Floor Statements

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the date October 21, 1976, is the date that may go down in history, maybe in infamy, because it was the date in which the Federal Government changed its attitudes toward public lands. The State of Utah enabling act said that lands would be given to the Federal Government until such time as they shall dispose of that land. In fact, the BLM was established 70 years ago to facilitate that.

But in 1976, we changed our attitude towards Federal land, and it is not insignificant that that was the same year we established PILT, the payment in lieu of taxes program. It was in some ways to prohibit the double whammy that goes on in many Western counties, specifically rural counties who no longer can develop their land for a tax base but still must provide the benefits that urban counties and eastern counties still provide.

Since our attitude is to keep the land, to mandate the use of the land, mandate the services that have to be required, it is in essence nothing more than the government's saying we have rent that is due to this land that needs to go to those particular counties, and if we as a Federal Government do not pay that rent who are being hurt by it?

In Kane County in my State only 4 percent of the land is private, and yet that county wanted to continue on with the hospital so the people in Kanab did not have to drive 70 miles to the nearest hospital so they created a special service district. The PILT funds help run that hospital for Kane County.

Daggett County has only 2 percent of its land that is not Federally owned, and the 730 people of Daggett County in my State have to provide for 2.5 million people who come from my colleagues' States and their districts in there, that have to provide services and access for that, and because the population is so low, the funding source that we have within this bill even does not allow them to get the full force of the PILT money that we are actually allowing to them.

Emery County in my State has only 7 percent of its land privately owned, and yet a travelogue that was published said Black Box in Emery County was a wonderful place to go rafting. Indeed, it is not. It is a dangerous place with deep water, the water going wall to wall. Two years ago, within a 6-month period of time, two people coming back from the East who decided to go tubing down that river in Emery County died, which meant that the sheriff's posse in Emery County had to go a half a mile into wilderness study area land, rappel down a dangerous cliff and risk their lives to bring those bodies back, and they had to fully fund the cost of all that program.

That County of Emery, if they simply allowed greenbelt laws for the tax structure of that land, the cheapest type of property taxes we have, would generate $900,000 if we fully funded PILT. The appropriation we have in here will give them $300,000, even though they are still required to have the same kind of services as if the money was fully funded of that.

It is interesting to note that the 10 States with the slowest growth in their education funding all have 50 percent or more of their land owned by the Federal Government.

Who are we hurting when this government is not fully paying the rent that is due? We are hurting the elderly, we are hurting the people who need medical aid, we are hurting kids in the West. This is what this particular program is doing.

I support this amendment with a heavy heart because indeed the Smithsonian is something I admire. I belong to it, I give to it, but what we did is we allowed them to find alternate sources to come up with some of their revenue. We have not allowed the counties in the West, especially rural counties, alternate forms of coming up with the revenue that they desperately need.

PILT is essential for us to pay the rent that is due, and I am hopeful that if we would actually approve this amendment we would allow them to go into conference committee where they could do right by the Smithsonian but also do right by the counties that need that PILT funding. We are underfunding our rural counties, we are underfunding our western counties, and all it is is the rent that they are due, and we should have the courage to stand up and pay for that.

Today, a special service will be held at the National Peace Officers Memorial to honor those whose devotion resulted in the ultimate expression of Christ-like love: They sacrificed their lives for others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one who gave his life in the service of others. Jeremiah Kirk Johnson, who died in a tragic traffic accident while on duty for the Emery County Sheriff's Department, exemplifies the life of service which I wish to honor.

A devoted husband and father, he spent every spare moment around his children because of his great love for them. At the time of his death, he had been promoted to deputy sheriff in Emery County, and was instrumental in helping to set up the drug court which had the effect of getting drug offenders off the street. He was a giant of a man, yet gentle.

Jeremiah will be missed a lot. He cannot be replaced, but his example can be honored.

He was a model U.S. citizen. He devoted his life to service of our country, and he will be forever remembered as a hero, a son, a husband, and a father.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity of sitting on a stand with Jim Hansen in Tuelo speaking at a political event. When I informed him that if he spoke well of me today in Utah I would speak well of him today here in Washington, he told me these type of events simply turn into a funeral for the living. So with apologies to Shakespeare, I wish to join that group and praise Jim Hansen, not bury him yet.

This designation for the State of Utah, I think, is extremely deserving because of the unique character that Jim Hansen has and what he has meant for the history of politics in Utah, and especially in the first district. No Utahn has served longer in the House of Representatives than Jim Hansen, with 11 terms. He is the only Utah Congressman that has ever actually served as chairman of a full committee, and you can count on one hand the number of subcommittee chairmen we have. My colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and Jim Hansen are the only two who have ever served as subcommittee chairmen from my State.

In the State of Utah, since Congressman Hansen's retirement, he has had a highway in Davis County named for him, the Migratory Bird Refuge visitor's center in my hometown named for him, and now this Federal building. But I think it most fitting that the one element that has been named for Jim Hansen that he appreciates the most is the duck blind at the Bear River Bird Refuge which was especially built and dedicated in his name. Because he was always in touch with the common man, he understood that element and he had a great love for the outdoors. Even though the wilderness debate rages on in this country, it is still Jim Hansen who is the only one who has actually created a wilderness area in the State of Utah.

Born during post-World War II Salt Lake City into a family not awash in earthly wealth, he graduated from a high school class that also produced two U.S. Senators from Utah, a fact that should not denigrate the academic standards of that particular high school.

He then joined the Navy, served in the Korean conflict, and as a young man moved up to Farmington, Utah. As an insurance man, he decided to join the Farmington City Council to try to fix their water system, where he served for 12 years, then moved on to the State legislature for 8 years, and then Congress for 22 years.

During the first term Jim Hansen served in the Utah House of Representatives, I was an intern; and Jim Hansen actually happened to be the representative in my family's district. My first term in the Utah House of Representatives Jim Hansen was the Speaker, and he set the standard of excellence that I tried to emulate when I became Speaker several years later. When he retired from this position in Congress, I once again followed in his footsteps. I feel like he has cast a long shadow. He has big shoes to fill. Whatever cliche you want to use about Jim Hansen, the bottom line is he did a good job for his constituents, and he did a good job for the State of Utah.

He was known for his integrity, twice serving as chairman of the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct. He was known for his common sense and for his frugality. The building in Ogden, which will be named for him, is a place where he served for 22 years. I have followed him, so my office is in the same spot that his office was, and I and my staff are going to be proud that we are now serving in the Jim Hansen Federal Building in Ogden, Utah.

Mr. Speaker, it is still an honor to stand in this body and speak to those Members of the House who are assembled.

Historians and politicians, political scientists, play parlor games, one of which is to rank the Presidents from best to worst. In that group almost always Washington, Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln are put as the top three; usually Lincoln is listed as number one. They are able to do that because of the 20/20 hindsight of history, because of the dogged tenacity which prohibited him from taking a shattered country that was mired in what some people have called the ``19th century Vietnam'' and extracting themselves from the war even though he would have received critical acclaim from liberals at that time.

That same tenacity that we respect today was the element of criticism that was intense and unfair to him while he lived. The New York riot that took place in 1863, lasting 4 days, killing 105 people, when even the New York Times put three Gatling guns on the roof and in their windows to protect them, was blamed on him.

Horace Greeley in 1864 of Lincoln wrote, ``Our bleeding, bankrupt and almost dying country longs for peace.'' The Democratic platform that same year said that after ``four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, we demand immediate efforts for cessation of hostilities.''

A leading newspaper wrote that there is a ``cowardly imbecile at the head of the government.'' And a Congressman said, ``I am heartsick at the mismanagement of the Army and disgust with our government is universal, probably even amongst some of our European friends.''

Sound familiar? I am sure, because those same feeble criticisms have been thrown at the U.S. policy in Iraq. Lincoln was great, just no one told his critics that he was. But that same mold of critics tells us the Iraqi policy has failed. Unfortunately, no one has told the Iraqis of that fate.

They still recognize that they have more power generated now than they ever had in their country. Two-thirds of all the water projects have been restored. There is a 6,000 percent increase in health funding in the country. All the hospitals, all the colleges, all the technical schools are now open again. Five-and-a-half million students go to school every day without having to say, ``Long live Saddam Hussein'' every morning. Seventy percent of the Iraqis see their future as better and brighter with a spirit, a new form of government and new policemen and soldiers who are enlisting every day. The impact has been significant in that particular area.

This is an area of the world where some people, of which the Baathist Party in Iraq is an example, have viewed the Byzantine Empire as the time when everything was right and the Mideast was the center of the world; and that, today, is an aberration. And many of those people have tried to find in the history of the 20th century quick-fix solutions to change that and rewrite the world as they see it.

Before World War II, and the Baathist Party is an example of this, they attempted Fascism while they supported the Axis powers until they realized that was not the access that they needed. They flirted briefly with Communism in the 1950s before they found that was not an access that was needed. They tried the Pan-Arabism of Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s and they found that was not the access. And, today, many of these elements have used terror as, hopefully, the access to right the world.

If this country is ever going to have a future, it must ensure that terrorism is never viewed as a successful policy by any state or any subgroup of a state to try and change the world.

Historians have praised Lincoln for the same qualities that his contemporary critics blamed him for. Historians, I am convinced, will pass praise on America's policies in Iraq which have ended a dictatorship of 30 years, mired in blood and horror and terror that destabilized his region with the ultimate goal of destabilizing the entire world.

It is right what we have done to try to restore the balance in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a situation to the body that is somewhat unique which we in the West will be talking about in greater detail and more frequently as time goes on. I feel competent in being able to address this issue, because before I joined this august body I spent 16 years in the Utah legislature as Speaker at the end; but all 16 years I was a member of the Public Education Finance Committee, or Appropriations Committee. I also, as I have frequently mentioned on this floor, served for 28 years as a high school teacher before I joined this group. Even though I recognize that money does not equal education excellence and we can do many things to improve our education system without money, at some time, we still have to build schools, and teachers at some time still have to eat.

So I wish to present before the body three factual phenomena of which my colleagues may not be aware. First of all, the fastest growth in the student

population happens to be in the States of the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Twelve of the 15 fastest growing States are in the West. In the West we have an average growth in our student population of 7 percent, where in the East, the average growth is a negative 2.6 percent. Ten of the 13 States with the highest teacher-student ratio are also in the West. And as the map that I am looking at right now shows, as far as growth in expenditures per pupil, 12 of the 15 slowest-growth States also happen to be in the West. The amount of money increased to public education for funding of students in the East was 57 percent. In the States of the West, it was half of that, at only a 27 percent rate.

Now, the question we should ask is, Why are these red States in here that are all encompassed in the West, why are they growing so slowly? It is not because we are not taxing our people. Indeed, the tax rate for both local and State governments in the West is actually higher than what it is in the East. It is not because we are not trying to present our portion of the budget for education. In my State of Utah, 42 percent of the budget goes to public education. If we add higher education, then it is up to almost 65 percent of the budget.

The reason for it is very simple, and it deals with this particular chart. What it means is that land and property tax driven by land propel local governments and school funding, and also income brought from property propels local government and school funding. The bottom line is, as we look at this map, the West land is taken from and controlled by the Federal Government. The blue areas within each of these States represent the portion of that State which is controlled by the Federal Government; and thus, the land is taken off the property tax rolls.

The State of Maine has a whopping .8 percent controlled by the Federal Government. New York has .3 percent. The large State of Texas, and it was smart when it became a State because they kept their own debt, but they also control their own land, only 1.5 percent is controlled by the Federal Government. But of the States in the West, every one of them has at least 25 percent of their land controlled by the Federal Government, and the States with over half of their land controlled by the Federal Government are, once again, all found in the West. The States of California and Arizona, Wyoming have 40 percent of their land controlled by the Federal Government. Oregon is 50 percent. Idaho and Alaska are 62 percent. My State is 65 percent, and 83 percent of Nevada is owned and controlled by the Federal Government and off the tax rolls. On average, 52 percent of the West is owned by the Federal Government compared to only 4 percent of the East.

Now, the bottom line for that means we simply do not have the resources to fund our education system accurately and we are falling behind other States, and it is an unfortunate concept. There are several different ways in which that happens.

When these States were entered into the Union, there was an enabling act which provided for this unfairness to be rectified. That has yet to take place, as the Federal Government has changed its policies towards land, and we are now talking about an amount of land that has a value of close to $14 trillion. Secondly, no property tax can be generated from those lands. If we average the acreage at merely $500 per acre and compare that with the tax rate that this land could have generated, these Western States should have been generating $4 billion, which could be used to fund education in the West.

Now, the Federal Government recognizes that because we have a program called PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, in which the Federal Government will compensate Western States. The problem is, what happened in the year 2001, this land should have generated $4.2 billion. The Federal Government compensated these States to the tune of $165 million in the PILT program, and all of this money is going to governments that were local and, once again, not to education.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, as we will be talking about at some time in the future is students in the West should be afforded an equal, an equal education opportunity, and they are not. This land is controlled by all of us, and we are saying all of us should be paying for the benefit, because students in the West are still being disproportionately affected unfairly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I have a good friend that bought a brand-new Mustang, and he loves that car wonderfully; but every once in a while parts of it will break, and he has to fix it. He tries to improve it every once in a while, not with changing its looks or its purpose. But without servicing that automobile, today it would be simply a rusting hulk. Its glory days evaporated. In fact, quite frankly, it would not run.

That car was built the same year Congress established Medicare. And with Medicare as well, if we did no servicing, if we did not slightly fix those few things that are broken, Medicare today would not run. We are not changing its looks or its purpose. Indeed, people today who are satisfied with Medicare as it is may keep the program as it is. In fact, incentives were put in the bill that we passed on Medicare to ensure just that. But we actually did try to improve the program in its prescription drug component to meet the needs of the most vulnerable of our senior citizens.

Let us face it, if you are over 65 today, it is almost impossible to buy a private health care policy dealing simply with prescription drugs. The most vulnerable segment of our seniors whose income is being dangerously compromised by prescription drug needs has grown over the past decade by 600 percent. In fact, every year almost a 60 percent increase of those personal economies are being endangered simply by prescription drug needs.

This Congress serviced the program for that portion that was not working to make it run better, and they did so free of government price controls, free of government mandates, free of government rationing at the same time. Let us face it, in the 1960s our effort in health care was basically reactive. We were paying for hospital costs.

Today, health care is preventative. Efforts use prescription drug to keep people out of hospitals, hopefully decreasing the overall health care spending that we have. Our medical needs will change. Our desires will also change, and we need to change to meet those particular needs in the government programs.

Sometimes you can tell something about an individual by the company he or she keeps. Those who complain the loudest about changes made to Medicare usually are the status, those who like mandates, the one-size- fits-all government-knows-best approach to the world. Those who are the most supportive are those who truly believe that choice is good and options ennoble the spirit of America.

There are areas of health care today where the price and the cost is actually decreasing, but always in areas where choice is maximum and options are there, and no third party is limiting those options. As part of our health care change in Medicare, we have provided for health savings accounts, allowing for individuals to put pretax dollars into an account that would grow with tax-free interest that would belong with them, would go with them from job to job. Afterwards, when the needs were greatest, there would be an element of money that was there so that truly Americans could finally individualize their needs, make their own priorities without being filtered through a third party, and invite into the American system the opportunity for options that are no longer there in the health care field.

We are not finished with Medicare. It was not the final bill. As our lives change, our life experiences and expectations change; and the government needs to meet to change also, to meet those changing needs. What this bill did is provide an opportunity to fix an area that needed servicing, not to change the program but to simply make that program better.

We move to have more opportunities to have greater flexibility in the system. It is part of a long struggle that will continue on, a struggle to make medical care cheaper in the future, a struggle that will try and make it so that we can work to make modern market-based medicine a reality for all Americans. That is the option that was given to us. We did not change its looks or its purpose. We simply did some servicing to make it run better.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate Dr. Frank Guliuzza III, a resident of Ogden, Utah, and a professor of political science at Weber State University, on his reception of the CASE (Council for Advancement and Support of Education) Award for Teacher of the Year. I am pleased that the CASE organization recognized the caliber of Dr. Guliuzza as a professor and as a citizen.

Dr. Guliuzza has an impressive record: he has published two books (American Government, American Ideals and Over the Wall: Protecting Religious Expression in the Public Square) and three more will be completed by 2005. He has served as the Chairman of the Department of Political Science and Philosophy at Weber State University since 2002 and has taught courses including Constitutional Law, The Modern Presidency, and Constitutional Rights and Liberties. Earlier this year, Dr. Guliuzza was presented with Weber State University's most prestigious faculty honor: the John S. Hinckley Fellow award for excellence in teaching, service, and scholarship.

Dr. Guliuzza is an asset to his university and community. He founded the Weber State university mock trial team in 1996 and, under his direction, Weber State has earned several top-ten finishes at national tournaments. Dr. Guliuzza ran for the United States Senate in 2000 and has served as a Chair of the Weber County Republican Party and Vice Chair of the Utah Republican Party. A licensed minister, Dr. Guliuzza has served in ecclesiastical positions at Calvary Baptist Church in Ogden, First Baptist Church in Brigham City, and Mountain View Baptist Church in Layton. He has served his fellow men at the most basic and important level. Dr. Guliuzza and his wife of 21 years, the former Kathy Spaulding, are the foster parents of two children, Matthew Williamson and Timothy Stoddard.

Despite all of these awards, accomplishments and interests, Frank's true passion lies with teaching. As a former high school history teacher, I understand this purpose. And he is an excellent teacher, in the truest sense of the word. As Dr. Guliuzza said, ``One need not be prominent to be a great woman or man.'' Frank is a great teacher, one who guides his students, who enlightens, shapes and challenges them. He is also a great American, and I am pleased to recognize him on this occasion.