[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 15817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as many here in the body know, I am 
an old high school history teacher. And not content simply to teach 
history in the classroom, I organized different programs for my 
students. Having worked in the State legislature, I came up with an 
internship program. So I took kids to the Utah legislature, where they 
worked for a week as we organized the program, their jobs, their 
housing, their supervision at night. I organized an oral history 
program for our school. I organized a Renaissance festival.
  Tired of only kids in athletic programs getting scholarships, we 
raised money for scholarships for kids who excelled in history. But it 
also required that not only did we put on a weekend festival but months 
of activity. Changing a small gym so it didn't look like a small gym, 
doing the costumes, writing the script, preparing and providing for a 
six-course meal that guaranteed there would always be leftovers.
  As department chairman, I approved of all these projects, and I 
probably drove my fellow teachers into the ground trying to maintain 
all these activities. And the question you have to ask is, why did we 
do it? And it is a very simple answer.
  Nothing ever stays static or constant. If you are not moving forward, 
you are moving backwards. And it is instinctive within the human being 
that they want to expand, do different things. Even since coming to 
Congress, I am doing the same thing: I have associated among the 
programs what I think was a very academic program of study and visiting 
in the Washington, D.C. area; so once again in the fall I will bring 20 
to 30 kids from my district here where I will get to be the teacher 
again, taking them through Washington and the experience of Washington 
in conjunction with the closeup program.
  Now, I mention that simply because what we do in our daily lives in 
trying to expand and grow and what I did as a teacher is the same thing 
government does. I do not blame bureaucrats for trying to expand their 
programs. That is the instinct and nature of mankind.
  In the 1930s and again in the 1960s, the Federal Government expanded 
all sorts of programs to solve problems. Legitimate. It was good. The 
question that has to be asked is, what happens once those problems of 
40 or 50 or 70 years ago are solved? Do we then eliminate the program 
or do the programs do the same thing I did as a history teacher, trying 
to find new things to do, more things to do as you are trying to expand 
the scope and responsibility of your task at hand?
  And that is exactly what does happen. We never eliminate programs. We 
simply add to them, which is why today we have 342 economic development 
programs, 130 programs serving people with disabilities, 130 programs 
for at-risk youth, 90 programs for early childhood development, 75 
programs for international education, 72 programs dedicated to assuring 
safe water, 50 programs for homeless assistance, 45 Federal agencies 
conducting Federal criminal investigations, 40 separate employment and 
training programs, 28 rural development programs, 27 teen pregnancy 
programs, 26 K-12 grant programs, 23 agencies providing aid to former 
Soviet republics, 19 programs fighting substance abuse, 17 rural water 
and wastewater programs, 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international 
trade agreements, 12 food safety programs, 11 principal statistics 
agencies, and four overlapping land management agencies.
  Why do we do that? Simply because that is the nature of the beast. 
How do we solve that? Well, we review those. A Federal review, 
according to one report from the Heritage Foundation, found that 38 
percent of all the programs that are run by the Federal Government fail 
to meet their core needs, the reason for which they are in existence.
  So how do we solve that? How do we review that? How do we do that in 
a safe and fair manner? Well, we had the experience going through the 
BRAC process of trying to come up with independent agencies, taking the 
politics out of the issue, and looking at some kind of clear, concise 
criteria and evaluating where we were and what we should do and need in 
the future.
  Representative Tiahrt and Representative Brady have introduced 
legislation to advance that same process with Federal programs. And so 
they will look at those programs in bills that will be before the House 
later this week with four specific recommendations or four specific 
parts which will make them effective:
  Number one, they are bipartisan programs that will try to take 
political wrangling out of the equation. Number two, they will look at 
every program with a clear and concise criteria, including the 
constitutionality of that program in the first place. Number three, 
they will review all programs. And, number four, they will have a 
legislative process which will expedite the process of review and 
consideration.
  Now, once again I do not blame the Federal Government or the 
bureaucracy of the Federal Government for its ability to expand. That I 
think is common. That is native practice. What we have to do as a 
Congress is realize if we do not like that expansion, it is our 
responsibility to make sure that that expansion is put in check. And 
these two bills are a perfect way of doing it.

                          ____________________