Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the list of recognized intelligence failures is depressingly long and still growing. Despite these documented missteps, the House Leadership has produced an Intelligence Authorization bill that says we'll

keep doing more of the same. We'll conduct our intelligence the same way as we have in the past. We'll spend a little more money here, a little less money there, but we'll do the same things we've been doing and do them the same way. And Congress will continue to abdicate its oversight responsibility. That's unacceptable.

Every member of this Congress supports the men and women of our intelligence community who put their lives on the line every day to keep our nation safe. I am a veteran of the intelligence community, having worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and I have the utmost respect for our intelligence professionals. However, we do a disservice to their hard work and personal sacrifice if we do not make sure that they have the tools and organizational structure they need to perform their duties successfully.

We all know now that they work within a broken system plagued by miscommunication, lack of coordination, and poor organization. In my view, the worst thing we can do for them is to continue to prop up this broken system. When a ship is sinking, you can either hand out buckets or you can repair the holes. Congress should be in the job of repairing the intelligence community, not bailing it out.

I want to be clear that our intelligence failures are not the fault of the men and women who work in the intelligence community. They are the result of complex, competitive and often redundant organizations that prevent the good work of our intelligence operatives from resulting in good, comprehensive products.

Unfortunately, there is no indication in this bill that we have learned anything from our intelligence mistakes. Nearly 3 years ago, our intelligence services failed to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center, which took the lives of more than a hundred of my constituents in central New Jersey. An anthrax attack, which originated in my district and which targeted Members of Congress and other innocent citizens, still remains unsolved by the FBI. Today, our soldiers are risking their lives in Iraq after fighting a war to bottle-up weapons of mass destruction that our intelligence services said were there, but were not. The list of failures goes on.

And yet, with this bill, Congress continues to fail to make any reforms of the intelligence community. In fact, there is no indication in this bill that Congress plans to exert any more oversight over the intelligence community to hold it accountable for its performance than it has in years past. That is inexcusable.

In Committee, many of my colleagues and I offered a series of commonsense reforms that would have strengthened intelligence and strengthened oversight. They were all rejected.

For example, one of the reforms included a provision that would have established a special ``red-team'' that would have been charged with challenging assumptions and poking holes in the so-called ``judgments'' of the Intelligence Community. In other words, the ``red-team'' would be our in-house devil's advocate. It would make Intelligence analyses like the National Intelligence Estimate stronger and less subject to misinterpretation or selective editing by providing policy-makers with a new ``red team'' section where all doubts, concerns, and alternative views are clearly laid out. It would help us make sure that we actually know what we think we know. There was no reason for this reform to be rejected.

Finally, I was horrified that the Majority decided not to allow debate on Mr. Peterson's amendment, which would have fixed a major flaw in this bill. The bill only funds one-third of the critical counterterrorism funds the intelligence agencies say they need. The Peterson amendment would fund 100 percent of the counterterrorism funding needed and would do so now.

Instead, the Majority plans to wait to ask for more money in a supplemental appropriation later this year. However, by funding our intelligence community by supplemental we in Congress will be curbing our own ability to oversee how those funds are spent. We need to give the intelligence community the financial support it needs, but it would be irresponsible for us to give them a blank check and not ask any questions.

As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, it is my responsibility to make sure that this Congress both exerts the proper oversight over our intelligence community and that the community receives the proper directives and funding to be successful. I cannot in good conscience vote for this bill because it is structured in such a way that will only contribute to more intelligence failures in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Center For Scientific and Technical Assessment Act of 2005. I have introduced the creating legislation with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). The Center For Scientific and Technical Assessment would be a bicameral and bipartisan resource providing Congress with highly respected, impartial analysis and assessment of scientific and technical issues. The center would provide Congress with early warnings on technology's impacts both here and abroad. The center would assess the issues that impact current and future legislation encompassing medicine, telecommunications, computer sciences, agriculture, materials, transportation, defense, indeed every discipline and sector important to the United States and to our work here in Congress.

It would undertake controversial subjects, examining them objectively and comprehensively for the Nation's benefit. The center would offer much needed sound principles to reap the benefits of technological change in industry, in the Federal Government, in the workplace, in our schools and look at the estimated economic and social impacts of rapid technological change. The center would enable Congress better to oversee Federal science and technology programs which now amount to over $130 billion. Finally, the center would help Congress better to understand complex technological issues by tailoring reports for legislative users.

Today's legislative environment involves highly complex issues of science, engineering and technology. High-wage, advanced technology workforce growth is a prerequisite to a strong economy whose future is predicated on our continuing global dominance in science and technology.

If the United States is to maintain and continue its leading role into the 21st Century, then Congress needs to recognize that the future is being shaped by new science and technology discoveries arising from our past investments in basic and applied research and their deployment into present and new industrial sectors. A well-informed Congress with the foresight to pass the right legislation must understand the effects of that technology on all sectors of our society and must understand the scientific aspects of all the legislation understand our consideration.

Our Nation must exploit these new advances or prepare to be exploited ourselves by others. Given how technology underlies many aspects of our constituents' lives, concerns, and jobs, unbiased technical assessment is not a luxury but a necessity.

Today Congress is deluged with facts, figures, opinions, and arguments from thousands of interested citizens. Congress does not need more facts and data on these issues of science and technology; it needs balanced analysis and synthesis that conclude with a framing of issues and extraction of knowledge and insight, a process beyond most Members of Congress and our immediate staffs. The Congressional Science Fellows program is a help in some respects. For example, Dr. Marti Sokolowski in my own office provides some of this, and there are some Fellows scattered around other offices around Capitol Hill, but it is not enough.

For 2 decades, Congress could call upon the Office of Technology Assessment for nonpartisan scientific and technical advice. OTA published dozens of reports a year. Its work ran the gamut of subject matter. OTA brought science into the center of many congressional discussions. And at times OTA was a major factor in major pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, OTA closed its doors in September, 1995. However, many of its reports are still relevant and useful, but no more such reports are being produced. The loss of that technology assessment is great. Now we have no advice or sometimes haphazard review panels whose composition may tempt some to politicize science. Therefore, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I have introduced a bill to establish the Center for Scientific and Technology Assessment.

We have done much research on the advantages and disadvantages of the former Office of Technology Assessment. We have looked at the recent successful technical assessment program prepared by the General Accounting Office. We have taken into the account the GAO's document and its recommendations. Finally, we have examined the study ``Science and Technology Advice for Congress'' and considered the lessons of that publication in constructing this bill.

Our country will move into the 21st Century whether we in Congress are prepared or not. Congress will have at least the possibility of charting the course for our Nation with understanding of the applications of science and technology if we enact this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Child Nutrition Act. This bill is a step in the right direction of important reforms in federal child nutrition programs. I would like to thank Chairmen Boehner, and Castle and Ranking Members Miller and Woolsey for their hard work on the bill. I would also like to thank the Chairman for taking my amendment during the committee process eliminating the cost- accounting requirement for severe need breakfast programs.

This paperwork problem was brought to my attention by the Director of the New Jersey Child Nutrition Programs, Kathy Kuser. Many states, such as New Jersey, Wisconsin and Illinois, are making significant efforts to improve their school breakfast participation rate, and reducing the paperwork requirements would help these efforts.

Under current law, schools would qualify for severe-need breakfast assistance if at least 40 percent of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were free or reduced price. They calculate their cost per breakfast by prorating their labor costs, and figuring out their food, supplies and other costs associated with the school breakfast program. They have to save their receipts and calculations and submit them in order to get the severe-need reimbursement. Removing the cost-accounting requirement would be a significant paperwork reduction for the schools without significantly increasing cost for the government.

I also want to commend the committee for including direct certification for children from food stamp households for free school meals. Many schools are not aware of this method to determine eligibility for free meals. Direct certification improves access to free school lunches and improves program integrity, according to a study done by Mathematica.

I am also pleased to see a bill authorizing grants for ``farm-to- cafeteria'' projects, including nutrition education activities. These activities incorporate the participation of school children in farm and agricultural education projects and procure local foods from small- and medium-sized farms for school meals.

The expansion of eligibility for Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for children in shelters from age 13 to 18 who live in domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters is a wonderful improvement to the previous child nutrition legislation. My constituents who participate in Mercer Street Friends, Anchor House, Triad House, Family Preservation Center (Homefront) and the Family Preservation House would benefit from this change to CACFP eligibility. These organizations depend on food donations to feed their clients who are nutritionally at risk and should be eligible for this important nutrition support program.

Finally, I am pleased to see that the bill we are considering today has some positive improvements to the bill that first passed in March. The bill now authorizes grants to states for comprehensive nutrition education and physical activity programs.

It also authorizes grants to schools for nutrition and physical activity projects. Today's bill provides training and technical assistance to schools to develop healthy school nutrition environments and local wellness policies.

The bill also expands from 5 to 8 the number of states participating in the successful Fruit and Vegetable Pilot.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleagues and their staffs on the for their hard work. I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which will eliminate barriers to participation for low-income children and families and ensure greater access to these critical nutrition programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

The American public, the citizens of America, are looking to us, to the Congress, to provide oversight over the intelligence community. My colleague, the gentleman from California, said that our committee has never been denied a hearing that we wanted. That may be true if one defines ``hearing'' very broadly. Yes, members of the intelligence community from the various agencies have come to meet with us; but we never learned, for example, that Mr. Rumsfeld actually approved ghost detainees, detainees who would be kept out of the system. We never really got level answers about the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is a long, long list of things that we have been denied because we just did not ask exactly the right question.

The debate this morning is not about how many billions of dollars precisely will be added to the counterterrorism budget; it is whether they are going to present the budget to us in such a way that it is impossible for the committee to exercise oversight. That is what is at issue. By funding these programs through supplemental appropriations rather than through the normal appropriations process with authorization oversight, they dodge responsibility. They dodge the oversight. That is what is at stake here today. That is what this rule is denying, the American public the oversight that they expect, that they need for our national security, denying that that will be carried out by the committee.

So we are talking about a much more fundamental, longer-term issue; and for that reason, this rule is very flawed and should be opposed.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few good features in this bill. For example, the bill supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research funding request and provides additional funding for enhanced training of State Department intelligence activities. Following my request last year when my amendments with regard to foreign language instruction were rejected and the leadership assured me that we would take care of it this year, I worked closely with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) on a number of important provisions. I am pleased to acknowledge the work that he did. Nearly $29 million of the $33 million in language programs that we find in this bill were what I had specifically recommended or even written. They will do a number of things to improve our proficiency in critical languages.

But I am very disappointed in a number of failures. There was a commonsense amendment I offered to provide foreign language instruction for students of science and engineering at American universities. It was a simple idea. We need it. It was voted down on party lines. But the fundamental problem, and this is what we keep coming back to today, all the world knows that there have been some major intelligence failures. We read it in the world's press. In fact, too often we read about these things in the world's press a day or two after critical people have come before our committee and failed to tell us what we need to know in order to exert oversight.

The reason we are talking about the underfunding here is because the approach that the administration is taking, the approach that the leadership here is endorsing is funding by supplemental appropriations. It removes the oversight process. A large fraction of the funding for counterterrorism is now removed from the oversight process, and it compromises the work of this committee, it compromises the work of this Congress, and it results in a fundamentally flawed authorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment by our colleague from Texas indeed states a correct proposition that the detention and lawful interrogation of terrorists is fundamental to our national security. The key word, of course, is ``lawful.'' And perhaps the amendment could have been improved by spelling out more explicitly the importance of adhering to international convention, international law, international standards.

There is no doubt that the gentleman from Texas has the admiration and appreciation of every Member here in this body for his service, and no one knows better than he, he has very personal and strong reasons for caring about the treatment of detainees and prisoners. And, in fact, I just wanted to underscore the point that I am sure the gentleman knows better than I, that the reason we do adhere to international standards, is for the protection of our own servicemen and women who may indeed become prisoners themselves.

We certainly deplore the barbaric treatment of Americans, Koreans and others by the terrorists. We understand that non-state terrorists sometimes do not feel bound by the international standards, but the gentleman's legislation with an emphasis on the word ``lawful'' makes a good point.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I would subscribe to the comments of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I would like to point out the problem with this amendment. It says it is the sense of Congress that the intelligence community should be revitalized by investing in its missions, people, and capabilities of the community. And, of course, that the efforts of the men and women of the intelligence community should be recognized and commended.

This is commendable. This is what we would like to do. But if you read the findings of this, you find out what is really at play here. It is a gratuitous swipe at an administration that has long been out of office.

If, in fact, we want to revitalize the community by reinvesting in its missions, we should be doing exactly what we have been talking about today, funding counterterrorism at something more than 30 percent of what the community, these people, say they need to carry out their missions and the capabilities that they need. Yes, we should revitalize by reinvesting. That is what we are asking to do today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Simmons amendment. To set the record straight, there is on this side an alumnus of the intelligence community. I also used to work in the intelligence community, and I can assure my colleagues that the agencies make much less use of the wealth of open-source information than they could.

Open sources mean more than searching the Internet for printed material or extending the reach of the foreign broadcast information service. There are now commercial companies with high-quality imagery from satellites. There is mature technology for using commercial radio and television broadcasts as illumination sources to passively detect and track aircraft. These techniques could be used to augment air surveillance, for example. The Internet, as we are all aware, could be exploited for many intelligence purposes and so on.

There is much we could do. Last year, I sponsored in this very authorization bill a provision that required the intelligence community to report to us on how new approaches of open-source intelligence would be incorporated into intelligence products. Although that report is, I am told, in final coordination now, we still have not received it. So I think it is appropriate to put this language into the bill, not just report language, so that the intelligence community will make full use of open-source information.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague once again this evening for his statement and offer strong support for the Simmons amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

This is much needed legislation, and I applaud the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Connecticut for putting it forward. It really makes little sense for airport security to screen 100 percent of the carry-on baggage to the point of removing nail clippers and yet not screen all the cargo and baggage that is loaded into the belly of a plane. This amendment is really much needed and should be passed with strong bipartisan support, should also be implemented with strong financial support from the Federal Government.

My question for the gentleman from Massachusetts is, does he believe that down the road we can ensure that cargo loaded onto cargo planes will also be screened?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, that will be safer for the public and the workers of the airline industry, and I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my disappointment that the American Jobs Creation Act (H.R. 4520) includes a provision that grants the tobacco industry a $10 billion buyout but does not grant the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products.

The consequences of tobacco use are disturbing. Smoking-related illnesses claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $92.2 billion annually in health- care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Spit tobacco and other smokeless tobacco are not safe alternatives. They can lead to tooth decay and loss, gum disease and oral cancer.

Dispite the enormous risks to tobacco--which is the most deadly of all consumer products--the Federal agency that is most responsible for protecting the public health is powerless to effectively regulate this product. In 2000, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate tobacco products and that it is the responsibility of Congress to provide the USDA with this authority. Congress cannot wait any longer to act on this matter.

Many of my colleagues have fought hard to reach a compromise that will give the proper authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco products without needlessly impeding on the tobacco industry's right to produce and sell its product. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today squanders an opportunity to couple a tobacco buyout measure with improving public health. Even more disheartening than this missed opportunity is the sad reality that a bargaining tool has been removed from the table and our ability to pass legislation providing the FDA with the regulatory authority it needs has been jeopardized.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to pass legislation that will allow the FDA to carry out its mission to ensure the safety of products consumed by the public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax bill which is full of giveaways to special interests. I wanted to support this bill. I support an across-the-board corporate rate reduction for income from U.S. manufacturing activities so that more manufacturing jobs can be created here in the United States. I am also a strong supporter of the R&D tax credit because it is an investment in the future and will keep our economy strong over the longterm.

However, this bill is full of items that have nothing to do with job creation or long-term investment in research.

This bill is a tax break for special interests. Do we really need a special tax loophole for manufactures of fishing tackle boxes? Or a tax break to benefit makers of sonar devices used for fishing. As an outdoorsman, I support fishing but we don't need a tax break to do it.

Many of my constituents enjoy target shooting with bow and arrows but do the makers of bow and arrows really need the tax break that this bill provides?

Further, the bill continues the Republicans' attack on the environment. In this bill is a tax break for whaling and a tax break to benefit landowners who sell timber from their property.

Also in this bill is a provision that isn't even tax policy, that is the tobacco ``buyout''. I can understand helping small tobacco farmers, however this bill only helps big tobacco corporations. The provisions of this bill will line their pockets with billions of dollars.

If the current quota system is eliminated, as proposed in the FSC bill, the price of tobacco will collapse. The minimum drop that can be expected in 50 cents per pound of tobacco--roughly the current amount that goes for rent to quota owners. As the U.S. price drops, foreign producers will lower their prices too. Falling prices will drive small tobacco farmers off of their land, while enriching Big Tobacco.

U.S. tobacco manufacturers intend to purchase 450 million pounds of domestic tobacco this year. At a discount of 50 cents per pound, the immediate savings is $225 million. But this is just a minimum estimate. According to a USDA economist, factoring in prices changes for both domestic and foreign tobacco, the end of the quota is worth $15 billion to the tobacco industry over 14 years.

Cigarette manufacturers can take this entire windfall as profit or use part of it to lower prices, addicting more children and killing more Americans. It is no surprise that leading public health groups consider this proposal an unmitigated disaster.

The list of special interest tax breaks goes on. If that is not bad enough the bill once again hurts the future generations of Americans by adding at least $34 billion in debt that will have to be paid back by our children. The legislation in the other body was at least revenue neutral.

More tax cuts of this sort will not only jeopardize critical public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the future. Massive deficits create large debt and will create high interest payments that will crowd out spending on public investments for future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase interest rates in the future--making it harder for Americans to buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for businesses to raise capital.

The President is pretending that we can have war without sacrifice. Eventually, someone has to pay. I believe Chairman Greenspan's recent comments are appropriate: ``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free lunch has still to be invented.''

Mr. Speaker, today we should be passing a revenue neutral bill that helps manufacturing

here in the United States, discourages sending jobs overseas and invests in research and development for our future.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson) to offer an amendment to protect the world's first national park and a wonderful American treasure, Yellowstone.

Our amendment completes the phaseout originally implemented by the National Park Service in 2001 of snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The phaseout was delayed and then reversed over the course of the past 3 years, only to be reinstated for most of last winter under court order. The original decision to phase out snowmobiles in favor of snowcoaches was not an arbitrary decision or some kind of gratuitous attack on snowmobiles. It was based on 10 years of careful study, after which the National Park Service implemented a rule in January 2001 calling for a 2-year phaseout.

After President Bush entered the White House, the National Park Service delayed implementation of the phaseout and initiated yet another study of winter use in Yellowstone at a

cost of $2.4 million to taxpayers. This study, no surprise, completed in February 2003, came to the same conclusion, that phasing out snowmobiles in favor of snowcoaches would be the best thing for Yellowstone Park, for the park, for the visitors, for the employees, for the wildlife.

This is about protecting our natural treasures. It is not primarily about snowmobiles. It is that snowmobiles have been determined to be incompatible with the preservation of Yellowstone Park. In the early days of Yellowstone Park, employees and visitors engaged in all sorts of behavior which was not thought to be harmful at that time, but it jeopardized the ability of future generations to see the natural splendor. Park employees used to throw trash down the geysers or use them for laundry, permanently plugging up the geothermal features. The National Park Service used to encourage visitors to feed the bears, wolves were openly hunted across Yellowstone until they were extinct. Visitors were allowed to chip off chunks of rock from geysers. But it was recognized that this behavior was not compatible with the purpose of the park, the creation of Park Service to preserve these parks for the enjoyment of current and future generations.

As the Park Service learned more about the unique environment of Yellowstone, they ended these destructive practices. Snowmobiling in the park is no different. The Park Service has studied the issue repeatedly and comprehensively and found that continued use of snowmobiles is incompatible with the mission as laid out in the legislation creating the parks, to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects, the wildlife in the parks, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same and such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

We are not here to disparage the snowmobile industry or those who ride snowmobiles, I among them. We are trying to make the point that Yellowstone National Park is a unique environment, a precious national treasure that deserves an extra level of protection. In fact, the unique characteristics of Yellowstone's winter environment actually magnify the harmful effects of snowmobiles, making their impact really worse than in other areas of the country.

Sound travels further in winter. Snowmobile noise is audible across many popular sections of the park, as I discovered when I was there in February last year. Even the newer snowmobiles which were supposed to meet strict new noise and emission standards were found to actually emit more because the snowmobile industry has souped them up. They are higher horsepower. So, in fact, even though the four-stroke engine offers some advantages over a two-stroke engine, what is being purchased, sold and used is a more powerful snowmobile that is emitting more.

The simple fact is that snowmobiles that enter Yellowstone and Grand Teton are only a tiny portion of the $7 billion snowmobile industry. As the industry reacts and produces more powerful snowmobiles, it is difficult to make them quieter and cleaner. And in fact, EPA tests found that the 2004 four-stroke models was actually emitting more than the 2002 models.

We have no intention of cutting off motorized access to the parks. The original snowmobile phaseout encouraged the purchase and deployment of snowcoaches.

Mr. Chairman, there are 400 miles of snowmobile trails immediately adjacent to Yellowstone, thousands of miles of snowmobile trails, some of which I have traveled outside the park in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and 130,000 of snowmobile trails across the country. We are talking about phasing out snowmobile use on 250 miles. This is not going to hurt the industry. It is not going to hurt the tourism industry and it is not going to hurt the snowmobile manufacturing industry.

It is true if you are snowmobiling on these trails outside of Yellowstone Park, you will not see Old Faithful, but we are hopeful if we remove the snowmobile smog, others will be able to see Old Faithful when they travel in by snowcoach.

Let me point out that many former National Park officials who worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations have expressed their displeasure. Last month they wrote to Secretary Norton saying to uphold the founding principle of our national parks, stewardship on behalf of all visitors and future generations, the snowmobile should be phased out. This was signed by the Park Service Director who served from 1964-1972; the Assistant Secretary of the Interior who served between 1971 and 1976; the National Park Service Director who served between 1980 and 1985; the National Park Service Deputy Director who served between 1985 and 1989; the Park Service Director who served between 1993 and 1997; the Park Service Director who served between 1997 and 2001; the Yellowstone Park Superintendent who served between 1983 and 1994; and the Yellowstone Park Superintendent who served between 1994 and 2001. They all say proceed with the rule that phases out snowmobile use on these 250 miles of roads in Yellowstone Park. That is what we are asking for today. I ask support for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know if snowmobile use was permitted in Yosemite National Park.

Mr. Chairman, so it is not a permitted use in Yosemite National Park?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) in response to an earlier amendment today said, ``We want Yellowstone park to be as natural as possible.''

We are not here to disparage the snowmobile industry. We are simply trying to make the point that Yellowstone National Park is a unique environment, it is particularly fragile in the winter, it is a precious national treasure that deserves an extra level of protection.

Now, my colleagues want to substitute their own judgment for the ones who have taken the measurements, the ones who have the data. We could talk about two-stroke engines and four-stroke engines, and I would be happy to refute all the arguments that have come up.

But the point is, the studies have been done; they have been done repeatedly. The Environmental Protection Agency said that the original National Park Service study was more thorough than anything they had seen on a similar subject; and the conclusion was, even considering the new technology, even considering the four-stroke engines, that the way to protect Yellowstone Park was to phase out snowmobiles, two-stroke engines, four-stroke engines, all of them.

Maybe my colleagues think that these machines, nearly 100,000 of them that go into the park, will not hurt anything. Maybe they want to believe that the experts are wrong and it will not hurt the air and the water and animals, it will not stress these animals during the tough times in the winter. But that is not what the studies show.

So we are simply asking that these 250 miles, this precious park, be set aside. The constituents of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) can snowmobile all over Minnesota. The constituents of the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) can snowmobile all over Wyoming. We are talking about America's premier park.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The word ``compromise'' is something of a euphemism here because there was a rule in place that, several years ago with the new administration, was rescinded, so there was not anybody compromising with anybody. They rolled back an existing

well-considered rule and substituted another one.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bipartisan amendment that will provide much-needed funds to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

This is a long overdue and a modest funding increase to build programs that use the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance communities in every State and every county around America. Since 1965, the NEA has provided over 111,000 grants for projects ranging from theater and film festivals, to poetry readings and workshops, to radio and TV broadcasts, to museum exhibitions, to city design and downtown renewal. NEA funds often help bring excellent performances and exhibitions to small towns and rural areas throughout the United States.

The NEH serves to advance the nation's scholarly and cultural life. The additional funding contained in this amendment would enable NEH to improve the quality of humanities education to America's school children and college students, offer lifelong learning opportunities through a range of public programs, and support new projects that encourage Americans to discover their wonderful American heritage.

It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our children learn. They give the elderly

sustenance. They power economic development in many regions. They tie our diverse society and country together.

Will the projects that would be sponsored by this increase in funding help defend our country? Probably not, but they will make our country more worth defending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 4278, the Improving Access to Assistive Technology for Individuals with Disabilities Act.

The bill reauthorizes the Assistive Technology State Grant Program, and the State Protection and Advocacy program. It also will help to ensure a larger share of the resources distributed under the program goes directly to individuals with disabilities. Assistive technology devices include a broad range of aids, such as wheelchairs, communication devices and computer hardware that help individuals compensate for living with a disability.

The Assistive Technology State Grant program was first enacted in 1988 as a program to provide states funds to establish an infrastructure for increasing access and distribution to assistive technology devices. Millions of Americans depend on assistive technology devices to remove barriers to education, employment, and even daily communication.

The bill also funds the State Protection and Advocacy programs. Its purpose is to assist individuals in overcoming barriers in the workplace and in the government and making assistive technology more accessible to individuals with disabilities throughout the state.

I would like to thank Representatives Buck McKeon, John Boehner, Dale Kildee and their staffs for working with me to make changes to the bill regarding State Protection and Advocacy programs during the committee markup process. The bill now includes changes that would allow Protection and Advocacy systems to carry over ``program income'' for 2 additional years. These are funds generated by program activities, typically attorneys' fees reimbursements, for 2 additional years.

Under current law, Protection and Advocacy programs can carry over ``program income'' for

one additional fiscal year past the year in which the program income was received. This can be very difficult, particularly for small states where the award could be sizes that they are not prepared to properly spend and can not budget for. I hope this change will enable Protection and Advocacy programs that receive ``program income'' to invest the funds back into the program. This will allow states to put the additional funding to the best use possible for people with disabilities without being constrained by time.

Speaker, I ask my colleague to support this bipartisan bill that will provide comprehensive technology-related assistance for adults and children with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle may not be writing much environmentally friendly legislation, but they certainly are good at recycling. What we have before us today is a bill identical to H.R. 6, a grab bag of special interest goodies, certainly not a real energy policy. And rather than coming up with a rational energy policy to meet our Nation's needs for the foreseeable future, the authors of this legislation are simply coming out with a bag of goodies.

It is a simple mathematical problem. America possesses less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and makes up 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption. Members can do the math.

This bill does not provide what we need in this country which is a rational energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and the entire ``energy week'' charade the House leadership has brought to us. Once again, rather than spending the time we have here on the House floor to honestly debate critical issues and solve problems, the House leadership has decided to simply bring back the same tired, unimaginative legislation. Our friends on the other side of the aisle may not write environmentally friendly legislation, but at least they are good at recycling.

Unfortunately, as this body is busy reshuffling papers and giving new titles to old bills, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is growing worse. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, the bill before us merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution.

It's a simple mathematical problem--America possesses less than 3% of the world's oil reserves but makes up 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption. We can ravage our environment all we want and drill all over the country, but the simple truth is that we cannot use domestic sources of oil to satisfy our dangerous addiction.

The longer we continue to have such an unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels, the more we will have to rely on supplies from unstable countries like Nigeria and Venezuela--and of course, from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has the largest remaining proven oil reserves--and recent attacks on America show the price we pay for drinking so deeply from there.

It is time that we create a real energy policy that reduces our overall dependence on oil so we can look forward to a sustainable energy future that underpins a healthy economy. Sadly, H.R. 4053 is identical to H.R. 6--a grab bag of special interest goodies, not a real energy policy. Rather than coming up with a rational energy plan to meet our Nation's needs for the foreseeable future, the authors of this legislation simply asked every energy industry what they want and turned it into legislative language.

This bill is notable for a few glaring omissions. First, it contains no renewable portfolio standard, a provision that would actually move our country toward a sustainable energy future by increasing our reliance on renewable energy. It contains pitiful levels of incentives for creating new renewable energy sources. It also fails to close the SUV loophole, a shameful part of our tax code that gives the wealthy tremendous incentives to continue buying the largest and most inefficient vehicles on the road.

What's worse, the bill does virtually nothing to save oil. At a time when it is clear that our dependence on foreign oil affects national security and it is apparent that we will never drill our way to independence domestically, we have an energy bill that refuses to mandate greater efficiency. Not only are there no provisions to increase automobile efficiency, this bill could actually undermine current fuel economy standards. In fact, the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration says that passage of this legislation will not reduce energy consumption and will actually lead to a three cent per gallon increase in average gasoline prices by the year 2015. So not only is this legislation doing nothing to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, it will actually increase gas prices.

I also want to express my displeasure at the cynical attempt by the House leadership to link drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee with the reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Drilling in ANWR makes no sense not only because it ravages a spectacular and sensitive environment, but also because it sets a senseless precedent of drilling for a tiny amount of oil rather than dealing with our problem of runaway oil consumption.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this conference agreement today because it is the wrong policy for America's future. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution.

We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our nation's energy needs. As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one the Nation's premiere alternative energy research labs, I have worked in Congress to help craft a strategy that will provide real energy security for central New Jersey residents and the United States. That's why Congress should focus on the development of renewable energy sources, including fuel cells, solar power, and fusion. We can fulfill the energy needs of a growing economy without compromising our national security interests or devastating our environment.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in recognizing the lessons of the life of Ronald Reagan and his legacy. Among those lessons would be a

sense of civility in debate. Among those lessons would be disagreeing without being disagreeable. Among those lessons would be the ability to recognize the humanity of our opponents, and they are lessons that we should all take to heart.

Another part of the legacy, and I think the lasting legacy of President Reagan, will derive from the painful period as we watched Alzheimer's take this vibrant and warm and really great person into, as Mrs. Reagan said, a different place, a different world. And I hope we will use this to rededicate ourselves to research in Alzheimer's and stem cell research so that others will not follow the former President in this path that was really painful for all of us to watch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. What we should be doing today is voting to extend unemployment benefits. However, the Republican leadership will not let that amendment be offered, even though or maybe because they know it would pass.

Not only will the majority not assist workers who need jobs, but the authors of this bill assert that unemployed workers need financial incentive to get a job. Now, ask the workers whose jobs have been outsourced whether they need financial incentive to get a job. I am really shocked that the authors of this bill believe the American workers effectively need to be bribed to get a job.

American workers are not looking for handouts. They are looking for jobs. And, even worse, this bill would effectively bar the recipients of this money from receiving actual job training. Contrary to, and I must respectfully differ from the chairman, contrary to what he says, they would not get actual job services. Sure, at a job center, if they find an open computer, they might be able to use it to prepare a resume, but they will not get the counseling they need. They will not get the training they need. This bill would deny workers the important training opportunities they need.

This Nation has lost more than 2 million jobs under this administration. We should be dealing with the unemployment needs of these workers. I ask my colleagues to oppose this risky scheme.