Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, a newspaper article put this in perspective for me. The writer pointed out when the President went before the American public a week ago to say that he would be asking for $87 billion this year to pay for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, and that would require some sacrifice, the writer pointed out that those who are being asked to make the sacrifice did not hear the President because they had already been put to bed by their parents. It is those children who will bear that burden, who will be asked to make that sacrifice and not just for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan; it is for this multi- trillion tax cut to one segment of our society.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the deficit ties our hands not in some theoretical way. This is very real money borrowed, mostly borrowed from other countries, from other governments and individuals overseas. I was talking with someone from my district who was proudly telling me about how much money he is saving for his children's college education. But what he was not thinking about was how quickly his share of the national debt was growing. In fact, it turns out it is growing faster than what he is saving for his children's college education. So in a very real sense, these self-inflicted wounds, as you described the budget policies of the past 3 years, are taking this family's college savings away from them.

Mr. HOLT. I seem to recall standing here on the floor with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) 3 years ago saying that the majority should not be so quick to spend this surplus. They began salivating at the sight of this projected surplus. I recall my friends here saying number one, it is projected; number two, things happen. We should not spend it all down. We should not give it all back in tax cuts; there might be some unforeseen events. Well, indeed there were. It happened on September 11; it happened with a stock market bubble popping. We were caught unprepared because the budget allowed absolutely no leeway. It was built on the most optimistic of circumstances and predictions, as well as, I would say, the greediest of ingredients.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and failed to vote on rollcall No. 495 (the Sanders amendment to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act). Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kanjorski

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that would help ensure adequate winter access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Yellowstone, America's premier park, is being loved to death, and there are many Members here who are concerned about the effect of vehicular pollution, traffic, on Yellowstone Park. In fact, precisely half of the Members here recently voted to ban snow machines. This amendment, that I have before the body at the moment, would do nothing with the number or type of snowmobiles allowed in the park. It is not unrelated. As I point out, half of the House voted to ban snowmobiles, and all of those Members should support this amendment. Some, who voted otherwise because there was insufficient alternative transportation available, should also support this. Since that discussion a few weeks ago, there is new information. The Environmental Protection Agency, having done tests shows that the new generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone Park after being promoted as cleaner and quieter, in fact, emit more pollution. Said a spokesman for Yellowstone Park, ``We started all this in good faith. We based our decision on the fact that the machines would continue to be cleaner and quieter and the industry would work toward that end.'' In fact, none of the new machines tested by the EPA meet the park's standards. They are dirtier than before. What I am trying to do is to see that we have adequate access to Yellowstone Park whether my colleagues support snowmobiles or not. There exists now some multipassenger vehicles for access in the snow, over the snow, into the park. They range from the old-fashioned, and I would say classy, red Bombardier vehicles to the newer models adapted from Ford Econoline vans. Just this year, the new prototype of snow coaches has been unveiled. These new vehicles are environmentally friendly and can run on diesel, gas, compressed natural gas or ethanol. And they include big windows and a fabric top that folds back so passengers can get a good look around. What is more, the vehicles can be lowered to accommodate disabled individuals. This means that people who could not enjoy Yellowstone Park's winter beauty before can now fully experience these national treasures. The Federal Transit Administration, in a private-public partnership along with the Heart Corporation of Michigan, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Park Service have designed and developed this new prototype. My amendment is intended to provide $2 million for the Park Service to use 12 new coaches of this type. As I said, this amendment, I believe, should be acceptable to everyone. Anyone here in this body who voted to ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone should support this. Anyone here who voted against the ban on snowmobiles should also support this because it provides alternative means of travel. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee consider approving this transfer of funds within the Federal Transit Administration for this important purpose in our major, premier national park.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLT. It is precisely because those single-passenger and dual- passenger vehicles to which the chairman refers do not meet the environmental guidelines of the National Park Service that the Transit Administration and others have developed these multipassenger vehicles which do emit less pollution per passenger, per recreation enthusiast. So, in fact, they would be a substitute. With regard to the point that this would be used in Yellowstone Park, yes, indeed they would. In fact, all mass transit is used somewhere, where people are, where people want to travel, and that is an appropriate use of, I think, the Transit funds. But with the chairman's assurance that we can continue this discussion, I would be pleased to withdraw my amendment at this time.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I was detained on rollcall vote number 452, the Stearns amendment. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no.'' At a time when AmeriCorp is already underfunded by $100 million, this is no time to cut it further. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as our nation honors and supports the ongoing efforts of our troops in Iraq and prays for the safety of all of our uniformed men and women still in the Gulf and Afghanistan, now is also an opportune time for Congress to do more to help our nation's new and old veterans in need. To this end, I am introducing legislation to urge the establishment of a ``National Hire a Veteran Week'' and to urge a presidential proclamation calling upon employers, labor organizations, veterans service organizations, and federal, state, and local governmental agencies to employ more veterans. In spite of the best efforts of the U.S. Departments of Defense, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, imposing barriers continue to impede many deserving veterans from securing employment and achieving self- sufficiency. Unfortunately, many veterans struggle to find jobs, even with opportunities for increased training and education offered through government programs. Little more than half of our nation's veterans are employed today. Most startlingly, according to the 2000 Census, nearly 20 percent of Gulf War veterans are unemployed. Moreover, it is troubling and shameful that so many of our veterans who risked their own lives to defend our freedom can't find jobs and must endure homelessness and lives of poverty after they return home. Indeed, American veterans comprise one-third of the homeless male population in America, while an estimated 250,000 veterans live on our city streets. In fact, the number of homeless Vietnam War veterans today exceeds the number of service persons who died during that war. Mr. Speaker, even as we tend to the well-being of our men and women currently on active duty, we cannot forget those who have already served their country and deserve more assistance in moving to the next phase of their civilian lives. A presidential proclamation of ``National Hire a Veteran Week'' would provide an effective and more focused way to do more to help all of our veterans find good jobs and ensure better living standards for themselves and their families. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation and will take one more step to help repay the debt we owe to all of our nation's defenders. I also hope it can be promptly enacted and signed into law in the next few weeks.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the courage, career and commitment of Douglass College's first black student, Julia Baxter Bates. Ms. Bates died earlier this month at the age of 86 after a distinguished life. Julia Baxter Bates became the first black student admitted to what is now Rutgers University's Douglass College due to her courage, her resolve, and thank goodness, due to a fortunate error. In 1934, Ms. Baxter Bates sent her application, along with the required photograph, to the Admissions Office of Douglass College. In reviewing her application, an admissions officer mistook Bates, a light-skinned black woman, for a white woman, and invited her to interview. At that interview, administrators suggested she attend a school where she would be ``more comfortable.'' At this moment, Ms. Baxter had a choice. She chose the more difficult path. With determination and courage and the assistance of her father, she convinced administrators to let her stay. Displaying resolve and purpose, Ms. Bates succeeded in the face of intolerance. In 1938, she graduated magna cum laude. When she could not get her teaching license because no school district would let her student-teach, she earned a master's degree at Columbia University and began teaching English and American literature at Dillard University in New Orleans. In response to her continued encounters with racism, Ms. Baxter Bates left the field of education and entered the world of legal justice and social activism. She joined the staff of the New York headquarters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. There she spent a quarter-century helping form the research sector that later wrote the winning brief in the now-famous Brown v. Board of Education. She considered her involvement in Brown v. Board of Education her greatest achievement. Bates returned to education in 1965 at Columbia's School of Social Work to work on urban education, and a few years later she finally became a New Jersey schoolteacher, in Newark. In 1984, she joined Essex County College as an administrator. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Julia Baxter Bates for her long career of social change and her commitment to education. From the courage and perseverance of individuals such as Julia, the institutions and the attitudes of our society progress. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing one of New Jersey's most significant daughters.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a glaring omission from this emergency supplemental--funding for AmeriCorps. We must include $100 million in funding for AmeriCorps. Without this funding AmeriCorps will suffer a nearly 60 percent cut and 20,000 service members will be eliminated. Cutting AmeriCorps at a time when Americans are facing a stagnant economy, the worst unemployment in more than a decade, and deep cuts in State and Federal social programs is not just inconsiderate and wrong, it is unwise. That's why I have signed a letter along with many of my colleagues in Congress calling on the President and the Congressional Leadership to push for emergency funding for AmeriCorps. Young people who are qualified and willing to serve our communities should not be turned away. We should not be trampling on the spirit of service that AmeriCorps has inspired in so many of our young people to give back to our communities. Since 1994, more than 250,000 men and women have served in AmeriCorps, providing needed assistance to millions of Americans. President Bush has called for expanding AmeriCorps from 50,000 to 75,000 volunteers. Volunteerism was a major theme of his State of the Union address and as recently as April 9, while speaking at a Connecticut community center where AmeriCorps volunteers mentor students, President Bush said, ``We need to encourage programs to expand, to give people an outlet, a chance to participate.'' Words are cheap--the efforts of these volunteers are dear. Without additional funding the service programs, as well as the volunteers and communities that rely on their help, will be devastated. The infrastructure of many small programs, which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut for even one year, will be destroyed. The people of central New Jersey will lose if this funding is not restored. In Trenton, New Jersey, the Crisis Ministry, the Trenton Soup Kitchen, and the ARC (which helps kids and adults with mental disabilities) could all face cutbacks in AmeriCorps volunteers. These programs provide services that are vital to my district all the time, but especially in tough economic times. AmeriCorps is an outstanding program with a proven track record of meeting the critical needs of New Jersey's communities. We cannot allow it to be downsized. I ask my colleagues to include funding for AmeriCorps in the conference committee.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. ``To bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for those who have borne the battle.'' Those are the words of our greatest Republican President. It was the beginning of a national promise, a promise, an obligation, a sacred obligation to look after those who bore the battle. The result is today we have in the VA excellent doctors and nurses, excellent facilities as far as they go, but it is not far enough. Patients have unacceptable waits. And when it comes to medical care, to delay is to deny. Those who served in uniform did not wait to serve. This bill effectively cuts veterans health care. Do not just take my word for it. The DAV, the VFW, Paralyzed Vets say this cuts health care. The rule denies waivers to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to try to address this. That is reason enough to justify defeating this rule. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have done their best; but we must not forget, these cuts were not an accident. They did not happen in the Committee on Appropriations just yesterday. They are the deliberate result of a partisan budget that was rammed through Congress a few months ago. It was passed with some empty promises to some of our colleagues that veterans would be taken care of later. But this budget, despite the words of the chairman, who a moment ago said, ``We would like to do more,'' this budget that was rammed through Congress months ago cut veterans benefits. Here is what they said: You know, we found several trillion dollars of money that we don't need. It's your money, Americans. We'll give it back to you. You know how to spend it better than we do. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether these young and old millionaires who get 80, $90,000 will spend it better than the government to take care of those veterans, to see that they do not have to wait at their local clinic at Fort Monmouth; or Brick, New Jersey; or Lyons Hospital in New Jersey. Do they know how to spend it better? Defeat this rule. We owe it to those who served in the Second World War, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Gulf War and in a number of other actions; and we owe it to the new veterans who are coming home every day. Defeat this rule.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that for the second time during this Congress, the House has considered legislation offering a false promise to help for seniors struggling to pay for prescription medications. Last month, the House passed a bill that purported to offer Medicare prescription drug coverage. I have long supported providing seniors with a reliable, comprehensive, and affordable drug benefit under Medicare. I could not in good conscience vote for the bill passed by the House, however, because it would provide only a meager benefit while quite possibly leading to the death of the traditional Medicare program that has served seniors in my district so well. Congress has an obligation to help Americans who cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Seniors need and deserve a voluntary, universal, prescription drug benefit under Medicare that can help lower prices using the collective buying power of the Medicare population. But making it easier to bring counterfeit, substandard medicines into the United States is not the way to help seniors get the drugs they need. H.R. 2427 poses a very serious danger--exposing American consumers to unsafe counterfeit drugs. The evidence of this is well documented. The Food and Drug Administration, which has for nearly a century been responsible for certifying the safety and efficacy of medications sold in the United States, opposes reimportation. According to FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, ``At a time when FDA faces more challenges than ever in keeping America's supply of prescription drugs safe and secure, H.R. 2427 would create new drug safety problems. H.R. 2427 creates a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to public health and pose a threat to the security of our Nation's drug supply. The bill would do so by taking unprecedented steps that limit FDA's authority to assure the safety of prescription drug products to be used by U.S. consumers. These sentiments are shared by eight former FDA Commissioners as well as current and former HHS Secretaries Tommy Thompson and Donna Shalala, who both refused to certify the safety of reimportation. The Nation's largest association of physicians, the AMA, also opposes this dangerous policy. The dangers of reimportation were brought to life recently, when 19 people in Florida were arrested in charges of selling ``adultered'' drugs, including fake Lipitor pills imported illegally from England. We were lucky in this case. Sometimes the dangers of counterfeit imported pills don't become apparent until it's too late. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote to jeopardize the safety of our supply of medications. The United States is the envy of the world because its medicines are the safest. Opening our borders to the peril of counterfeit drugs is simply a foolish way to increase accessibility. We need a Medicare prescription drug benefit--not a flood of dangerous counterfeits. Do we really want to open our borders to let in drugs from other countries when the worldwide rate of counterfeit drugs is 8 percent. I urge my colleagues to protect the safety of U.S. consumers and vote no on H.R. 2427.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, for almost 40 years Head Start has assisted low-income, preschool children and their families, establishing a comprehensive, early learning environment addressing a variety of social and medical needs. Certainly in my district, as in districts all over the country, Head Start has been a tremendous success: IQ gains, reading and writing and math skills improved, high school graduation, significantly greater; the need for special education, reduced; crime, reduced. So if it is so good, why overhaul it? If one wants to improve it, we can do that. But one should review it in a bipartisan way. This is not bipartisan. There is nothing bipartisan here. And this is not a debate. No Member will be persuaded, no vote will be changed. The Republicans are foisting a block grant program on the country on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. And you know what a block grant program is. It is a pot of money that goes to the State with the message ``This is for early education. You know what to do with it.'' Well, some States know what to do with it, and some States do not. The block grant approach is flawed and it is illogical. It guts quality comprehensive services, primary health care, dental care, mental health services. The block grant approach weakens performance standards, it sets no minimum thresholds for school readiness standards, teacher-student ratios, classroom size or curriculum content. It weakens oversight and evaluation. Rather than pursuing a bill that will lead to a partisan vote on Head Start legislation, we should reconsider the block grant approach for the sake of America's children.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this appropriations bill and also to highlight the need for increased funding for basic science programs at the Department of Energy. First, I would like to commend the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for substantial efforts to add funds in nearly every category of basic energy research to the administration's budget requests. In particular, I commend the committee for committing $268.1 million to fusion energy research; $10.8 million above the administration's budget request and an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 2003 appropriated levels--$246.9 million. The $10.8 million increase this committee worked hard to secure is essential for allowing the United States to fulfill the President's directive of reengaging in the international burning plasma experiment (ITER) and to maintain a strong domestic fusion energy program. The fusion energy program has made impressive--although generally unrecognized--progress in the past years despite being severely under funded. For example, the energy produced in fusion plasmas in large experiments around the world has outpaced the rate of advance in computer speed during the last 30 years. The people of New Jersey are proud of our leadership role in this important field of science through one of our Nation's premier research institutions, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). However, substantial hurdles still must be addressed before fusion energy will become a viable commercial energy source, and solving these problems will take significant Federal support. It will be worth the effort and expense. Knowing a great deal about the subject, I am optimistic that the hurdles will be overcome and practical fusion energy will become a reality. Before coming to Congress, I was the associate director of the PPPL. It is worth noting that during my tenure at the lab, the fusion energy budget reached a high of $352 million. The committee should be commended for taking a small step in reestablishing such funding levels. Despite these important incremental increases, I must emphasize that our country's current investment in fusion energy science, and in basic energy research in general, is not nearly sufficient to realize the goal of a zero emissions energy economy, as outlined by Energy Secretary Abraham in introducing DOE's budget request. Achieving energy independence and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector will take a sustained investment in basic sciences that could lead to clean alternative energy sources. Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for making the best of an inadequate budget request, and I urge this committee to continue this trend toward increased support for our basic energy research programs in years to come. I also want to commend Mr. Hobson and the committee for reducing funding for study of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons on the battlefield would be a nightmare, and reasonable battlefield commanders say they would never want them. Nuclear ``bunker buster'' bombs are flawed in concept and we should not be spending money to pursue them.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the co-sponsor of this amendment. (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair the time remaining.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I restore this picture of the park ranger with the respirator to make the point that this is not a stunt. The Park Service actually issues respirators to its rangers. It is that bad, and they use them. Now to refer to a couple of points that were made with regard to the economic impact. That was part of these studies, and the Park Service included in the study the economic impact of this phaseout. Now it is worth noting that a few years ago, in 1995-1996, when west entrance visitations decreased by 13 percent over the previous year, resort tax collection increased by almost 10 percent. The point is that preservation of the environment is in the interest of the economy. The National Park Service has determined through extensive studies that phasing out snowmobiles and converting to snowcoaches would have a less than 1 percent effect on the five county economy, and many business owners are saying the protection of the Yellowstone is vital to their economic future. Mr. Chairman, this has been studied over and over again. Every point that the opponents have raised here has been addressed multiple times. It is worth pointing out what the locals, the local people are saying. Let me refer to a couple of newspapers from Montana. The Great Falls Tribune says, ``Sometimes politics replaces common sense, and it is happening now at Yellowstone Park. It is literally a dirty, stinking shame.'' The Helena Independent Record says, ``There remains something inherently out of kilter about letting snowmobiles roar through the pristine winter silence. It is not as if the West lacks places outside of Yellowstone.'' The Casper, Wyoming, Star Tribune says, ``Given the scientific evidence and the data of the degrading effects of snowmobiles, allowing their use in the parks violates the mission given to the National Park Service by Congress to manage the parks in such a manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations.'' That is what our amendment seeks to do, Mr. Chairman. May 20, 2003. Hon. Gale Norton, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Norton: It has been our privilege collectively to serve nine presidents as stewards of America's national parks. For each of us, this experience underscored the pride and joy that Americans feel for their common heritage and their desire to have national parks vigorously preserved for their grandchildren. In this spirit, we write to you about a final decision that is before you regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park. There can be no doubt that this decision is a defining moment for America's national parks. The choice over snowmobile use in Yellowstone is a choice between upholding the founding principle of our national parks--stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future generations--or catering to a special interest in a manner that would damage Yellowstone's resources and threaten public health. The latter choice would set an entirely new course for America's national parks. It is our deep hope as this issue now moves to your final review that you will ensure the highest protection for Yellowstone. To do otherwise would be a radical departure from the Interior Department's stewardship mission. Yellowstone is an irreplaceable national treasure, a symbol of our country, and a gathering place where Americans feel justifiably proud that our country led the world by establishing its first national park. A decision made on behalf of the snowmobile industry and not for Yellowstone's environment and the general public would be wrong. On many occasions, President Bush has made laudable pledges that members of his administration will always be fully accountable to the public. In keeping with this, we are mindful of your assertions regarding snowmobile use in Yellowstone; they are as important today as they were when you made them. Two years ago, the Interior Department directed that a supplemental environmental study be undertaken so that additional information and wider public involvement could be brought to bear in making the best possible decision about Yellowstone's future. The Department asserted that this information would be essential to a sound decision. On the basis of the new data, the National Park Service verified that phasing out snowmobile use would provide the best protection of Yellowstone's environment and the health of employees and visitors. The study concluded that ending snowmobile use while providing visitors access on snowcoaches: ``. . . best preserves the unique historic, cultural, and natural resources associated with Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks . . .'' and would ``. . . attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk of health and safety.''--Final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, February 2003. We hope that you will now embrace the central conclusion of a study that your Department asserted to the American people would shape a better decision. To ignore its conclusion would clearly be to accept avoidable risks to health and safety, a narrower range of beneficial uses, and weaker preservation of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Your Department also called for wider public involvement and the call was unquestionably answered. More Americans submitted comments to the National Park Service than the agency has received on any singe issue in its 87-year history. While the volume of comment was unprecedented, its reflection of public opinion was consistent with previous comment periods over the past several years. By a 4-to-1 margin, Americans urged you to give Yellowstone the best possible protection and said they believe--as the National Park Service has confirmed--that this means replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. We hope that after calling for public comment, you will heed, not ignore, what the public has told you. Clearly we are in economic and budgetary times that require us to be scrupulous with every tax dollar. This is another reason why we urge you to adopt a phaseout of snowmobile use. Your study demonstrated that continuing snowmobile use in Yellowstone would result not only in higher levels of air and noise pollution, harm to wildlife, and risks for employee and visitor health; it would also cost taxpayers $1.3 million more each year than replacing snowmobiles with snowcoaches. Surely you will not ask the American taxpayer to pay more for less protection, an annual transfer payment to the snowmobile industry subsidizing ongoing damage to Yellowstone. We would be remiss if we did not emphasize one final point. Yellowstone's wintertime struggles with pollution, noise, and traffic congestion fit into a larger context. Throughout the National Park System, we have been striving for years to develop more efficient transportation systems so that the visitor's national park experience can be defined by each park's special attributes and not by negative aspects of traffic that most visitors hope to leave at home. Zion National Park is an excellent example of the success and popularity of this strategy. Where automobile traffic had clogged Zion's once quiet canyons and the visitor's experience was being defined by noise, exhaust, and frustrations finding parking, the Park Service substituted shuttle bus access. This change boosted gateway business, earned accolades from visitors who today are enjoying a better park experience, and reduced impacts to Zion's resources. In Yellowstone, the supplemental study that you requested has demonstrated that replacing snowmobiles with an efficient system of snowcoaches would bring similar benefits. In fact, with wildlife under stress from Yellowstone's deep snows and frigid temperatures, and employees and visitors breathing snowmobile fumes often trapped by the park's inversions, the benefits of reducing traffic and emissions would be even greater than they have been in Zion. In summary, we join as former public stewards of America's national parks in urging you to place Yellowstone National Park back on a path that gives the highest priority to protecting its natural qualities for today's visitors and future generations. To do otherwise would ignore sound science, the public will, and responsibility to taxpayers. And worst of all, it would erode a precious gift that this country gave itself and the world, a gift that will only become more valuable to our nation as our population grows. Sincerely, George B. Hartzog, Jr., National Park Service Director (1964-1972); National P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior (1971-1976); Russell E. Dickenson, National Park Service Director (1980-1985); Denis P. Galvin, National Park Service Deputy Director (1985- 1989 and 1998-2002); Roger G. Kennedy, National Park Service Director (1993-1997); Robert Stanton, National Park Service Director (1997-2001); Michael V. Finley, Yellowstone National Park Superintendent (1994-2001); Robert D. Barbee, Yellowstone National Park Superintendent (1983-1994).

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, Yellowstone Park, our first national park, our premier national park, a symbol of America, is being loved to death. My colleagues and I today are offering this amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks, some of our Nation's most valuable treasures. The Park Service which is charged with protecting the natural resources of the parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations has studied the state of these parks. In Yellowstone Park, they have determined that the use of snowmobiles is the principal insult to the park, an insult that can be corrected. What they say is that phasing out of snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton is the best way to protect the parks, better than other alternatives, better than requiring new snowmobiles, better than requiring guided snowmobile tours, better than a cap on the number of machines entering the park daily. Snowmobiles produce significantly more noise and pollution than cars, presenting a health hazard to park rangers, to visitors and obscuring the visibility even around Old Faithful. Having been there myself in winter, I can tell you that snowmobile noise is clearly audible through much of the park most of the time, disturbing wildlife and disrupting visitors' experiences. The Park Service in November 2000 issued an environmental impact statement that was the culmination of nearly 10 years of study. The statement said: ``Based on reduced impacts to human health and safety, to air quality, visitor access, the natural soundscape and to wildlife, the National Park Service has identified the snowmobile phaseout as the environmentally preferred alternative.'' The Bush administration did not like this conclusion. So they told the Park Service to study it again and issue another report, which they did, publishing a new environmental impact statement in February of this year. This time they considered the impacts of the administration's proposal to look at new machines, the four-cycle machines, and to cap the number of snowmobiles entering Yellowstone and Grand Teton. They came to the previous conclusion. The statement now reads: ``The snowmobile phaseout best attains the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk of health or safety.'' Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency weighed in as well. Not only did they uphold the Park Service's conclusion that a phaseout would be best for the parks and for the visitors, they actually found that the Park Service had underestimated the impact of snowmobile emissions under the administration's proposal. For no good reason, Mr. Chairman, the Interior Department wants to roll back a regulation based on 10 years of careful study. They are the ones trying to undo the existing snowmobile phaseout. We are here to uphold what the Park Service has determined to be best for the parks. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has studied this and experienced it firsthand.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)