Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). If I could go through the speech itself and divide it into two halves of it, the points that the gentleman made under ``bad news'' basically are not germane to this particular bill and are issues that will be addressed in other positions that will be coming through at another time and another place. I am sure when we do address those particular issues on relevant pieces of legislation, the comments that the record number of Federal money that has gone into education over the last 5 years will be clearly made and clearly understood. However, I also do appreciate his good points that he said because each of those good points did, indeed, deal with this particular bill, this particular program and they were laudatory; and I am assuming that that means that this particular bill has some positive aspects that are within the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) purview. I appreciate the gentleman bringing up what I think is one of the strengths of this particular bill which deals with the administrative costs and realizing fully that when we are talking about education there are two funds that will drive education. One is program costs. The other is the maintenance and operation costs. Within a traditional education program, once the maintenance and operation is there, that becomes a standard cost and standard form and everything else is driven by the program aspect which is almost always salaries. To tie administrative costs to that as a clear percentage makes a lot of sense. In this particular area when you are dealing with a system that has both programs as well as the operational costs that are separate, but while the program costs may be constant, the operational costs, therefore, come in uniquely motivated fashion, which is high front end. To try to put a percentage on that and drive that automatically skews the entire area that deals with administration. That is why it is one of the bright parts of this particular bill, to try and scale back that so that more money can go into the programs and directly help kids and people trying to get jobs, as opposed to just simply the administration. And I agree once again with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that at least without this bill, nothing goes forward as providing vocational, technical, agricultural training. And there are high-paying jobs out there begging for this kind of technical training that we need. I have seen them. I have seen the programs that do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides for the consideration of H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act, under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in the Rules report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, and for the underlying legislation, H.R. 366, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Chairman and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, the original sponsors of the bill and many other committee members on both sides of the aisle, have put forward a bipartisan reauthorization of the Perkins Vocational Education Funding Programs, which have helped and will continue to help our Nation's young people, as well as older workers, attain the real-world technical skills that are vital in today's highly competitive world marketplace. I make special note that this legislation was reported out of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce unanimously on a voice vote, and with no surviving opposition. This legislation reauthorizes the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act through fiscal year 2011, and it would authorize $1.3 billion for grants to the States in fiscal year 2006, and ensure that all States are held harmless, and receive at least at a minimum the amount of vocational education funding as was in fiscal year 2005. Mr. Speaker, this is a program that has been funded in one way or another from Congress since 1917. In talking to some educators from Utah who happen to be with me today, and I was meeting with today, to find out how this works in the real world, this particular program in one district in Utah, provides for a student center coordinator and a workforce coordinator within the district, a separate student counselor within the alternate learning program, and English as Second Language language assistance to help those trying to gain these skills to improve their ability to communicate within the language. All of these programs come from this money. All of these programs could have been there without this money, but it would mean that other programs essential in the education community would have to be cut to compensate for that. This bill goes beyond reauthorization and incorporates several changes to the past Perkins programs. Among those improvements is the combining and streamlining of two existing funding streams, the traditional State grant funding with a tech prep funding, and encouraging the States to apply the higher educational goals of the tech prep program in mathematics and science to all of the recipients. At the same time, it would also give States and local recipients critical flexibility in customizing their implementation plans for incorporating tech prep education goals based on local needs and local concerns. Mr. Speaker, this approach taken by this legislation increases local accountability for the use of these funds, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office review of H.R. 366, as published in the committee report, the bill does not contain any unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments. The bill does recognize that State and local communities shall have the final say as to what is taught in local schools and explicitly rejects the one-size-fits-all Federal standard for curriculum or academic content. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill reduces the amount of funding that can be consumed in administrative overhead from 5 percent to 2 percent, and instead pushes these extra cost savings out to the local recipients, actually resulting in more funding available on the local level for more student and better student programs. This rule makes some very important amendments in order. The rule is fair. The rule allows this legislation to move forward. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), someone who has a unique insight into the needs of education.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the late 1880s, House Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed was easily one of the most powerful speakers that has ever served in this body, and probably one of the most sarcastic speakers that ever served. Anyone who can be asked if he is going to attend the funeral of one of his political enemies and have the presence of mind to say, ``No, but I approve of it,'' one has to like that kind of a speaker. One day Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed returned from watching proceedings in the Senate, and looked at his colleagues sitting in this Chamber and told them to thank God the House is not a deliberative body. I would never deign to give advice, or for the sake of the parliamentarian, to make a value judgment as to the actions of our brethren, and sisters, over in the Senate, but as they contemplate what is popularly called the ``Constitution option,'' or the Byrd option, or the nuclear option, it would be useful to briefly review the history of the House. No Child Left Behind may not think history significant enough to be tested, but an understanding of congressional history may indeed smooth the troubled times ahead. Historian David McCullough noted that ``Congress rolls on like a river, always there and always changing.'' So for all the fealty we give to traditions of each body, each tradition of both the House and the Senate had a beginning point when the body made a conscious decision to implement a tactical course of action. As McCullough intimated, though we do not like to admit it, each body is constantly making those course changes. The same principle applies to filibusters. A filibuster is not a Constitution doctrine but a tactical course of action, and the concept of the filibuster has often been used for noble causes. During the 1990s, the Senate engaged in a filibuster of what I saw as a devastating attack upon the economy of the west based upon another administration's Federal land policies. I applauded them for that effort, but what can be used for good can also be used to abuse. And when that abuse becomes egregious, commonplace, and detrimental for the overall well-being of this Nation, changes should then be considered. The Senate has changed its practices on filibusters several times with this tactic. They did so in 1917 and again in the 1950s, and again in the mid-1970s. And as the Senate considers whether to make an adjustment again, they should review the House's tradition with a tactic that was both similar and yet the exact opposite of the Senate filibuster. The Senate developed the filibuster, a tactic designed for the minority to obstruct and frustrate the will of the majority by talking. But in the 1800s, the House had an Act called the disappearing majority. It was designed by the minority to obstruct and frustrate the will of the majority by silence. In the early 1800s, former President John Quincy Adams, the only person to leave the White House and return here to this House body, refused to vote on a pro-slavery amendment. When his name was called, he just sat. Others joined him until there were not enough votes cast to make a quorum and the motion failed. There would be few who would criticize him for the nobility of that particular action; but unfortunately, that tactic caught on and by the speakership of Thomas Reed was being abused in an effort to frustrate any positive action in this body. On a quorum call, those people would simply refuse to answer, and with a lack of a quorum, all business would be brought to a screeching halt; the same goal as a filibuster, just a different approach. This was common in the House practices in the 1800s, and the refusal to allow a vote resulted in minority government. As Speaker Reed said at the time, ``If the majority does not govern, the minority will; and if you think the tyranny of the majority is hard, the tyranny of the minority is unendurable.'' The rules then, he said, ought to be arranged to facilitate action of the majority. The Speaker made up his mind if, in his words, ``political life consisted of sitting helplessly in the Chair and seeing the majority powerless to pass legislation,'' he had had enough of it and was ready to step down. He did not step down. Instead, he decided to step up to the challenge. Thus, he instituted a policy of counting as present Members in this Chamber, whether they were speaking or voiceless, and it led to a wonderful exchange between the Speaker and a Democrat Member from Kentucky, James McCreary. The outraged McCreary demanded to know what parliamentary right the Speaker had to declare him present. And Reed simply responded, ``The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?'' Well, the precedent for the tactic was broken and even though the minority took this issue, ironically enough, to the Supreme Court in 1892, the Supreme Court upheld the position of the Speaker. The House then evolved into a body with centralized or majoritarian authority, while the Senate remained decentralized with minority authority. These tactics, all of them, are not ordained by the Constitution, they are traditions of the Members of each body. House historians Oleszek and Sachs once wrote, ``The forces of centralization and decentralization are constantly in play, and they regularly adjust and are reconfigured in response to new conditions and events.'' In less scholarly terms, whatever has been born in a noble cause can degenerate into abuse; and if the abuse of that tactic harms the Nation in such situations, Congress should make changes. They should adjust. The House did in the 1800s. The Senate would do well to learn from our experience. As McCullough might be saying right now, the river is ready to change.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

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 126 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126 is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report, and for the time specified in the report. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong support of this rule and support of the underlying resolution legislation, H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Subcommittee Chairman McKeon) and the committee members from both sides of the aisle are to be commended for their diligence and hard work in putting together a comprehensive measure reauthorizing vital job training programs while, at the same time, providing for improvements of those programs aimed at providing greater flexibility, accountability, targeting Federal dollars where they will be most effective and where there is the highest demonstrated need. Mr. Speaker, my favorite movie of all time has always been ``Inherit the Wind.'' I still think it is Spencer Tracy's greatest role. But in that he, playing the character of Henry Drummond, talks about the other main character, Matthew Harrison Brady, who was a well intentioned, yet flawed, character. And in talking about his death, Drummond says of Brady, a giant once lived in that body. But Matt Brady got lost because he was looking for God too high and up too far away. Federal Government is a lot like Matt Brady. We are well intentioned, the greatest of desire to serve; but we oftentimes get lost and allow too many people to fall through cracks and harm people because we try to solve problems from too high up and administer programs from too far away. From this isolated Hall, we often concoct specific standards that fail people who have the needs but do not fit our preconceived standards. Last Wednesday in my district at a town meeting, I met a young lady by the name of Micaela, who offered me also this five-page letter of her efforts and her concerns. She is in need of vocational rehabilitation services, but does not quite fit our standards we have designed. In her letter she said in her years of trying to receive services that she was told she had too many disabilities, too few disabilities. You could not visually see her disability. She was too young, too old, and too rare of a circumstance. You name it, she had heard it. And she has also been basically told that I am not worth helping, hiring, or even listening to. Oftentimes the Federal Government, in fact, not oftentimes. The Federal Government's only advantage is that of uniformity. By definition we can deal with people only as objects on a factory conveyor belt designed to meet the Federal factory specifications. But if we truly believe that people are each individuals, that they have a spark of divinity, that individual needs are there that require individualized help, then we do not need uniformity. What we need is creativity, efficiency, and caring; and that can only be done effectively on the State levels, which is why this particular bill has gone from several years ago, 63 programs, has now taken three funding streams and tried to bring it into one so they could help individual people by trying to apply 70 percent of the funding that has been given to students to those who have been unserved and out of school, to create a demonstration project for personal reemployment accounts to meet individual needs to be addressed by that individual, and to present the President's community college program and tie them all together to give local governments the ability to work with individuals so that Micaela here does not slip through the crack by definition. Prior to coming to Congress, I had the opportunity, like many of you, of serving in the State legislature, and I was a teacher for a long time. In that position, or those positions, I witnessed firsthand the years of oftentimes Federal programs and mandates shoved on States, on local school districts, on local units of governments with this one- size-fits-all uniform approach. What was often, too often, left out were, quite frankly, the bona fide local needs. A uniform Federal approach stifles innovation with the heavy hand of Federal regulations and professionalism. The philosophy behind H.R. 27, therefore, is to give Governors as the chief political officer of the States the flexibility over job training programs to promote economic development and jobs based upon local needs, and that way, the States become responsive to employment and to job markets. Recently, I attended a community college, a community technical college in my district. And I was amazed at the benefits I saw of partnerships with local private industry, government contractors, and local employers coming together. In their diesel program, to find the kinds of materials that were provided by the industry, they have to get hands-on experience for first-rate technicians. And in program after program in that particular college, I saw, through innovation and hard work, the community college has been able to leverage the State and Federal dollars and to attract private contributions for equipment and training that met the need of training qualified workers in the high- tech future. Vocational rehabilitation services in State after State does the same thing. But these type partnerships are not just allowed in this bill. They are encouraged under this legislation, which is vital in helping provide workers for the competition of the 21st century. H.R. 27 is strongly supported by a coalition of community colleges which authorizes $250 million for community-based job training grants to strengthen the role of those communities' colleges and to promote the United States' full workforce potential. We face a 21st-century challenge in an ever-changing technology and the aging American workforce. We must provide States, local workforce boards, Governors flexibility to fit real people with real skills for real jobs. And they vary in need from State to State. We must allow them the opportunity to work together as they see fit to help people like Micaela. I further support H.R. 27 because it targets Federal funds to groups of youths who are presently underserved, because it provides for individual self-help efforts. I would like to point out also that H.R. 27 builds upon legislation passed in the 108th Congress, namely H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003, which was passed by this House. There may be some who would oppose this bill because it respects both the letter and the spirit of existing law. If there is a problem with existing law, this is not the proper venue for that discussion. Let us not, in the debate over the rule or the bill, lose focus and lose sight of our goal, which is to help the Micaelas of this Nation who need services, which are and will continue to be distributed fairly without precondition. It is significant that we not confuse services rendered with the desire of some to sanitize and regulate legally diverse practices, reaffirmed in a rare moment of sanity by the courts, which do not impact the rendering of those employment services. Others beside sanctioned-government programs care and help and are effective, and we ought to forget the old pattern of confrontation and pointless attacks on groups that we see as different; we should join for the common goal of helping people. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, supporting a bill that has been discussed and amended in committee through regular order. The rule allows for three specific amendments to focus discussion on key elements of the proposal. I am looking forward to riveting debate on this bill, with the realization our goal is to help the Micaelas of this world who have been hurt because there have been programs which are too high, too far away, and forgot our purpose of helping real people. I urge adoption of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 myself such time as I may consume. In closing, my friends on the other side have had numerous objections to provisions in H.R. 27. They have a right to do so and I expect it will be warmly discussed in the ensuing discussion of the bill itself. I believe strongly in the ability of our States, Governors, local boards, workforce boards, to be creative and innovative. There is no omniscient power that we have here. People can think for themselves in other parts of this country. And the essence of our government demands that we give them the opportunity to succeed without the benevolent help of the Federal Government. Our job, might I remind my colleagues, is to make sure the Micaelas of the world never slip through the cracks. I believe, and I have confidence in the ability of local governments to be creative and effective, and I think so does H.R. 27. What we have today is a confusing patchwork of employment, training services. The duplication of those reduces the amount of money we get to use to help Micaelas. Many amendments that we will be discussing on the floor have also been discussed in committee. A lot of other amendments were heard in the committee. This was fully discussed in committee and voted upon. May I just, in closing, ask us not to lose sight that the goal is service and how to provide training for people which is given without any precondition. Hiring practices that are protected by existing law are that, protected by existing law. If we feel there is a problem with that, then we should attack the existing law, and there are venues to do that. This is not the venue in this particular bill. Faith-based institutions out there, which are not rich, are still nevertheless effective. They care. They have the same goal as we do. Our goal should be to try to join hands to help all the Micaelas in the world solve the problem of employment, retraining, and servicing, not to try to change our friends in other particular ways but to join together on a common front, in a common effort, to help people, not to harm people. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May I respond simply to the arguments about our veterans because they are so important to us. Let me reiterate that H.R. 27 does not harm worker-retaining programs for veterans. Not one dollar from this account comes that is meant to help veterans with their training. The programs that we already have in place, specifically the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, already are required to contribute to the infrastructure of these one-stop career center programs. Any money that would come to the one-stop center would be coming out of their administrative funds, not from the money going directly to the training of veterans. That is an area that was specifically covered in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of making an announcement The Committee on Rules may meet the week of February 14 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, February 15, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 9, 2005, which is expected to be filed on Monday, February 14. Members are also advised that the text should be available for their review on the Web site of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Rules by Friday, February 11, 2005. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate form and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for giving me this opportunity of taking a few moments here with my colleagues. I hope you will apologize as we talk about this historic event; I am still an old history teacher at heart, and sometimes I talk too much about it, but I see historical precedence that we sometimes forget all about. In the late 18th century, the revolution took place in France, which ended with the overthrow of the monarchy, the beheading of the king. The Jacobins established the republic, with three goals in mind: liberty, equality, and fraternity. While this was happening, across the English Channel, in the British Parliament, Burke was watching it all unfold, and he made the statement that now the French are free to do as they please. We ought to see what it pleases them to do before we risk congratulation. As my colleagues know, before the century was done, the French Revolution had degenerated under Robespierre into the Reign of Terror, as we call it now, into which all of those noble concepts were lost in the blood of the beheadings that took place. We sometimes do things here on the floor in which small minorities take upon themselves their rights and prerogatives which extend our debate, totally free to do as they please, but I am not so sure if the American public will always congratulate those types of occasions. I do want, with some credit going to J. D. Crouch, from whom I have read an article, to talk about an election that I do think risks congratulations; it rises to that particular level now. I am talking obviously about a country that is far away from here, that has a culture and a language so vastly different from ours, that was lead by a brutal dictatorship, a corrupt family, one man whose brutality in murdering his rivals, even relatives, is almost unparalleled; a one- party domination whose control squandered their resources and wealth, destroyed the economy; a secret police that invaded everyone's rights and terrorized people and led to ethnic violence. Of course I am talking about the country of Romania, pre-1989. Because what we did not realize is that last year, there was an election in Romania, where the Prime Minister, Adrian Nastase, lost the election and peacefully transferred power to the opposition leader, Traian Basescu. I apologize for not knowing how to pronounce that name because, quite frankly, it was not in the news. I do not have any news reports of people trying to properly pronounce his name, because this election in Romania was so blase, we did not even cover it; we did not even talk about it. It just simply seemed to happen. We can make some vast parallels between Romania pre-1989 and Iraq in 2003. Romania had the Communist Party, whereas Iraq was dominated by the Ba'athist Party, a brutal dictator in Hussein versus a brutal dictator in Ceausescu. The Fedayeen Saddam of the secret police was similar to Romania's Securitate. The Kurds and the Sunnis, who were ethnically abused similar to many of the Hungarians and the natives in Romania at that time. It is true, I will admit, that Slovakia and Moldavia did not send all sorts of rebels across the border to try and stir up ethnic violence, but they did in the 1990s have significant clashes where bloody miners attacked peaceful demonstrations, and the result of the world to that was to meet it with both patience and support for their efforts of moving towards a democracy. Fifteen years later, Romania now still has some effect of a one-party state, but they are moving away from that as new Romanians are coming back into the country who were trained in the West and are bringing a spirit of entrepreneurship with them. There is still some element of the communist corruption, but no longer do people think in Romania that it is the grease of commerce, and there are tough laws against it. Fifteen years later, Romania is a strong democratic nation and a powerful friend of ours as a member of NATO. We need to not forget in the history of this world, it took 7 years after World War II to have the first election in Japan, and 4 years after World War II to have the first election in Germany. We have done the same thing in Afghanistan in 18 months. The first election that showed clearly to the world that most of Iraq is not in chaos, that that small lens of the camera has to focus in on the picture so you do not see a full view of what is happening over there. It showed that al- Zarqawi is not a leader. We had a Member who serves in this building, not necessarily in this particular body, who said our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing: the hearts and minds of the people. I have to reject that. That is an inaccurate analysis. We are not fighting for the same thing. Those fighting to destroy democracy coming to Iraq are the Ba'athist Party seeking a return to power. It is very similar as George Will in one of his articles quoted ``1984,'' George Orwell where he describes the government as the boot stomping on a human face forever. That is what the Ba'athists would like to return to Iraq. The other is al-Zarqawi which is a radical rejection of the idea that government derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed. It is a concept of popular sovereignty that Western traditions accept as the basis of our government as something he still thinks of as an evil principle. His rage would have the same effect, a different kind of boot, but still on the face of the people forever. Those insurgents are not fighting for the hearts and minds of the people; they are fighting for chaos and terror and pure political control. The hearts and the minds of the people are those who went to the polls on Sunday and voted, like the 32-year-old Samir Hassan who said, I would have crawled here if I had to, to the first vote ever held in his country; and he used that phrase because he had one of his legs blown off in a car bomb prior to the election. And then he went on to say, I do not want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. So much for the idea that Arabs do not want democracy. Freedom is the antidote for terrorism. The Iraqis have had a defining moment and the good guys, those who went out to vote, they won. What we now must give Iraq is the same thing we gave to Romania 15 years ago: patience, international support. Despite any smug predictions to the contrary, we are moving in Iraq at a faster pace toward a truly new style of government in which people count; not power, but people count. And with an eye to that future, with an eye to that future, I think the election in Iraq is one that rises to the level where we can risk congratulation. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for allowing me to share this time with him.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of a man who has done much for journalism, the legal profession, and good government in my home state of Utah. Allan J. Moll passed from this world on December 22nd of last year. He leaves the world a richer and better place for his influence and presence. I remember as a teenager in Utah watching him on the Evening News on Channel Four. The experienced anchor had a unique delivery style I found fascinating. His art was honed by a lifetime of experience. He began his career in radio news at the age of 19. One of his first assignments in broadcasting was reporting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to radio listeners throughout the Intermountain West. He served his country during World War II in the U.S. Army Air Corps. In 1948, Mr. Moll inaugurated the first commercial television broadcast in Utah. In 1958, he moved to California as the news director at the RKO affiliate, KHJ Radio and Television before returning to Utah in 1968. Mr. Moll was the evening news anchor on KCPX TV in the late 1960's through the 1970's. He interviewed numerous influential Americans, including President Truman, President Kennedy, Senator Goldwater and many Hollywood stars. In 2001, the Utah Radio and Broadcast Association inducted him as ``Broadcaster of the Year.'' Allan Moll's accomplishments are not limited to the broadcast industry. He received a law degree from the University of Utah Law School. After a stellar broadcast career, Mr. Moll spent 25 years in the Salt Lake County Attorney's office. For two decades he was the chief spokesman for Salt Lake County at the state legislature. Here is where our paths crossed. In my years in the Utah House of Representatives, I came to know Allan Moll as an articulate spokesman for Salt Lake County. He was also a consummate professional. I appreciated his accurate information, his respectful demeanor and personal considerations. I joined many of my colleagues who considered Allan Moll not just an effective lobbyist, but also a friend. He enjoyed his work and I enjoyed his innate kindness. He retired in 1996. In 1997, the 29 member Utah State Senate illustrated their respect by passing a resolution recognizing Allan Moll as the ``30th State Senator.'' He also received recognition awards from the Utah State Court Association and BYU Lawyer and Legislative Association. Allan Moll had an interesting story to tell. When I was assigned as the teacher advisor to my high school's National Honor Society, the first person I invited to speak to these outstanding kids was Allan Moll. He kindly gave of his time to meet the students and regale them with stories of the ``good old days'' of television news. I was appreciative of his willingness to give of himself. Mr. Moll was unsuccessful in his only bid for elective office, but those of us fortunate to have worked with him had only the utmost respect. I am proud to honor the memory of a great Utah public servant, Allan J. Moll.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1078, the American History and Civics Education Act of 2003.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Brooke Robison, a high-school student at Layton High School in The First Congressional District of Utah was selected earlier this year as a recipient of the Veterans of Foreign Wars' 2004 ``Voice of Democracy'' scriptwriting contest. I commend to my colleagues her essay which speaks so movingly of the sacrifices of her grandfather and, indeed, all members of the U.S. Armed Forces in protecting our freedom. My Commitment to America's Future (By Brooke Robison, Utah) On a stormy afternoon in February I was working towards an easy ``A'' for my history class. The assignment was to write an essay on a veteran's most memorable war experience. ``Piece of cake,'' I thought. ``I'll just interview my Grandpa, he fought in World War II. He might even have a story written up for me by the time I got there and I could be on my way.'' But, when I arrived at my grandparent's home, I saw that he had brought out piles of war memorabilia to show me. ``Great,'' I thought, ``this is going to take longer than I thought. I'm actually going to have to act interested.'' I picked up a photograph and was drawn in by the dashingly handsome young pilot that smiled up at me. The other aged photographs began to intrigue me and I gently fingered the old uniforms and medals and read the letters he had saved. I had never really thought of him as a young guy. I mean he was always, you know, GRANDPA! I was surprisingly fascinated about the life he had when he was barely older than I am now. I became anxious to hear the story he had selected to share with me for my project. Little did I know that his story would rock my shallow little world. Near the end of the war a group of cocky young pilots emerged from their mess tent in Germany. They nearly ran into a truck full of sandy material parked near them on the street. My grandfather, a bright and promising mining engineer before the war, prided himself on being able to quickly identify almost any rock or mineral. He boasted that he could probably tell the make up of the sand just by touching it. He thrust his hand in and let it run through his fingers. Puzzled, he did it again and again, sniffing it and rubbing it between his palms. ``What is this?'' he thought, ``I must be losing my touch!'' He approached the driver of the truck and explained his professional background. ``What is this stuff?'', he asked, ``I just can't figure it out!'' The driver answered with a tone of one who had learned to distance himself from the daily horror of his job. ``Ashes,'' he replied flatly, ``human ashes.'' The driver's answer struck me as hard as it did my grandfather decades ago. I felt as if my eyes had been opened for the first time. Wars weren't just a flash of information on the news or something that starred Tom Hanks. My young, handsome grandfather had watched the remains of thousands of innocent lives run through his fingers like common playground dirt. His efforts, and those of thousands of others, made sure that this carnage would stop. Brushing aside tears he whispered to me, ``Tell this story, tell it, so this can never happen again.'' I came away from that visit with my grandfather knowing I had lived a shallow and ungrateful life. As corny as it may sound, my grandfather's story changed who I am and what I will do with my future. I learned that day that I have a responsibility to my country. The sale at the mall or having a date on Saturday night is nowhere near as important to me as my latest service project. I feel that if America's soldiers can endure so much to make our world a better place, I can certainly do all I can to improve my little corner of it. I have developed a passion to learn about wars and conflicts in our history. I have joined political youth groups so I can be well informed when I'm old enough to vote. I collect food for the local food pantry, fill and deliver bags of supplies for children in shelters, and make blankets for homeless. I wrote a song that encourages young people to get involved in community service. I was honored to perform it this past summer at a national award ceremony honoring outstanding youth in service. Performing with the Marines the last two years I became aware that gifts for teenagers run out early. There are never enough. I knew I could come up with a plan to help. I developed a program called Toys for Teens that involves running teen gift drives in our high schools and middle schools. I presented my idea to the Marines in my area and it was enthusiastically approved. The program is well received and is being implemented all across the state giving other young people the opportunity to know joy of giving back to their community. We hope to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations. With this project I am proud to serve the youth of my community while also supporting my country's servicemen. But I feel that the most important thing that I can do to show my commitment to America's future, is to tell my grandfather's story. As young people we need to make an effort to hear and pass on the stories from our country's past. Armed with the strength of the stories of our Nation's past heroes, we can truly have an inspired commitment to America's future.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I agree, Mr. Chairman, with that concept that we have a great many men and women who are serving nobly and have in the history of this great country. Mr. Speaker, in the words of that great philosopher, Dan Quisenberry of the Kansas City Royals, he once said, ``I have seen the future. It is just like the past, only longer.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I am just an old history teacher who believes that if we do not view our past, we fail to clearly view our future, and that history illustrates there are several principles which have made this a great country. I would like to talk about two of those principles in relationship to Iraq that I think are characteristics that have built this great country. One is patience in the face of adversity, and the second is a feeling of charity that Americans have always displayed to other people. Sometimes I think we live in a society that venerates speed. Everything has to be done quickly. Our dialogue, our actions, sometimes illustrate that impatience that we have. I would like at times to go back to the days of Williams Jennings Bryan when he would go along the Chautauqua circuit, and he could speak for 2 or 2\1/2\ hours to an audience, totally mesmerizing them. I realize that some of the speeches that are given on this floor feel as if they are going 2 or 2\1/2\ hours and we are not always that hot in the mesmerizing category, but, nonetheless, it does have a precedent. In Berlin in 1948, when the Soviet Union decided it was going to push us out of that city, we made a commitment that lasted over 15 months that every day, every 3 minutes, another plane landed to defend that particular city. It was our commitment, our patience and persistence in the face of adversity. Even in the 1960s, if you were a politician, the average sound bite, the average response someone had on the media, was about 45 seconds, which does not sound like much, but it is a long time if you think of what you can explain in 45 seconds. Today, in contrast, we live in a world where kids watching children's programs will find that the visual will change every 10 seconds so they do not lose interest; that we have a sit-com mentality that thinks that all problems in the world have to be solved in 22 minutes plus commercials; and we are frustrated when we do not quickly have results. Instead of 45 seconds for a response, today in the media if you cannot give a response in 8 seconds or less, which is the average, it just does not happen. All this contributes to a rush of judgment where we consider the situations we are in today unique, and we fail to learn what I think is important lessons from the past, and it is critical, in light of what is happening in Iraq. We have people that believe since we are trying to reform a country and create a democracy in an area that has no tradition of that, that is a task that is too daunting, and if we cannot transform that society overnight, then it is a task that is too frustrating. And an enemy that is comprised mostly of non-Iraqis are there to try and test our patience in the face of adversity. Now, what I would like to say is if you look at history, this situation is not unique or unusual. After World War II, we went into Japan, a country that had absolutely no tradition of democracy, and yet by 1952 we had created or helped to create and establish a stable democracy that is one of the major forces of the world today. But we fail to remember that that took 7 years of effort to reach that point. In Germany, at the same time, we created a new constitution that is still in use, the ``Basic Law,'' the Federal Republic, which is a strong republic, but we fail to remember that took us 4 years to reach that particular point. In the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, it was 6 years of bloody violence before peace was brought and you could even start the reconstruction of that island nation. In Iraq, which we have been in about the same time as the Berlin airlift used to break the Soviet determination to destroy that beautiful city, we have established a constitution, a new government, planned for elections, have a police force and an armed forces that are increasing every day. That is a phenomenal success in a short period of time. I guess we are doing things quickly today, but it is very positive. And that success will only come if we still maintain that value we have always had of patience in the face of adversity. History says it is possible. History says that this country is best suited to be successful, and I believe that we can, in part because of the quality of our people. If I could just very quickly talk about that other characteristic, which is the charity that we have always had to other people, by mentioning two people who have characteristics in common. One is they have great hearts; the other is they happen to be Utahans. If I could mention the name of Jared Kimber from Tremonton, a chief warrant officer, who emulated a former Utahan, a neighbor of his, Gail Halverson, known as the candy bomber in that Berlin airlift area of time. But Jared, who flies a Black Hawk for the 82nd medical company, flying over the area, noticed that there were kids who just simply had nothing with which they could play. One day he noticed a bunch of kids trying to play soccer with a ball that deflated. So that day, he went to the PX. He bought candy. He bought soccer balls. He bought Frisbees, and as he was flying over, he distributed that from his helicopter. Every day he did that. So, by June, he was getting packages from home weighing 60 pounds of stuff. A lady donated all of her stuffed bears for the kids of Iraq. The 9-year-olds in his community organized, and they got 300 balls of very different kinds so that the kids in Iraq could play with them, and those became Jared's kids for whom he sacrificed out of the goodness and the charity of his heart. Another Utahan by the name of Paul Holton, a chief warrant officer in the Utah National Guard, a man that was mentioned by the President in his February National Prayer Breakfast is known now as Chief Wiggles over there, taking on something called Operation Shoe Fly where soldiers got shoes for needy families in Afghanistan. He recognized a problem in Iraq and gave it a new name called Operation Give in which clothing, dental supplies, toys and books are used for needy people. In talking to students in Utah, Mr. Holton said, ``War is challenging, sometimes a kill-or-be-killed kind of thing, and you are in a strange place, and it is dangerous. But what is missing? Well, it is the people.'' Holton said he was sick of hearing about all the bad stuff when there are so many good things that are also happening in Iraq. He said the media makes it look like all Iraqis are hostile and want U.S. troops out. He realized it was important not only to help them establish freedom in their country but to reach out to them and address them on a personal level. He showed students pictures of friendly Iraqi children who benefited from this project as well as the families who welcomed the soldiers with open arms. They are just like us in many ways, but they have lots of needs. Project Give or Operation Give helps let them know that we are not your enemy, we are here to help you and to give you freedom. With that, he established a warehouse in Baghdad in an effort to try and help those who are from the poorest schools in the poorest segment. In the spring of last year, he went to the high schools in Utah and said, as you are cleaning out your lockers, instead of throwing away all of your notebooks and supplies and pencils and crayons and everything, put them in a box. He gathered them together to make part of his trip to take them back to the poorest schools who, even though they have schools, do not have the supplies they need. This is Operation Give, and this is the quality of people that we have working and leading and fighting and leading in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is against the rules if I mention that people can find out about Operation Give if they look up operationgive.org or www.chiefwiggles.com, because I certainly would not want to break the rules in letting people know about operationgive.org or chiefwiggles.com, so I hope if I say that, it is in the rules. But I also recognize that we have within Iraq a situation that is going to be fraught with challenges, but we can meet those challenges because of the quality of people that we have and the history of success we have if we only keep our charity and our patience in the face of adversity. As Patrick Henry once said, ``I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that lamp is experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.'' We have a great past to guide us. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of being here and sharing this time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the State of Utah has the honor of having a higher percentage of our members in the Reserve and the National Guard involved in the Mid East conflict than any other State in the Nation, and we bear that statistic with a great deal of pride. I have attempted to make sure I was there to visit with every group of returning Reservists and Guardsmen from the State of Utah. And almost inevitably, as those individuals were coming back and we had a chance to talk briefly with their families, the message they were telling us is that what they are seeing or their families are seeing about the situation in the Mid East is not the same thing that they experienced as soldiers serving there. One of the great Utahans, Bob Gross, who has just returned from a year as a special senior adviser to the Iraqi ministry of labor and social services, had the same message to say, that what he experienced in his time there in Baghdad was not the same thing as the message that has been given. The question has to be why is this message seeming to be so garbled. Those experiencing the situation in Iraq and those talking to us who have lived there have a different message than what we may be having over the media. In my respected opinion, part of that problem rests in our understanding of the purpose that we have there in the media. If the Members would go back with me, when I was a legislator in the State of Utah, one year we came to the State with a total new restructuring of the State retirement system. I was very excited about this system going in there, because we had come up with a program that would actually enhance the benefits of the individuals on the retirement system and cut the costs to the State at the same time, and I thought we have reached political nirvana. We will be hailed as the conquering heroes. This is going to be the greatest PR coup that could ever happen, because we have done the impossible. As we started the discussion of that restructuring, I realized it was not being covered by any of the media. Finally, with some courage, I went to one of the senior reporters who covers the legislature and I said why are you not covering anything about our total restructuring of the State retirement system? He said, ``Rod, you know, you are right. It is probably one of the four major issues before this legislature. But let's face facts, it is retirement issues. They are boring. No one wants to read or talk about retirement.'' I recognized then and there, he was right. Those issues were boring. They were dull. I also recognized that the purpose of the media is not merely to explain events, it is not to tell the truth solely, it is also to sell papers and to attract viewers. And to do so, the emphasis must be on that which is unusual, on that which is a conflict. No one is ever going to report that 100 people safely crossed the street yesterday. They will report the one person who got hit. That is the reality of the situation. If we expect all the issues, the truth to come out from the media sources by themselves, in all respects we are asking them to do something with which they are not capable, because not necessarily of intent, but because of the situation in which they have to be in a competitive world market to sell papers and attract viewers at the same time. We always talk about Jefferson who said, ``Were it left to me to decide whether we should have government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' That statement was made before he was ever president, before he spent 12 years actually in Washington, eight as president. After his experience as president, Jefferson said, ``The outright suppression of the press would be no more injurious to the public good than the newspaper's abandoned prostitution to falsehood.'' Later also he later said, ``The man who never looks into the newspaper is better informed than he who reads them.'' Now, I not going to go that far, but I am going to tell you that what I think would be wise to do is look at history as one of the guiding factors in how we view the future and where we are going. We all know that after World War II, there were American deaths in the effort to stabilize Germany, post-World War II, after the fighting supposedly had ended. To me the most analogous historical situation is still the Spanish- American War. Then activist Teddy Roosevelt said it was not much of a war, but it was the only one we had. Senator Chandler on the Senate floor said any war with Spain will last between 2 weeks and 90 days, and he was totally accurate, the war lasted 90 days. As America became giddy with success in the Spanish-American War, with very little bloodshed, we realize then we had the responsibilities of stabilizing the new territory of the Philippines. That stabilization took 6 years. That is where the bitterness was, that is where the deaths took place, that is where the cost was, in an effort for that stabilization, and it did not take place until the capture of the Filipino rebel leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, at which time the now President Teddy Roosevelt declared the stabilization effort successful and the war in the Philippines was over. In fact, the fighting of the insurrection still lasted two more years. But with the capture, then the corner had been turned. We have done the same thing in Iraq. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, the court hearing of Saddam Hussein, the turning of government control over to the Iraqis themselves, this stabilization effort in Iraq is going forward, and it will be successful. There are some who say there is no chance whatsoever of actually turning Iraq into a democracy. They said that same thing after World War II about Japan, another area that had no democratic tradition, that had fought a bitter war. But we were successful in our efforts of reforming that area, changing the system and moving forward. May I quote with just some words from Mr. Gross, who once again, whose returned and his experience first-hand in Iraq, by saying some people would say, ``Rather than fight in Iraq, we should fight terrorism. Well, terrorism has moved to Iraq. It is the center of that war on terrorism. Iraq is the pivotal point. Terrorists had either tacit or direct support from Saddam, and the U.S. and coalition forces have created a tremendous problem for the terrorists. And now the Jordanians and the Syrians and the Saudis will have to rethink their relationship with terrorists. Iraq is the linchpin.'' We are moving forward in Iraq. It is important as a key element in this fight against the war on terror. It is possible to create a democracy in Iraq, which will have immense effects on assisting the United States in our relationship in the entire Middle East, and it is one of those things that we are going to have to fight and work through looking at history, not necessarily referring only to the mass media, which has different kinds of agendas of their own.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, as the final day of competition for the National Forensic League National Debate Tournament concludes, I would like to recognize the students, coaches, and judges who have participated in this year's event. The Beehive Nationals Tournament is the culmination of a year-long effort in preparation, practice, and persistence. Every competitor at the event has already proven his or her superior debate and speech skills by their excellent performances at State and regional qualifying tournaments. Furthermore, while other high school students got an early start on summer jobs, vacationed, or celebrated the break from school, NFL students put in 12-hour days to compete in Student Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, International Public Forum Debates and other individual speech and drama competitions. The National Forensic League was founded in 1925. The first national high school speech tournament was held in 1930; 49 schools from 17 States participated. The majority of the rules that governed the tournament in 1930 are still in effect today, providing one of the longest running national competitions for high school students. Approximately one million high school students have been members of the NFL since 1925, and over 30,000 high school students participate in NFL-certified events every year. As a former high school debate coach, I had the wonderful opportunity to participate in the National Forensic League with my students at several national debate tournaments. Also, I know what a massive undertaking it is to plan and carry out a national debate tournament. In 1981, I was on the host committee under D.L. Smith of East High School, which organized that year's National Tournament in Salt Lake City. I applaud this year's host committee for the time and effort they have given to make this event a success. I also congratulate the efforts of the National Forensics League for providing students with the opportunity to expand their vision of the world through the development of public communication skills. I would also like to congratulate the teachers who often work after-hours, weekends, holidays, and summertime to coach their students. Finally, I would like to thank the students and their parents who have dedicated themselves to the acquisition of such important, beneficial and life-long skills. I encourage students to continue their search to become effective communicators. Good communication is the essence of leadership.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I know some of my colleagues are tired of me making reference to the fact that 2 years ago I was simply a high school teacher, but I am still amazed sometimes when I think back that indeed I was talking to a bunch of high school kids at that time, giving them brilliant lectures in history and government, and I know they were brilliant lectures because I was listening to them. Sometimes I feel I was perhaps the only one in the room actually listening to them. None of you actually had the chance to hear them, so it bespeaks the question on can you actually give a brilliant lecture if no one is hearing it. All of you are politicians, and I realize your greatest orations are given in the shower or the bathroom as you are preparing for the day. And it bespeaks the question, Can you actually give a brilliant speech if no one is there to hear it? National parks, like wilderness designation, is not a land management formula; it is a recreation designation. Brilliance of nature. Can it actually be there if no one has the opportunity of actually seeing it? That is the purpose of a national park, to see the natural beauty that is there; and to do so there are trade-offs that we make. In the summer, we are willing to make those trade-offs, because they are so traditional. We become used to them. We allow 3,000 belching automobiles to go through Yellowstone every summer day. We allow 956,000 tourists to go through there in the month of July alone. We put up public toilets and garbage collection areas not because they enhance nature, but because they make it possible for people to go through and experience what a park is supposed to be about. We allow the noise of human activities at national parks, because that is the purpose of a park, to experience and see it. We need to allow all our parks to fulfill the measure of their creation. Winter beauty in Yellowstone is evident. It is not going to come out and be seen in the coaches, which are terribly ineffective and inefficient. It is a wonderful experience, I suppose, if you can yell over the noise and actually see through the fogged-up windows, but it is unacceptable, and so we find ourselves in the situation right now where one judge in Washington said there should be no snowmobiles, one in Wyoming said they all should be there, and what we need is what John Adams used to call the delightful of all legislative delicacies, a compromise. Earlier this year there was a compromise. In August the concept of a compromise to come up with a policy of allowing snowmobiles acceptable in that kind of designation will go forward if this amendment is defeated. If this amendment is passed, it brings to a screeching halt any efforts to come up with a long-term compromise solution so that everyone can feel comfortable with that national park that belongs to everyone. This amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) would halt that progress but also hurt people who actually want to experience these parks, and I am going to contend that it hurts the park itself. If Yellowstone Park actually had an assault, this would be an assault on that park as if one were assaulting somebody on the street, because its destiny, its premise and its purpose would be totally destroyed. Parks are there for people to enjoy and understand. This amendment halts that. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said maybe this park should eliminate this type of activity by definition, and the answer is no, it should not, because by definition if you eliminate this activity, you eliminate the ability of people to experience the purpose of that particular park, and that is why that process should be there. Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity of reading an article in the New York Times from back in February by someone who was not a fan of the current administration's environmental policies but was sensitive to the importance of having a sensible compromise in this particular issue. His article talks about, once again, if one is a true environmentalist, the goal should be to have everyone enjoying the opportunity of Yellowstone in winter; the environmentalist movement should try to get more people out into the wild, not restrict them, and that is why as a backpacker, as an outdoor enthusiast, as a cross- country skier, he wanted the Bush administration's compromise to be upheld. If we pass this amendment, there will be no chance of ever moving forward to reaching that or any other variation of that. Vrooming Into Yellowstone (By Nicholas D. Kristof) President Bush's policy toward the environment has been to drill, mine and pave it, so it's understandable that environmentalists shriek when he pulls out a whetstone and announces grand plans for Yellowstone National Park. Yet in the battle over snowmobiling in Yellowstone, it's Mr. Bush who is right. And, to me at least, the dispute raises a larger philosophical question: should we be trying to save nature for its own sake or for human enjoyment? Forgive my anthropocentrism, but I think humans trump the bison and moose. Yellowstone National Park, a wonderland at any time of year, is particularly dazzling in winter, when the geysers shoot out of snowfields and the elk wear mantles of frost. I took one of my sons to visit last year and I learned two things that I don't believe most environmentalists realize. First, in winter Yellowstone is virtually inaccessible except by snowmobile. Cars are banned (except for one small part of the park), and Yellowstone is so big that snowshoeing and cross-country skiing offer access only to the hardiest backpackers, who can camp in snow and brutal cold for days at a time. Second, a new generation of snowmobiles is available with four-stroke engines, not two-stroke. These machines cut hydrocarbon emissions by 90 percent--and noise by 50 percent. That's why the Bush administration has been pushing for a sensible compromise: snowmobiles would be allowed--but mostly the new four-stroke machines--only on roads and primarily on guided tours. Only 950 would be permitted per day. (In contrast, a busy summer day draws about 3,000 cars.) Now two Federal judges are hurling thunderbolts at each other over this issue. A judge in Washington imposed tougher rules that would have ultimately banned snowmobiles from the park. Then a judge from Wyoming ordered that more snowmobiles be admitted. No one knows what's going to happen. Environmentalists point out that one can also visit Yellowstone in snow coaches, which are a bit like buses on treads. But the existing snow coaches may be worse than the snowmobiles in terms of noise and pollution, and they are a dismal experience--you encounter nature only through fogged- up windows. The central problem with the environmentalists' position is that banning snowmobiles would deny almost everyone the opportunity to enjoy Yellowstone in winter--and that can't be green. As an avid backpacker who loves the outdoors, I think the environmental movement should be trying to get more people out into the wild. That's why I'd like to see the Bush administration's compromise upheld, so Americans can continue to enjoy Yellowstone in winter. Cross-country skiers and snowshoers would, of course, still have all of backcountry Yellowstone for themselves, with no machines for many miles around. Granted, snowmobiles are an intrusion. But so are cars. In the summer, we accept a trade-off: we admitted about 965,000 people last July to Yellowstone, with all the noise, garbage, public toilets and disruption that entailed, knowing that the park would be less pristine but that more people would get a chance enjoy it. That seems a fair trade. The philosophical question is the purpose of conservation: Do we preserve nature for its sake, or ours? My bias is to put our interests on top. Thus I'm willing to encroach on wilderness to give Americans more of a chance to get into the wild. That's why we build trails, for example-- or why we build roads into Yellowstone. All in all, I'd love to see more effort by environmentalists to get Americans into the wilderness. It would be nice to see a major push to complete the Continental Divide Trail in the Rockies, which runs from Canada to Mexico on maps--but which has never been fully built. Likewise, there is talk about building a hiking trail across America from west to east--it could be called the Colin Fletcher trail, after the man who helped popularize backpacking in America. Putting human interests first doesn't mean that we should despoil Yellowstone, or that we should drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, or that we should allow global warming. We have a strong human interest in preserving our planet. But we should also allow ourselves to enjoy this natural world around us--including the grandeur of Yellowstone in winter--instead of protecting nature so thoroughly that it can be seen only on television specials.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.