[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 52 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H2158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
unallocated time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this country, 
there has always been some confusion or at least debate over what is 
the role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the State government.
  It was President Andrew Jackson who actually derailed the Mayes Bill 
Road, claiming that it was wrong for the Federal Government to actually 
spend Federal dollars on road projects.
  In the post-Civil War time is when the Federal Government started 
giving more and more grants to States, especially for land grant 
colleges, which is why so many schools have Aggies, especially in the 
West.
  But it was in the 1960s when the Federal Government significantly 
increased the kinds of programs and the amount of money that was given 
to cash-starved States, and we ramped up ever since that time with more 
and more funds and more and more money that have been given to States.
  Now, I was a State legislator and I understand the problems with the 
process if you are trying to establish a budget by the State with a 
four- or five- or six-to-one match, so the States can put a dollar in, 
and they will get $4 or $5 or $6, even in some cases $10, of Federal 
money back. States could easily provide services without having to 
raise State tax money at the same time. It is an easy thing to do.
  However, once that situation took place and the States accepted the 
Federal money, then the requirements came in.
  I still understand that we have somewhere in the State of Utah the 
computer system back when they were very expensive that the Federal 
Government required us to buy even though we did not want it, we did 
not need it and we did not use it, but it was a requirement for us to 
get vocational education funds coming to the State of Utah. As the old 
cliche goes, the only thing worse than an unfunded mandate is a funded 
mandate to the States.
  Now we can simply say to the States, well, the simple answer is, quit 
taking the Federal money, which is like asking an addict to go cold 
turkey after they are hooked on the system.
  State budgets have been built on Federal money. States bristle at the 
requirements placed upon them unfairly by the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government is in a constant quandary of what we do to try and 
control the rampant spending that we have, and all of us seem to be 
caught in this same financial trap.
  As one of the former leaders of this House once said, sometimes if 
you want to get out of a trap you have to let go of the cheese.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, tonight several of us would like to talk about one 
proposal that may indeed do that, one proposal that would turn back the 
power to the States the ability to have some control over their 
destiny, and hopefully with creativity.
  As one of the NCSF task force co-chairs said about one of our 
education programs being mandated by the Federal Government, that it 
stifles State innovation, we believe the Federal Government's role has 
become excessively intrusive in the day-to-day operations of public 
education. States that once were pioneers are now captive of a one-
size-fits-all education accountability system.
  Now one of those things we need to do is simply go about and review 
the process in which we have found ourselves. States need to have the 
opportunity of going back and discovering if they really do want this 
type of money with the accountability and requirements that are 
attached to it.
  Our good friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson) has introduced a bill 
which talks about this concept of State rights or, more appropriately, 
called Federalism. It would require States to take a proactive position 
on issues of whether they wanted to have the Federal requirements and 
the Federal money going at the same time.

                              {time}  1515

  It would slowly have a choice or chance of having States to 
reinvigorate themselves and to judge for themselves whether this is the 
road they wish to go on, whether this is the proper approach to be, and 
it would allow us to reinvigorate ourselves to see if these are the 
types of programs we really do want to fund in the future. It would 
allow us for the first time to have a clear and decisive debate on the 
proper role of State and Federal Governments and not simply react to 
happenstance that has grown up over 40 years of casual and sometimes 
nonthoughtful behavior.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas who will be addressing us in a 
few minutes on his effort to try and come up with a bill that puts this 
all in perspective and does exactly that by restoring the role and 
balance between State and Federal Governments, allowing States, if they 
wish to be involved in the Federal Government, to make it as a 
proactive, positive statement of principle they wish to do.
  On the Constitution Caucus as chaired by the gentleman from New 
Jersey, who will also be addressing us, it is our prime effort and our 
indeed pleasure to be able to introduce this particular bill as one of 
those things we think Congress needs to address in this particular time 
at this particular session.

                          ____________________