John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today and support this legislation. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and all of those who were a part of bringing this issue together. We should not be here today. The Department of Labor and Industry should not be in this issue. There was not a history of danger out there, not a history of people being harmed. A lot of the criticism, or all of it has been about safety. This legislation includes supervision by an adult relative or an adult of the same religious sect; the placement of protective barriers. We just heard that the lumber industry is the most dangerous. Yes, it is. The most dangerous part is the falling of trees. They are not going to be doing that. The next most dangerous part is running saws and planers and equipment. They are not going to be doing that. They are going to be doing odd jobs in the mill, stacking lumber, cleaning up, office work, running errands, helping out, learning a trade. Young people in the Amish community when they are finished with school at 14, they learn a trade and when they work around the edges of a mill, when they work around the edges of an operation, they learn that business over a period of time. We are not putting them in harm's way. In my view, this is legislation that is needed to be done to preserve the Amish life. As someone just mentioned, they are not a part of the difficulties in our society. They are a quiet people who teach their youth to work and carry on whatever the tradition of that family was. This is a very sensible, well-thought-out solution that will allow this community to preserve its way of life. I urge the Members of this Congress to tell the Department of Labor and Industry to go on and deal with real problems and leave our Amish to raise their children as they have in the past with a very good record.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, like many communities in my district, Kane, Pennsylvania is a town of less than 6,000. It is a quaint and quiet community where residents share similar values, beliefs and a strong work ethic. Sadly however, Kane residents must now share in their pain, sorrow, and sense of loss. Last weekend, Kane lost one of its finest individuals. Kane Police Officer Steven Michael Jerman was killed in the line of duty. Officer Jerman was a 23-year veteran of the small-town police force and was regarded with the utmost of respect by all who knew him. He devoted his career to helping youngsters by steering them away from the destructive path of drugs and alcohol. Officer Jerman ran a drug-prevention program which is credited for saving the lives and livelihoods of dozens of teens in the Kane area. Ironically, it would be the issue about which he had the most passion that would take the life of Officer Jerman. He was shot and killed by a teenager who got drunk, got behind a wheel and became violent--the very behavior he fought so hard to stop. This incident, which has devastated the community, is an eerie reminder that drug and alcohol abuse by our nation's youth is all too prevalent. I believe the best way to honor the life of Officer Jerman is for the community, police force, and for family and friends of Jerman to carry out his legacy by continuing the fight against drugs and alcohol among our youth. My wife Sandy and I offer our heartfelt and sincere sympathy to Jerman's wife and two children for this tragic loss. We also share in the sorrow of the town of Kane and entire Commonwealth.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today Republicans in Congress will introduce H.R. 2, Dollars to the Classroom, a bill that is aimed at improving the quality of our public schools. This bill, we admit, is a threat to those who believe fervently that Washington knows best, no matter how many times it has demonstrated that it does not. This bill will not please those who wish to expand the Federal education bureaucracy. This bill will alarm those professional administrators who hope to increase Federal involvement and intrusion into the decisions made by local school boards, parents and teachers. Instead, this bill will give local schools the flexibility to spend Federal education dollars as they see fit: higher teacher salaries in some districts, new libraries or classroom construction in others, perhaps a new computer system in another. Those who bear the consequences of the decisions will be the ones making those decisions. This is an approach which will enrage the liberals, who have done things the old way, the bureaucratic way, so many times in the past. This bill represents common sense. It puts dollars in our classrooms and not more bureaucrats in Washington.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, last year in the President's proposed budget, he proposed saving all surpluses in the future for social security. Then he went on in his proposal and had enough new spending to eliminate all surpluses. The President cannot have it both ways. This year he is proposing 62 percent of future surpluses for social security, and everybody is applauding that; 15 percent of surpluses to save Medicare, and many are applauding that. Then he went on with a spending plan that would take 75 to 80 percent of proposed surpluses and spend them. When we add that up, that is 150 to 160 percent. The President cannot have it both ways. If he is serious about saving social security and Medicare, he cannot have all of these new spending programs that will eliminate all surpluses that will allow us to fix social security and Medicare.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I did not want to pass up the opportunity this evening to share with someone who I have only known for a year and 10 months, but someone who I think is one of my better friends in Congress, someone who I had the privilege of working a lot with, because we shared a lot of time and worked on the same subcommittees on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Frank, America would be stronger and better if it had more congressmen like Frank Riggs. And I mean that sincerely. Those who talked about his toughness, coming back after a tough loss, coming from a district that he probably should never have gotten elected in, but it was only because Frank Riggs was a good man and gave it his best and his family had support there that he was able to come to Congress from that district and serve it very, very well. I liked his friendly style, his graciousness, his toughness. He had a tough side. He would fight hard. And you cannot be effective here and you will not ever reach the goal line if you do not. We shared a lot of interests. I have some of the same forestry interests that Frank had, some of the same problems that Frank had, and I admired his toughness to stand tall. We had a lot of interests in vocational and technical education and where this country really needs to be going where we really are not headed, Frank and I agreed on where this country ought to be going in technical and vocational education, preparing our work force of tomorrow. Frank, I was disappointed when you decided not to run again. But I admire you for the choice you made. You were one I looked forward to working with in the future. But I am, hopefully, somewhere down the road, we will have the chance to pull on the same rope. But there was something that you may not be aware of. Of all the Members I have met here, Frank Riggs mentioned his family to me many evenings. When we were here in an evening, Frank was always anxious, if we were kind of not moving as fast as we ought to be and we ought to be getting our work done, because Frank had an event that one of his kids was at that he felt he should be at. Frank had a family thing that he felt he should be at. You mentioned your wife and children to me many evenings. You may not remember that. It was just in quick passing. But that says to me that Frank Riggs, the Congressman, had his priorities right. He was constantly thinking about his children and his wife and his family, and that is the priority that so often does not get met in this country. If there is a weakness in this country, it is the breakup of the family and the family drifting apart. I do not know your family well, but I personally think your children have a pretty good dad. I think your wife has a pretty good husband. I know you care an awful lot about them. In the few short months we have known each other, I have learned that they are most important to you, and I honor you for that. The Committee on Education and the Workforce will miss you. This Congress will miss you. I will miss you, because you are a friend, the kind of a friend that I would like to get to know better, because the more I have been around you, the more I have worked with you, you are just a person I have learned to like. We are going to miss you. It has been a pleasure getting to work with you and know you, Frank. America is a better place because you served here. I mean that sincerely.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 532, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, is the President's school construction program a good idea or is it a gift to his urban fund- raising friends? There are 15,600 school districts in America. Half the money is designated for 100 urban poor. There are urban poor, but there are rural poor, too. There are 1,000 rural poor school districts with no funding. The other half of the money is available to additional urban poor districts. You can bet his urban fund-raising friends will receive the majority of those funds, too, and 15,400 rural school districts across America will receive nothing. Federalizing school construction will delay by several years the ability to construct the schools, will increase the cost, and only help the President's fund-raising friends.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to congratulate both the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Minnesota for their bipartisan work to reauthorize two vital programs. These are well-targeted programs to assist communities to rebuild their fractured economic base. I want to give my colleagues an example right now. I have a community where a steel mill that had 1,000 people closed 4 years ago. Two years later a regional bank merged with an out-of-state bank and hundreds of jobs were gone. Not only did we lose those jobs, we lost our leaders, the people who led the communities. With help from ARC and EDA, we are now helping this community to reuse this old steel mill and hopefully in a couple of years we can come back here and share with you the hundreds of jobs that will be there from several people. We were able to negotiate with this steel company to give the plant to the local community for a buck, but without the ARC and EDA help, they would not have the ability to use this facility. I have a large rural district. Four regional development districts have used these programs successfully and effectively. Rural counties like Union, Centre, McKean, Jefferson, Venango, Elk, Warren and Forest, and those just come from my memory, are communities and counties that have used these programs to rebuild when plants have left and left those communities flat. They help leverage local and State programs, they help millions of dollars of corporate investment back into towns that are struggling to survive. These programs are vital to the success of rural America, our small towns. It will help remove men and women from the unemployment benefit line and make them taxpayers. That is government money well-spent, programs that are well-targeted, programs that have proven their way. I am pleased that we are on our way to authorizing them in the future.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question: Will the President's education programs improve education or is it an election year proposal? Last night I shared my thoughts on school construction. I will review them quickly. The school construction program, as proposed by the President, takes half of the money and designates it to 100 urban poor districts, but does nothing to designate to rural poor districts. I found out today that the 100 urban poor districts can even go back for more money. They are not prohibited from getting two bites at the apple. Let us say they do not. So we fund 200 or 300 school construction projects across America. That leaves 15,300 school districts with no help. That is not fair. Now we have a proposal for what I call temporary teachers. Several years ago, we had a proposal for temporary cops. We funded 100,000 cops, and although I never really read whether we ever had 100,000 cops and there was a lot of discussion whether we ever met that goal, then when they hired them, we pulled the money back and stuck them with the bill. That is the way this proposal is. It is not ongoing funding for teachers. It is temporary funding for teachers, and when they hire them, in a couple short years the money is pulled back and they have to pay the bill. Is this fair, that the Federal Government entices spending at the local level and then pulls the money back? Who will get the money? Will it be another complicated, convoluted grant program? You bet it will. It will take consultants. They will make lots of money; grantsmen, they will make lots of money, but we will only have temporary teachers and we will only have construction in a few urban districts. If the Federal Government wants to help basic education, we should send money in a fair and evenhanded way that treats urban, suburban and rural on an equal basis, because there is poor all the way up and down the ladder in size. How do we do that? It is pretty simple. Forty years ago, this Congress, some Congress, passed special education and they said that all of the excess costs for this program, 40 percent of it will be paid for by the Federal Government. When we took over Congress in 1994, Congress was providing 6 percent instead of 40 percent. That is a huge shortfall. Now with this year's proposed budget, where we increased it half a billion this year and half a billion last year, we will be up to 12 percent. But that is not 40 percent. If we fully funded special education, the Los Angeles school district would get $60 million of additional money, the St. Louis school district would get $25 million of additional money, the York school district, a small rural district in Pennsylvania, would get $1 million. But we are $10 billion short. Instead of paying the bill we promised, instead of funding the program that we started, we want to do new ones, because it is an election year. We want to send some money in some new convoluted way that will only reach a few of our school districts. We can more adequately fund vocational education, where we only spend $1 billion and we are passing laws to allow more immigrants to take the technology jobs which come from vocational education. Or we could get some Democrat support for Dollars to the Classroom, that only does away with state and Federal bureaucrats and puts the money in the schools, $800 million, no new taxes. We could expand loan forgiveness programs that help put teachers where they are most needed. We do not need new programs. We need to fund the ones that work, that do not cause more Federal bureaucrats, that you do not need grantsmen to apply for, that you do not need some complicated, convoluted process where the money can be funneled into the President's friends. There are 15,600 school districts across America. They need a fair and evenhanded treatment. The President's proposal will reward his urban political friends and leave rural America with no school construction, with no new teachers, with no help, and not even a promise. That is not fair. Tonight, I ask us to support funding education in an evenhanded, fair way, that funds education all across America, not just to the President's friends.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to join the chorus of those who to want discuss education. It is interesting, we have had a lot of discussion from the White House, we have had a lot of criticism from Democrats about the process that we are going through on education. Is it political rhetoric? Is it a serious commitment to helping our local schools across America? That is the question I want to ask, Mr. Speaker. We have those who want to start school construction programs in the Federal Government. First, I would like to state that Federal money is not simple to use. I come from a rural part of Pennsylvania, where many school districts obtain very few Federal dollars because they need consultants, they need people who understand the Federal programs, and they have to work for months and sometimes years to get into the system and figure out the language the bureaucrats in their State capital want and the bureaucrats in Washington demand. So most small rural school districts do not receive much Federal money because they do not have consultants, they do not have grantsmen, they do not have the people that speak the right language that bureaucrats understand. Now we are going to Federalize school construction. We have 15,600 schools across America, approximately. The school construction program proposed by the President will take half the money and will give it to 100 urban poor schools. That leaves 15,500 some school districts with no funding. Now they will have a chance at the other half, but urban poor districts are not prohibited from going after that. And this is a program for all of America? I do not think so. This is a program to go to President Clinton's base in the urban parts of America. Now urban poor school districts have problems, but so do rural poor school districts, and they should have an equal shot. The construction program that has been designed by the President will not be a program that will help many schools in this country. The vast majority of the schools will never see a dollar. And those that choose to use this will lengthen the process of constructing schools by a year or two. I have never seen a Federal program that even worked the first year. Last year, we had the technology program, had a half billion dollars in it. They have spent less than 100 million so far, and the year is over. Because Federal bureaucrats cannot make programs work in 1 year's time. This will delay construction in America. This will make it more complicated to construct schools in America. It will make it more costly to construct schools in America because of the Federal bureaucracies that will have to be met, and Davis-Bacon, which will raise the cost of construction itself. Then we have the program of teachers in the classroom, 100,000 teachers. That is a good cause. I think most of us would like to see 100,000 additional teachers. Probably 40 or 50 school districts in America will receive some kind of grant to do that or maybe 100, at the most, or 150. But that leaves 15,400 or 15,500 school districts with no change. Should we not have programs that get out equally across America where the need is, whether it is urban or whether it is rural or whether it is suburban, if there are school districts in trouble? We can do that. We could expand the loan forgiveness program and get teachers into low income rural and urban shortage areas, and we could do that overnight. We could fund special ed, would get money into every school district. The ones that would get the most would be those who have the most poor students, the most students that need special education, and we would have the money right where it is most needed. The money they could free up on their own they could use to hire more teachers; they could use to fix their schools. Vocational education, we have flat-funded vocational technical education year after year. This President again flat-funded it this year, or recommended flat funding. We are passing legislation to allow more immigrants to fill the technology jobs because we do not have an educational system that is training them, and it all starts in vocational education. Most recently, we passed in the House, it did not get action in the Senate yet, a Dollars to the Classroom program that combines 31 programs and puts the money directly back into school districts. That frees up $700 million to $800 million without raising taxes because it does away with Federal bureaucrats, it does away with State bureaucrats, and it puts the money in the classroom where they can hire teachers or where they can improve the classroom. Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's goal to help education is honorable, but I think the direction he has taken is election year politics because it is a new program that he can put his name on. I want to say, new Federal programs do not work; 1999 will not see a school constructed, 1999 will not see more teachers in the classroom, because these programs cannot work in one year. Mr. Speaker, I believe if we are going to increase funding for education I would support that. Let us fund vocational education. Let us fund special education. Let us fund loan forgiveness for low income rural and urban shortage areas. Mr. Speaker, it is time to get the money out where it can work, not in some new ideas created by the White House that will not work and will not help our schools across America. It will only help a few.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 516, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations, led by the United States, is getting pushed around by a rogue nation with an unfeeling dictator, Saddam Hussein. There is no other way to say it, Mr. Speaker, the United States is sitting idly by while this tyrant, Saddam Hussein, is thumbing his nose at us. As former U.N. Inspector Scott Ritter said before the House Committee on National Security, the reality is that Iraq is winning its bid to retaining its prohibited weapons. Continuation of sanctions as a sole means of enforcing Security Council resolutions is a self-defeating, weak policy. The Clinton administration has intervened to prevent surprise inspections in Iraq because it wishes to avoid a new conflict with Baghdad. I cannot stress enough how dangerous this policy is. The question is, are the United Nations and the Clinton administration gambling with all of our lives? Unfortunately, it appears they are.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my admiration for a Member of Congress who I think is unique. If I had a list of top 10 effective Members of Congress to affect this country, Jerry, you would be in it and near the top. Jerry, I admire your tenacity, your toughness, your intensity, but your soft and gentle kindness and good spirit. Now those yet good spirits may change when people cheat you or lie to you or are unfair. But that is the way it should be. I admire that you fear nobody, that it does not seem to matter what the issue is. You do not show fear. You do what is right. I admire how you fought for our veterans and how you fought for the defense and sovereignty of America as much as anyone in this country ever has. Jerry, you are the kind of Congressman I hope to be. You are the kind of person I want my son to be like. You are a model to us all, and you have made a huge difference as you have served us here, and I thank you.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to ask themselves a question. That question is, how long will it be before rogue nations are able to reach American soil with ballistic missiles? In 1995, some said 15 years. President Clinton used this information to justify his veto of the 1996 defense authorization bill which called for the deployment of a national missile defense system by the year 2003. Mr. Speaker, as our esteemed chairman of the House Committee on National Security, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), said, the missile threat is not 15 years away, it is here now. Recently we found out that North Korea fired its Taepo Dong 1 missile over the Sea of Japan. This missile has a maximum range of 1,250 miles. If anyone thinks that North Korea and other nations do not have the technological ability to hit American soil, we could all be dead wrong. The U.S. must be able to defend itself from ballistic missile attacks. Efforts not unlike those to make the U.S. first to the moon are needed to protect the American way of life. The President must agree to put a ballistic missile defense system in place today because the American citizens need to be secure that they are safe.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, from day 1, this administration has conducted affairs of state more like King George than George Washington. Its ethic has been summed up in the book title by Clinton hit-man James Carvel: ``We're Right and You're Wrong.'' Now, in the latest census sampling wrinkle, the Clinton people show they are willing to ignore Federal Court rulings in pursuit of their agenda. Two separate decisions have declared it illegal to sample the population for the purposes of congressional reapportionment. Yet administration officials continue to forge ahead anyway with plans to sample in the next census, spending millions on a discredited idea at a time when preparations for the 2000 Census are at a very critical stage. It is almost as if the Clinton Commerce Department wants the next census to fail so that the political pressure for their sampling agenda will be even greater in 2010. Mr. Speaker, it is past time for the President to begin enforcing the laws, even those he does not like.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for giving me this opportunity. Congressman Joe McDade, we thank you for the service you have given, not only your district of Pennsylvania, but this country. I am going to give a little different perspective. I have known Joe 14 years. I have known of him a lot longer than that. But 14 years ago, when I was running for the Pennsylvania Senate, we met in Potter County where he was so capably serving that county, and then we have been friends ever since. But Joe, I, we have heard here tonight the tremendous admiration in this body for you. But I can tell you from God's country, Potter County, where you used to serve them so capably, they respect you. They are thankful of how you served, and they have a deep affection for you. In Congress, I serve three counties, one he serves a part of, and the other two he used to serve. And I can tell you there from Tioga County and Clinton County, they also have the greatest respect for you, the affection for you, and they miss you. His record speaks for itself, reelected overwhelmingly 18 times, many times by almost unanimous vote. A potential candidate, I think this says it best, said to me, who really had a shot of being his replacement, he said ``How can I compete with this record? How can I compete with the shadow that he has cast with the tremendous affection and respect in that district?'' I looked at him, and I said you cannot. I cannot. He is not the average congressman. He is the exception. He is a gentle giant, and you cannot compete with him. That man did not run. I may have discouraged him, but he could not compete; and he should not run for that reason. Joe McDade, the Congressman of the 10th District is the exception, not the rule. He has been extremely effective. But on top of that, he has been kind. He has been compassionate. He cares about his district, and he cares about his colleagues. As many have said, he has played a great influence in the defense of this country, one of our most important issues we deal with. Joe, I only regret that I did not have more time to learn from you as I continue to serve my District. Thank you for being a friend and neighbor.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I quickly would like to share my admiration for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell). I have known him less than 2 years, and he is somebody in Congress that I admire greatly. His district in Congress and the small business community is going to miss him. The gentleman has a clear, thoughtful voice, a deep understanding of the issues, and the gentleman brings a passion to the debate. The gentleman has the zeal of a freshman and the wisdom of a long-term Member. The gentleman's arguments are very pragmatic and thoughtful, whether it is modernizing archaic labor laws or fighting for affordable health care for small business, and he has a passion for that. Mr. Speaker, Harris Fawell is the kind of Member I hope to become.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I would like to announce that we have no gridlock in Washington on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I think we have a committee that is very productive and I am very pleased as a freshman to be a part of it. I was very pleased and I want to thank the chairman for the chance that he gave me to serve on my first conference committee in Congress. I will always be grateful. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member, for their leadership, and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their leadership and their breakfast sessions. That is my favorite meal, so next year invite me. Also, I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to the staff. We may have argued now and then, but they do good work and I want to commend them here publicly. This act will ensure that college will be more affordable, with the lowest interest rates in 17 years. It will simplify the student aid system by using the same application no matter which program. It will improve academic quality, campus safety, and provide greater access to all aspects of higher education. Last week, we debated a bill that I struggled with. I do not often struggle, but I struggled with where we allowed more immigrants, high skilled workers, to be allowed to come into this country. That was a bill that companies begged for because they did not have the ability to expand and grow. The high tech, fastest growing companies in this country were struggling to hire those high tech workers that were needed, so we had to increase the immigrant pool. I view this as a partial indictment on our higher education community. But we in this bill have focused on this, and high skilled, technically trained workers are on a more even ground than they were before. In this country we need a combination of academic and technology. Through much bloodletting and compromising, H.R. 6 provides the opportunity for our Nation's youth to pursue their education, whether it is academic, technical, or a combination thereof. Also, the conference report adopts the House admonition to the department that higher education consists of not only traditional but also nontraditional opportunities, an incentive provision calling for proprietary school liaisons, and several provisions ensuring against fraud and abuse. An issue that has not been mentioned here tonight is a provision to fight drugs. I do not think there is any cause, in my view, that is more worthy than to help protect our young people in basic and higher education against drugs. This has a provision, if they are caught in possession or in selling, 1 year, they are out for a year; second offense, 2 years; third time, indefinitely. That is a lot tougher than the National Football League, because one of those players could be arrested today and they will be playing next Sunday. It also provides incentives for distance learning, the wave of the future. It gives the Secretary of Education the authority to waive certain Federal restrictions that prevent students from receiving financial aid for some types of distance education programs. It also gives the Secretary the authority to promote and study distance learning techniques that will expand student access to higher education. In my view, the higher education community in this country is way behind the technology curve in delivering educational opportunities through distance learning. It also will help those who serve our country. It exempts veterans' benefits from being counted against students when they apply for student loan subsidies. Previously, students receiving benefits under the Montgomery bill would have had their aid reduced. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and all of those that worked so hard on this legislation. But in response to what we just heard about a dangerous exception, I want to share that they will not be near conveyor belts or saws or chippers, and Amish mills do not own or use forklifts or have sawdust silos, so the concerns that we just heard are really not valid. H.R. 4257 provides a narrow and specific solution to an instance where the Federal Government has gone too far in ruining an historic culture. As many of us know, Amish children complete formal schooling in the 8th grade, which is around the age of 14. Typically, Amish youth then pursue either their parents' or close relatives' trade and business. While the Amish way of subsistence life tends them toward farming, several other trades are practiced, including blacksmithing, woodworking, and lumbering. I worked for a summer. I had two Amish men working for me remodeling a couple of buildings, and I was always amazed at how they would drive a large spike in about two swings. And the one young man said, ``If you started as young as I did with a hammer in your hand and were taught how to hit a nail directly, and then as you got older developed the strength, you could drive a nail that fast, too.'' The time period between the ages of 14 and 18 is an importantly critical transition with the Amish culture. Unfortunately, the Department of Labor descended upon Amish mills in my district and the district of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and other districts and particularly targeted them. While no one here would advocate that children operate saws and other equipment in the mill, they should be able to perform the simple and safe tasks of stacking lumber and sweeping the mill. The sad situation is that the hazardous orders invoked by the department forbid even this approach, a simple, common-sense strategy to preserving the Amish culture. H.R. 4257 encompasses a sensible solution in a fashion which has addressed many concerns regarding safety that include such items as hearing protection and barriers and the rare instance of flying debris. I would like to address the issue of safety briefly. In my dealings with the Amish, I have come to learn of a culture which strives to instill a sense of utmost respect for everything. This, coupled with a dedicate work ethic, ensures a complete understanding of equipment and work environment. As such, safety is first and foremost during this transition. In closing, this bill addresses an issue which the American people have been yearning for, reasonable solutions to a variety of problems that maintain the integrity of the law but allow for creativity and flexibility. We did not get that from the department. The Amish do not have their hand out. They are not even asking for a hand up. They want an ill-advised Federal bureaucracy to untie their hands so they can continue to be a hard-working and self-sustaining society and a very vital part of America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for bringing this issue forward. This is not a swindle. The Federal Government provides 7 percent, I have been told this many times, 7 percent of the money and 70 to 80 percent of the paperwork. They are the bureaucracy that stifles our system. This is about more teachers, less bureaucracies. This does move money around from the bureaucracy to the classroom. How do we do it? How do we put $800 million in the classroom and $9,300 per school to $425 per classroom with no school getting less? Because there are 31 Federal programs who have 31 managers here in Washington and their staffs. That is 50 States. That makes 1,550 program managers, because every State has to have one, and all of their staffs. All the thousands of grant riders that have to go through all the Federal paperwork to get this money for our schools. That is where the money comes from. There is not one grant rider, there is not one bureaucrat that enters the classroom. Urban, rural, and poor districts often do not even apply. Seven percent of our money comes from Washington in education. Many of my districts get zero to 2 percent. The Federal grant process is difficult. Dollars to the Classroom makes good sense. A Federal program manager, State program managers, grant riders, they do nothing to raise the quality of education in this country. But dollars in the classroom will make a difference without raising taxes.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, it seems each holiday season a hot new toy or doll takes the Nation by storm. Parents and kids line up and pay hefty prices for the item of the season. If it is not beany babies, it is a doll called Tickle Me Elmo. If the Vice President has his way, this year's sensation will be a new doll called Scare Me Al. Scare Me Al is a carved wooden doll with one of those pull strings connected to prerecorded messages for our kiddies. It says things like, ``Today was the hottest day in the history of the world.'' Pull the string again and Scare Me Al will tell your kids that unless you get rid of that sport utility vehicle that mom uses to drive them to soccer practice, the ice caps will melt and raise the sea levels until we all drown. Scare Me Al is the perfect companion for all of the EPA taxpayer- printed coloring books and other literature which relate the same frightening global warming scare stories to the children K through 12. As for me, Madam Speaker, I would rather take my chances with the Clinton Justice Department, and buy my grandkids a new game of monopoly.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise to oppose the Souder amendment. I support what they want to fund, but I think taking it from EDA is one of the worst choices we could make of a program to cut. I come from rural western Pennsylvania, rural central Pennsylvania. We had steel, glass, coal and oil decline within a decade, collapse. I have watched what EDA does. It is one of a couple programs, there are only a couple programs that target distressed areas. I come from a State that had a lot of good economic development programs. I always complained they went into the suburban areas where we did not need more employment, they did not have enough employees. But EDA reaches into towns that have lost their only mill, their only glass plant, or have shut down the local coal mines to help them rebuild their base. If you look at Clinton County in Pennsylvania, because they were able to build a sewer line with EDA funds, they have 300 people working that would not be working today. Abandoned rail lines have been a major problem in my district. I can give you two examples. In Tioga County, where EDA purchased a rail line and put it back in service, 450 new manufacturing jobs there and a company that is going to double in size the next few years with some EDA targeted money. In Center County, 1000 jobs, again a rail line that was closed was purchased, was put back into service. In Elk County, the Stackpole Corporation used to employ 3000 people, closed, sat empty for almost a decade. And today, because EDA was the glue that put it together, 300 people are employed there and soon 6- to 900. Even right at home where I live, today they announced that the Cyclops plant that closed 4 years ago that had 1000 specialty steel jobs in a town of 5000 people, 4 years ago lost 1000 jobs with no hope, and our hope right now is we are applying to EDA to refurbish that steel mill and get it back into production and a number of businesses, breaking it up into an incubator and several places where we can bring companies into that community. EDA helps the poorest of our communities, gives jobs and opportunities to their citizens. We have a lot of programs to help urban America. EDA helps them, too. But we have a few programs that help rural America. Rural America is economically hurting. We may be at an end of a 7-year growth in the economy of this State, but I want to tell you, I can take you to pockets of rural America where we are hurting. In my view, there are a lot of Federal policies that are strangling rural America's economic future. To cut off rural America's right hand as it tries to pull itself up by its bootstraps, and EDA is one of the most effective agencies, one of the most targeted agencies to do that, is a mistake, when we would continue to spend three times the amount of money for the International Development Association, twice the amount of money for US AID, the Agency for International Development, spend almost that much money in Bosnia and almost 2\1/2\ times that much money in Russia to help rebuild their economies, this is a cut in the wrong place. It may be a cut from a good program, but a cut in the wrong place. EDA, in my view, has become an agency that very effectively targets hurting places in America, and we should be increasing it even more, not cutting it.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today is an amendment that is a pilot program. It would allow the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to establish a pilot program to test a confirmation system through which they respond to inquiries made by State and local officials, including local voting registrars with responsibility for determining an individual's qualification to vote in a Federal or State or local election, to verify the citizenship of an individual who has submitted a voter registration application and maintain such record of the inquiries made and verifications provided as may be necessary for pilot program evaluation. This is a pilot project that would expire in 2001. It would give State and local officials the option, only an option if they want to use it, to verify the citizenship of voters using Social Security and INS records. It is totally voluntary. It is not a State mandate. It is a pilot program to be used in five States that already are testing an employee verification program for noncitizens: California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas. And this expires in the year 2001, and then a report would be written on how this system worked and if it was effective. Currently, the law requires citizenship to vote. The Federal law requires it. All 50 States require it. I guess the question is, should we enforce the law? Or should we repeal the law and not require citizenship if one does not agree with this pilot? Currently, I would ask the question: Do we have the ability to enforce this law? And the answer is no. Can local election officials currently stop the fraud that is far too common? Not often enough. So why do we have the requirement for citizenship? Elections are the very lifeblood of democracy. Fraud in election poisons our electorial system and undermines the trust that is essential to democracy. Under this amendment we are introducing today, State and local election officials would be able to make inquiries to the Social Security Administration, which has a record of citizenship when they assign a Social Security number, and to the Immigration Naturalization Service which can also help verify people who have submitted to naturalization and citizenship. This would be set up by the Attorney General. Voting, as I suggested, is the most fundamental act of citizenship. The people who administer our elections ought to have the access to the information they need to ensure integrity at the ballot box. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman's question. It is my understanding that, if the INS records and the Social Security records did not prove one to be a citizen, then the body requiring that information could, if they choose, remove one from the rolls or refuse to enroll one as a voter.