, this bill removes certain flawed techniques of evaluation that have been standardly used by the Head Start program and replaces them with something that is more scientifically based. The rule that is currently before us provides for important amendments and policy discussion, and it is a very fair rule. In addition to a manager's amendment, the chairman of the committee who recommended this bill recommended four amendments, two by Republicans and two by Democrats. The Committee on Rules instead, in addition to the manager's amendment, recommended 11 additional amendments, five by Republicans, six by Democrats. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for their hard work in placing this bill before the House; and I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I could just make a note of the amendments that were not made in order, of the 12, four were defeated in committee. So they did have a hearing in which they were discussed. Two were not germane. One was withdrawn in the committee. One was withdrawn before our Committee on Rules. Two dealt with issues that can be dealt with in other bills and should be dealt with in other bills. One was combined and given preference to a similar bill, and one was a policy issue that we simply said would not be there because it would take money away from the training of teachers, in contradiction with what the bill was trying to do. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from Minnesota. I understand her feelings about not being allowed to have an amendment placed in order on the floor. I have been in that situation myself several times. I would simply point out that the particular amendment to which the gentlewoman refers was offered in the committee itself and was defeated on a bipartisan vote in that committee. It was one of the concepts that we thought was not necessary to replow all old ground over and over again, and that is probably one of the reasons why this particular amendment was not placed in order by the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, once again I share the frustration and understand the gentlewoman from California, as to her amendment not being made in order here. But I once again would point out that the amendment was presented in the committee and was rejected by the committee. And once again, it is not necessary to replow old ground every time the bill appears before the group again. So I appreciate that consideration very much. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for everything we do. If this rule is passed, there will be a 30-minute time and place to discuss the details of the specific amendment which has been referred to several times. I hope saying there is a time and place for that, and I apologize since I am paraphrasing from a faith-based piece of literature, and if it would be more profitable I could say I am paraphrasing from a popular song of the counterculture of the 1960s, and I am sure that would absolve anyone with 9th and 10th Circuit concerns. But let me say just one particular word, and I appreciate the comments that have been made so far. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the rule on if an amendment should be debated, which is far different than actually debating the amendment itself. Since the minority has jumped over that line and tried to go into the amendment itself, let me say a couple of things about it, and I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Texas. I served as a missionary from my church for a couple of years. I am used to people asking me those questions, so if the gentleman has got more, he should. Although when you put the discrimination, if the gentleman put my religion first instead of the end of the line, it would have been nicer. I also was a school teacher, and I realize in the article the gentleman quoted from the Constitution I was an officer of public office and trust. What we are talking about here is simply whether a church who is organized should be able to hire Members of their church to work for their church. That is a concept which has been upheld in statute by this body. It is a concept which has been upheld by the courts. Should the State be able to compel a church to hire somebody outside of that church to work for that church: That is the question. Then the issue is once you have decided that, and it has been decided by both the courts and the legislature, can we allow those people to help kids? What we are talking about is if we can help kids and how best we can help kids. The entire purpose of this act is to try and focus academic efforts to try and make sure that kids are prepared to enter the school system, and are there groups that can help kids. We should not put some kind of artificial barrier in front of groups that can help kids from actually doing that, especially when they are functioning under the rules that we have established and have been upheld by the courts. This debate is going to be extremely lively during its proper time and place during the debate on the floor when the amendment is presented. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I have always enjoyed his comments in the Committee on Rules, and I have oftentimes agreed with his comments in the Committee on Rules. I do disagree here about the concept of time and place and when this amendment should be discussed. I would point out that contrary to what we sometimes hear on the floor, the minority's first approach on this particular amendment was to try to ban it and take it off the table so it would not be discussed. That did not pass, and there will be a time for discussion. I am sure when the amendment is actually before us, it will be a remarkable discussion based on what we have had right now on the rule on if we discuss the amendment. But I appreciate very much the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of this piece of legislation; not the rule, but the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) giving me this opportunity of sharing a few of the experiences that I had while visiting Israel with the distinguished group this past summer. I think there are four impressions that I will always take back from my short trip to Israel. The first one is how wonderful it was to be in a place where you saw a specific pro-American attitude from everyone, from the leaders of the country down to the people on the street, with whom you spoke. Secondly, I have to admit that even though I was in Israel, I felt like I was back in Utah because the topography is very similar. The mountains of Judea, I was right on the Wasatch Front again. Going to the desert was like going to Price, to Moab back in Utah. Whereas in Israel they have the Sea of Galilee that empties into the Jordan River and empties into a Dead Sea, the saltiest sea in the world, in my home State we have Utah Lake which empties into the Jordan River which empties into the saltiest sea in this hemisphere, the Great Salt Lake. So I was back home. Third, and perhaps for me most important, the ability of buying Dr. Pepper on the market in Jerusalem told me that I was in a country that was purely cultured and progressive, and I was extremely grateful for that. Finally, I was truly impressed by the size. I think one of the things that we Americans do not realize so fully is how our size has always been a defense. Perhaps as somebody from the West, I recognize that as well, when my county is the size of Rhode Island. Sometime we take size for granted. It is part of our mentality. But it is very clear in this country where you can go in a matter of hours from the mountains of the Golan down to the desert in Negev, that is not a large area. In fact, it takes me longer to drive from one end of my district to the other end than it does to go through the country of Israel. When I realized, as you were looking out at the horizon, you will see one mountain top that is Palestinian and the next mountain top is Israeli. And how close they are. We understand that security becomes the major concern of this people. And once again we have kind of a cavalier attitude in the United States about how important security is to those people who live in this particular area. We also understand it is very clear that if there is ever going to be a lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, if there is ever going to be a permanent government between the Palestinians and Israelis in this area of the world, then terrorism has to stop, and that has to be the first and foremost priority. I think it is wonderful that we have this chance of exchanging ideas and changing institutions. I just gave a speech on this floor a few moments ago about the importance of foreign exchange students and having exchange students understanding American life. Taking it back becomes one of those things that will help us in the future in foreign affairs. I think this is the same way. There is much that we can learn about the experience of Israel. As we are going through the issues of border security in the United States, there is much that we can learn from how the Israelis have handled that particular situation, much we can learn as far as technology that may be one of those things that can help us in the future. I was also feeling especially important to be there, as some have mentioned, I think others will as well, to be there at the time of pullout from the Gaza Strip. Nothing, I think, that could ever happen has shown the commitment on the part of the Israeli Government to peace more than that. And everything happened with an ability of doing things in a peaceful and successful way. It showed that even though there was some protest, it was an orderly disengagement. Even though it may be strategic, it was still nonetheless a gamble on the part of the Israelis. It clearly illustrated that the ball is now in the court of the Palestinians and the Egyptians. I am very pleased that the Egyptians seemed to have moved up and stepped up to take their position in the patrolling of the Philadelphia Corridor. And the amount of troops they have moved in there, though it is still under 1,000, it still is a significant presence. I hope that signals something that will be positive in the future. It is also significant that the Palestinians have to make a positive response in the future to this particular situation. If they do not, if they simply say that permitting foreign civil war from taking place is sufficient, then they deserve the criticism of the world, for there will be no room for equivocation. Abbas has a choice in here of being a true hero of the future and moving the peace process forward or being a catalyst for the means of world chaos. I was happy that before I went I also had the opportunity of reading a history of the Six Day War. Once again we sometimes have illusions and misconceptions as Americans. One of the misconceptions is the Israeli Army and the Israeli defense forces are impregnable, they are impenetrable, and they will always win in every situation. Learning the details of the Six Day War and the places that we looked at when I actually got there, I realized that the victory of the Israelis in the Six Day War had as much to do with luck as it had to do with military ability. There were decisions that were made on both sides in that particular war, which if they had gone the other way, would have had an entirely different outcome. That also illustrated one more time how the Israeli situation is indeed tenuous. We cannot place any blame on the Israelis for being so concerned about their security in a land where an enemy sworn against them is so close and has so many terrorist activities, killing over 1,000 people in the last 5 years. With those images coming back there, I am proud to be able to see the people who, perhaps even better than we do, understand the second amendment rights. And we need to fear the bad guys with guns, not necessarily the good guys with guns and people who are doing so much on their own for being responsible for their security and their future. It was a very positive experience. I think there is much to learn from the good and the determination of our good friends in the State of Israel. It was an enjoyable trip. I appreciate the opportunity of being able to have enjoyed it with my good friend from North Carolina.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday during the Emmy awards, I realized that one of the most popular new comedies about domestic life in America is Desperate Housewives, and one of the most popular ongoing dramas about domestic life in America is The Sopranos. And even though a majority of Americans still have regular contact with church, one of the few shows that actually shows contact between a family and religion is The Simpsons. Now, it is not my intention to try to bash television shows or Hollywood, but these are hardly adequate or accurate views of America, and this inaccuracy does have policy implications. If the image of America is derived from the popular culture and not the reality of what America is, it has an impact on our foreign affairs. Let me try to illustrate. In the year 2003, I was part of the Congressional Study Group on Germany and had the opportunity, with others, of representing the United States in Berlin with the German Government, which at the time was, shall we say, not a big U.S. supporter of U.S. foreign policy. In fact, that particular German Government had just a very narrow election by doing a significant amount of America bashing to get there. But the tone of that government would have been more acrimonious were it not for a senior SPD member, Hans Ulrich Kluse, from Hamburg, who, at considerable political risk, put his reputation on the line to insist that his government try to make more cooperative pragmatic relations with the United States. At the time, I wondered why somebody would spend so much political capital to be pro-American, until I also realized that the references he always gave when he was speaking about America were to his experiences in the 1950s as a foreign exchange student in Clinton, Iowa. I also realized his experiences with real American families gave him an insight and friendship that no one can ever gain by watching America as purported by television and the movies. As I traveled that year as well as last year to Germany, I realized that those places in Germany that are extremely pro-American are those where they have the greatest contact with Americans. And in like manner, where anti-American attitude develops and proliferates is in those areas that have the least amount of contact, which may be one of the reasons why the Ambassador from the United States at that particular time was undertaking a prolonged and expensive initiative to try to increase the contact between Americans and Germans, especially Germans of school age. Such contacts, he thought, were the only way to improve Americans' image abroad and mitigate anti-American attitudes where they may be growing in the future. In fact, I found one constituent, who did not know my interest in this area, who wrote me. Martha, from Park City said, ``At a time when youth in strategic parts of the world such as the Middle East are confronted with dangerous cultural misunderstandings about the United States, youth exchange programs are uniquely suited to allow young people to experience an America unfiltered by Hollywood. These exchange participants frequently take home an understanding and often appreciation for America's people, society, and values.'' She is right on. Every year we have the opportunity of sending 30,000 ambassadors out into the world. And for 19 years, the host families of those 30,000 potential ambassadors have been receiving a tax deduction of $50, which is nice. But that is why I am happy to have joined with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and nine others to sponsor H.R. 1504, which will change that $50 to $200. That is not enough to cover the expense of host families, but it is enough to encourage families to open their doors so that more kids can have the opportunity to experience an American way of life, which may indeed be the smartest foreign policy decision we could possibly make. With America and America's way of life under constant attack, both literally and rhetorically, it would be wise to do everything we could to encourage students of the world to experience what this country has to offer, return home, and then watch that influence tend to grow. If our image abroad is important to the spreading of democracy and to the defeat of terrorism, and I think it is, it is good to get the good kids of the world with those good families in America. And the payoff will be improved foreign policy options and relations 10 and 20 years from now. Such an investment would be wise. I would urge my colleagues to look at the details of H.R. 1504 and join us in planting seeds that can be reaped to the benefit of American foreign policy in the future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, in a prior existence, I spent eight terms in the Utah legislature and 28 years as a public classroom teacher. And in both of these situations I recognized, first of all, as a legislator, the capacity of the State to fund public education. And as a teacher, I understood firsthand the need for adequate funding of education. And it seemed as if in all cases there was some gigantic blockage that made it impossible for those two needs to kind of coalesce together. Well, today I am a Member of this august body, I am a member of the Federal Government, and I have identified what I think is that blockage that made it so difficult to bring these two needs together. That blockage is we. It is the Federal Government. It is the amount of land that the Federal Government owns. Like a dam in a creek that artificially stops the flow of water in that creek, there is a dam on the stream of funds for kids, and that dam is the biggest landowner this side of the Soviet Union: we, the Federal Government. Let me try and illustrate what I am talking about. If you look at this first map, notice the States that are in red. These are the States that have the most difficult time of increasing their funds and their commitment to public education. And you will notice that these red States are predominately in the West. Twelve of the 15 States with the slowest growth in public education funding are actually found in the West. And it is a significant difference. These Western States have an increase of around 33 percent in their funding growth of education, whereas the Eastern States have a 68 percent increase in their growth of funding. Let us try the next one. If you look at the kind of concept of class size, once again if you look at the States that are in red, those are the States with the largest class size. And it is a significant difference, as much as an average of 3 per class in each of those particular States. Let me try the third one as well. If you look at the need for public education funding, the States once again in red are the States where the need is greatest. The States in red, those in the West have a 3 percent growth rate in their population going into public education. The East this year for the first time got up to zero percent. They had been the negative number system before that time. So why is this situation where the States in red, those in the West, are always having a difficult time in funding of education? It is not because they do not tax as much. If you look at the western States, their total State and local taxes are equal to or higher than those in the East. And it is not because they do not have a commitment to education. If you look at the percentage of their budget that goes to education, it is once again a higher ratio almost by .6 percent higher in the West than it is in the East. If the West is taxing as much, if they are as committed in their budget, if they have the need, yet their class sizes are high and they cannot fund the education that happens to be there, then what seems to be the problem? What is this obstacle? I happen to think that I found at least a prima facie case for a correlation, and it is land. If you draw an imaginary line between Montana to New Mexico, everything west of that line, 52 percent of that is owned by the Federal Government. Go east of that line and only 4 percent is owned by the Federal Government. Let us try this next map and you will see what I mean. Everything indicated in blue is the amount of each State owned and controlled by the Federal Government. If you make a correlation with those States having a difficult time funding their educational system and the amount of land owned by the Federal Government, you see an amazing correlation. The problem lies at the feet of the Federal Government. The enormous amount of land owned and controlled by the Federal Government is the reason why those States in the West are basically in the back of the financial bus for education. Land has historically been the mechanism of funding education by States. The State of George in 1777 was the first State that actually offered opportunities to try to assist those local communities. The State of Connecticut actually sold 3 million acres of land to fund their education system. Of course it was land that was in Ohio which they claimed at the time; but even though it was not their State, at least they were selling something. Close enough for government work. The State of Texas, you will notice, has very little land owned by the Federal Government because when they were admitted they kept their land; but immediately they set aside 17,000 acres by the State to put in a trust fund to pay for their public education programs and systems. It goes back to when Henry VIII closed down the monasteries and redistributed the land. One of the conditions for redistributing that land was they would take the traditional role of that monastery land and help to fund the purposes of education. There are four ways in which land connects with public education funding: through school trust lands, through royalties from land, through the enacting clause promised western States, and, fourth, through property tax. Let me talk about a few of those for just a moment. Property tax. It is obvious those in the West do not have the property to tax. If you were to change the situation around and simply say four percent of the West should be owned by the Federal Government and put the price at about $525 an acre, that is an average, and up it at the lowest tax rate, this is what the result would be. This is the amount of money that each western State would have additionally that they could raise by themselves to fund public education. My State of Utah would have $116 million. California, $110 million. Alaska would have $782 million, and that is only the portion that would deal with the funding of education. There is another concept that should be involved here. When every one of these western States was made a State, there was a clause in their enabling language that said the land should be given to the Federal Government until such time as the Federal Government shall dispose of the land. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will come back at another time and review some of these issues with you. But there is a need to recognize the situation in the West. And there is a need to understand that the West is being treated unfairly, and it goes back to this problem of public ownership with the West. At some time, there needs to be a solution to this problem.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding such time right now. This is obviously a time of great emotional sadness for all of us, as we are attempting to help fellow Americans who are in a special need, a special time of need. It is a trying time; and, hopefully, it is one where we can keep focus on the true issue, which is how to get emergency relief as quickly as possible to people who desperately need it. The rule that is being proposed here, and sometimes in our rhetoric on these rules we kind of go far afield from what the issue is, the issue is still the rule, does not prevent any kind of unanimous consent for more time for more issues to be raised at such time in the future, but it does provide a backup to guarantee that the issue at the end of this day will be decided and that relief money can be moved on without any kind of impediments or Congress trying to add extraneous issues to the debate or discussion, unless there is unanimous consent, obviously, for that. There is precedent for what we are doing. This is not unusual. It has been done before. It will be done again in the future. It does, though, try to state that there is a time and a place for everything that we do. There is a time to try and pass emergency relief and get that relief moving as quickly as possible, to really hit what is human suffering. This particular request deals with temporary assistance. It deals with providing temporary housing, money for home repairs, medical, dental costs, repair work, cleanup, ensuring that the firemen get their pay. It is emergency equipment. Much of the discussion we have heard this morning deals with long- range policy issues. I am not saying they are bad, because that policy discussion needs to take place. It should take place. We need to determine what the city of New Orleans did well and what it did poorly; what the State of Louisiana did well, what it did poorly; what the Federal Government did well. We even need to discuss what the United States Congress has done well and poorly in this particular issue. But those need to be discussed with dispassion in some way so that when we make broad policy decisions, those broad policy decisions can be made with a clear conscience and clear focus on what the issue really is. That takes regular order, and for some who would like to bypass regular order to quickly pass some of these, we are doing a disservice to long-term policy discussions. The senior member of the Committee on Appropriations from Wisconsin is someone I have enjoyed listening to. He oftentimes will say those things which ring true. What he wants to discuss is significant, but it needs to be done in the regular order, not on top of this emergency bill; and I am sure that will take place. Mr. Speaker, I would also be remiss if I did not take this opportunity just to say a few things that are positive. Though I do not know what has been happening throughout the entire world, I do know what has been happening in my backyard of Utah where some of these evacuees are presently residing. I guess the State of Utah took the Jazz; we should also take some of the evacuees at the same time. In addition to those evacuees who are in my State, the State of Utah is also stepping up. There are in the State of Utah 475 volunteers who have been working since Saturday with these evacuees. They have done everything from having a child care center on site, to providing 6,000 meals, to even having a volunteer life guard manning the pool at the base at which these evacuees are staying. $2 million since Saturday have been donated in Salt Lake City as well; 7,000 people have called asking what they can do. Some of them have been very creative in what they are trying to do. A Ronna Guidera who lives in Salt Lake City, and actually in Draper, went down there and took trips from the military base where the evacuees are staying into Salt Lake City for sightseeing, for shopping trips. Steve Gordon had the idea of actually providing as many tickets as he can get to go to the Utah-Utah State game. It may not be what they necessarily wanted to see that Saturday, but it is the best game in town that we have to offer. People are stepping up from their hearts for this disaster. It is also time for Congress to step up with their hearts and provide the temporary relief, and then use our minds to go back and discuss the policy issues and policy initiatives, but go through the regular order so that we do not jump to conclusions, we do not make mistakes as we go through. All of these discussions are important, they are there, but the rule at hand is to get emergency relief on the floor to help people right now, and we should not lose sight of that in our efforts to try to expand it into other areas, legitimate discussion areas, but other areas that do not pertain specifically to this point at hand as to how we get that $50 billion to help people right here right now. With that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's indulgence. I appreciate the time. I support this rule because it is the right thing to do to help people right now and put everything in its proper perspective.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the Members to support the rule that provides for consideration of this conference report to the accompanying H.R. 2361, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 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 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. This resolution waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Mr. Speaker, we now have before us the first appropriations conference report. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and those who have been working with him on the House side, as well as on the Senate side, should be applauded for taking this appropriation process and concept of prioritization and presenting the product that we have before us. The Interior conferees have produced a conference report which is fiscally responsible and does live within strict budget discipline. It recommends for the fiscal year 2006 budget $26.2 billion, which is actually below last year's enacted level of $27 billion. Even though the total number is lower, it still takes into account significant and important and high-priority items, such as wildland firefighting, $2.7 billion; a $61 million increase for our National Parks; a $31 million increase in our National Forest System; and $106 million increase for the Indian Health Service. Indian programs have been represented at a record $5.6 billion, which means the funding will provide for schools and hospitals, construction, education, human service needs, as well as law enforcement there. With those increases there, it has to be significant, and there have to be offsetting balances somewhere else, and that is where the process of prioritization takes place. Once again, whether you like the total and the way it has been done, at least this committee has indeed done that process of prioritization. I commend the Subcommittee chairman (Mr. Taylor); the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); the ranking members who were involved in this, as well as all the conferees, for shepherding this measure, this funding measure through the conference process in a timely and orderly fashion in the midst of a very lean budget climate. Mr. Speaker, the conference report is obviously not perfect; none of these ever are. We are not totally happy with all of the aspects of it. I, for example, still have a concern over our process that we are doing with Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or the PILT program. This House was wise enough to fund that program at $242 million; the conference funds it at $6 million less, at $236 million. That still is $30 million above what the Senate tried to accomplish. This program, for example, is the basic funding for rural communities; it is rent that is due on the land that is government owned. If the Federal Government is going to own the land, they need to be able to fully support that. Hope springs eternal, and we in the West will continue to work on this program in the future with the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and others to make sure that these programs are adequately addressed in the future as well. In closing, and notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, the overall conference agreement is a good, bipartisan product. It has been done in a timely manner. It is the first one before us. It deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the discussion that has gone through on this particular bill. We have had it on several different occasions. There are a lot of good things that are in this particular bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has mentioned the one portion of the $1.5 billion to solve the hole in the veterans funding area, that once the issue was validated could have been an easy chance for people to grandstand. But I am very proud of this entire Congress in a bipartisan way, who gave instructions in a bipartisanship way, which came as close to a unanimous vote as I have seen here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate step to do, to now take this and then review the process so that we can continue to go on. We have much to do in this particular area, but in each year that I have been here in this Congress, I have been very proud that we have tried to move forward in different areas and make progress to fully fund and fully maintain our commitments. The same thing has gone on with all of the other programs in this particular budget and this particular conference report. This committee has once again done a great job in trying to come up with the principle that all appropriators ought to be doing a prioritizing program. They have prioritized the programs. Mr. Speaker, overall, we can be very positive of that.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Therefore, where H.R. 3283 says that ``the Commerce shall ensure that the application of CVD law is consistent with the international obligations of the United States,'' am I correct that Commerce, which administers both U.S. antidumping law and U.S. countervailing duty law, may reach this determination of consistency on its own?

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.