John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Thomas amendment of the nonseverability clause. Because we need to do it right. We need to pass legislation that is constitutional. We should not do anything else. We know, with pretty clear record, that many provisions have already from previous legislation been termed unconstitutional. So why should we do it again? It was interesting a little bit ago, just a few moments ago, that we were told by a gentleman that this bill was not quite perfect but it is almost and we should have no amendments because it is what the Senate would accept. I hope some day I hear a senator saying, let us keep this bill as it is because it is what the House will accept. I know that is not going to happen. I served in state in both the Senate and the House and I know that is not going to happen in the Senate, whether it is in state or in Washington. Though I respect that gentleman very much, we should not be crafting a bill for the Senate. I think the vast majority here tonight know that that bill will have provisions struck down by the courts. And we do not need the poison pill that the gentleman spoke of a few moments ago. Because this bill, by most people's opinion, has unconstitutional provisions. The current law has been in place about a quarter of a century. Large sections were struck down in 1976 and left us a patchwork plan of campaign finance, a patchwork. It has a lot of problems. But let us not build another system where the courts can give us another patchwork quilt that will not work. It will happen again. Now, think about this a moment. If the court strikes down money to the parties as being illegal but allows the private groups to be legal, and that part remains, we have taken the power away from the parties and we have given it to interest groups that we are talking so much about. That could happen. Is Shays-Meehan perfect? No, it is not. I think it misses the mark. Because I think we have the soft money problem because we have taken the power away from the people. In most State governments, individual contributions are not limited at all, and soft money does not play the role there that it does in Washington. That may not be true in every State, but it is true in many. The people are stuck with the same contribution limit that was here in 1974. If that were inflation fixed, it would be probably 3 or $4,000. Now, if $1,000 was right then, it is certainly not fair today. Why not empower the individual? We limit an individual to $25,000 in a whole congressional race. Let me tell Members why I think that is inappropriate. The Shays-Meehan approach will limit free speech. It will particularly limit free speech to those who want to protect the sanctity of life. I do not know a more noble issue than protecting life itself. It will also prohibit those who want to protect the right to bear arms, and I come from rural America and that is a pretty important issue out there, the right to bear arms, the right to defend yourself. I also come from an area where private property rights are pretty important, and those groups will be limited. Mr. Chairman, I am going to come back to the point of $25,000 for an individual. Why should an individual who happens to believe strongly about life not be able to support every congressional candidate with $1,000 that he wants to? Under the current law, he would not be allowed to do that, and none of that is changed under Shays-Meehan. Why should he not be able to support any candidate that is pro-life? Why should he or she not be able to support anybody who defends the right to bear arms? That is very important to some people, very important to the future of this country. Or private property rights. Why should a person not be allowed individually to give to any person who believes private property rights is vital to the future? Because Congresses have historically walked all over people's private rights. The previous Congresses in my view have infringed on personal rights in many ways. So why should we not? We need to have a bill that makes sense, one that will not be partially struck down by the courts, and we need a severability clause, because if we do not do it right, we need to come back and do it again.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and oppose the Gephardt-Frank-DeLauro constitutional amendment and any proposal that would limit free speech. The Buckley decision recognized that campaign finance restrictions proposed severe constitutional concerns because they limit the ability of individuals to advocate candidates and causes in the public forum and require government monitoring and control of political speech activities. Overturning Buckley would cut to the heart of our democratic system by empowering Congress and the States to severely restrict the ability of individuals and groups to communicate their views about candidates and causes if such advocacy were in any way in support or in opposition to a candidate for Federal office. Overturning Buckley through this constitutional amendment raises many more questions than it answers. The sponsors would grant to Congress the abilities the Supreme Court held the first amendment denied, legislative control over the regulation of campaign finances. Since the common purpose of the proposals is to carve out an exception to the first amendment principles announced by the Court, against what baseline would such legislation limiting contributions and expenditures be measured, or would Congress and the States have largely unfettered discretion to dictate the nature, scope and enforcement of campaign legislation? What about the press? May news coverage or editorial endorsements be considered contributions or expenditures in support of or in opposition to favored and disfavored candidates? Now, there are times I would like to have those overruled or disallowed. Right now the Federal Elections Commission specifically exempts from the defining definition of expenditure any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting organization not owned by a party. I think what we really need to be careful about is any proposal, this proposal or any proposal we consider limiting free speech. What about those who are concerned of child pornography and want to raise money and speak against it and support candidates who will do something about it? What about those who have a concern for drunk driving? Mothers Against Drunk Driving; should they be limited in their free speech? How about those who want drug-free schools and want to deal with drug addictions and drug abuse? Should they be limited to free speech when in the process of electing people? Those who are opposed to the expansion of gambling; many of us feel that gambling is a tax on the poor, but there are those who want more gambling. Should they be limited to free speech? I do not think so. Those who are concerned about teen smoking? I have read lots of ads today about teen smoking. I am not opposed to those. Partial-birth abortion. Should people be limited in speaking out against this horrible crime that is going on in this country, partial-birth abortions? For the right to bear arms, should we be limited for those who believe in the right to bear arms? These are the issues that inappropriate legislation will inadvertently control, and I think we must be very careful. Should we trust future Congresses and State legislatures to determine who and what issues can be discussed? And how much money can be spent? I happen to come from a State that has no limits, Pennsylvania. Campaign finance reform is not an issue for the State of Pennsylvania because while most of the money comes from people, people give checks, people give money to campaigns, soft money is not a big issue there because people give the money, and people are disclosed, and if my colleagues accept money from somebody with bad character, they are considered someone who they are not going to support in the election process. This amendment would give Congress, the States, the rights to regulate the press and could limit the right to commentary. Do we want to do that? In conclusion, I would like to just share with my colleagues from the Washington Times: ``This is not so much an amendment to the Constitution as an assault on it. The Founders, in their concise wisdom, said that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There was no wiggle room, nothing ambiguous, and even so, the effort to find the exact practical boundaries of the first amendment had been one of the richest, most contested practical bound areas of the law.'' Imagine, if my colleagues will, what would happen if a pernicious and expansive ambiguity were introduced in the first amendment. Imagine the free-for-all we in Congress would have given the power to regulate political speech, bound only by the obligation to be reasonable about it. The Gephardt amendment would trash the Constitution and the guarantees of free speech, and I think this House better be very careful with a lot of pieces of legislation that have been introduced that in my view, if not changed, will limit the right of people to fight against pornography, to fight against drunk driving, to fight against teen drug abuse, to fight against expansion of gambling, teen smoking, partial-birth abortions, the right to bear arms, and on and on. Those are freedoms that go to the heart of this country and should be talked about in the process of electing candidates at the State and national level, and we should not inhibit that, and we must be careful because in my opinion many of the bills, as written, do just that.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 2888. It is obvious to me that those that oppose this bill do not understand the dynamics of sales in this country. I would ask everybody here tonight, would you like to go back to the rotary telephone, get rid of the systems in your offices that have the rotary phone that you dial by hand that are not connected to each other? No, you would not. It would not make any sense to you. Would you like to go back to the mechanical typewriter and do away with the computer systems that are all networked and go back? The law that is in place is holding us back in this country from allowing salespeople to do what they do best. Salespeople are undervalued in your view. The salespeople are the oil and gas of the American economic engine. They are what drives it. As salespeople are successful and they earn a commission, they make more money. And they put their friends and neighbors to work because they sell more goods that make a company go. Technology today allows companies to do more sales inside instead of wasting travel time. And this bill is narrowly drafted, probably a little more narrowly drafted than I would have agreed to, it is narrowly drafted. You do not have to worry about a $20,000 person. You give them a sales commission, and they are going to make 30, 40, the sky is the limit. Flexibility of time in the sales force is a benefit to the customer and a benefit to the employee. He or she may want to go home and fix dinner and then make some calls after dinner. They may want to pick up their children at day care and go home and then make some sales calls. It is not a one-way street. Commission is a huge incentive and do not ever undervalue it. If you are selling by the hour and you are selling by commission and you both have equal sales ability, the commission person will always sell more goods and put more people to work in the overall company. It is time to unleash the salespersons and stop limiting their ability to incentive sale. They will earn more and you will increase employment in manufacturing, and you will increase employment in the service industry. You will increase employment in wholesale. I want to tell my colleagues, it will increase the economic drive in this country.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. It should not be that narrow. Because sales can be made on the telephone at home just as easily as they can be made in the office.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Matthew Kennedy who won a scholarship in the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary Voice of Democracy broadcast script writing contest. Matthew is the son of Glenn and Shirley Kennedy who are serving as missionaries in Taichung, Taiwan and was sponsored by VFW Post 727. As the Pacific Areas winner, he is the recipient of a $1,500 Silver Spring Memorial Post 2562 Scholarship Award. Competing with over 93,000 students, sixteen year old Matthew won one of the 54 national scholarships with his speech ``My Voice in Our Democracy.'' I would like to insert his speech into the Congressional Record. My voice in our democracy is as powerful as a sweeping tide, as far-reaching as thought, and as valuable as the wisdom of Solomon. Its power is recognized and protected by our Constitution, its potent influence is proven by our nation's history and by current events; its value makes it my duty to steward it carefully. Did the Founding Fathers believe the voice of a single citizen holds power? Absolutely. They established the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. They wove into our democracy the great principles of popular sovereignty, limited government, representative government, and majority rule balanced by minority rights. They enshrined the fundamental worth of each individual's voice and the equality of all voices. To the minds of the Founding Fathers, even these freedoms and rights were not enough; they established the Ninth Amendment which recognized other unenumerated rights of the people. Is my voice really so powerful as to be precious? The Framers of our nation apparently thought so; they protected it as the essential flame of democracy. Try telling Robert E. Joiner one vote cannot make a difference. Less than twenty years ago he ran for the office of Southern District Highway Commissioner in Mississippi and won--by less than one ten-thousandth percent of the votes. Had his opponent garnered just six more votes, Joiner would have lost the election. Just last April, Eugene Shoemaker won the seat of Orfordville, Illinois, village trustee by drawing from a hat. He and his opponent each earned one hundred popular votes. Had just one more villager voted, the election would have been decided by the people. As it was, the outcome was left completely to the fingers of chance. The vote of each American counts toward the election of local, state, and national leaders. Its effectiveness is directly proportionate to the frequency of its use. My voice, and the voice of every American, does not, however, die in the ballot box. Boycotts, like those instigated by the legendary Rosa Parks bus incident in Montgomery, Alabama, and citizens organizations, like those founded by the consumer advocate Ralph Nader, wield profound influence. Demonstrations spotlight the views in the sight of the public. On generating social reform, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed this, ``In order to clean house the one thing we need is a good broom. Initiatives and referendums are good brooms.'' My voice, and the voice of every American, is carried on the wings of peaceable assembly and petition; it influences those around me and even trumpets itself through my everyday actions. The worth of my voice, because of its power and effectiveness, is incalculable. To not exercise it is a foolish waste. Because our democracy provides many practical vehicles for my voice, and because our country's future truly depends on it, it is my duty to articulate it. Otherwise, I scorn the pragmatic provisions of our democracy; I become a parasite living off the nation's privileges without positive contribution to the nation; I toss aside my right to cry for change in society. Or as Edmund Burke put it, ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' But when I vote, petition, write, speak, or act for the benefit of the nation I am, to the utmost, fulfilling my patriotic duty. To the cynic, my voice may be merely the frail peeping of one person among two-hundred-sixty million, but to Robert E. Joiner, Eugene Shoemaker, Rosa Parks, Ralph Nader, and to me it is the soaring shout of freedom. My voice is the very essence of our democracy. Multiplied several million times, my voice is the throbbing heart of America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the citizens of Pennsylvania to pay special tribute to the Foundation for Free Enterprise Education which this year is celebrating the 20th Anniversary of Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week. Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week is a seven-day economic education program providing Pennsylvania high school students and teachers at all levels, a practical, in-depth course on the American system of private enterprise and the operations of a free market. Over 1,100 students and teachers will join together with more than 200 Pennsylvania businessmen and businesswomen in order to experience and explore the challenge of healthy competition through a business management simulation, to hear top leaders in Pennsylvania business and government speak on the issues facing American business and industry, and, to participate in a series of specially formulated projects designed to acquaint them with the inner workings of a modern-day business. Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week is celebrating its more than 12,000 graduates representing more than 900 high schools in every county of this Commonwealth who have returned to their schools and communities with a vastly improved understanding of the world of business. Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week is now recognized as the largest, most successful economic education program of its kind in the world. Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week has now attained both national and international acclamation by its receipt of the 1987 National Award for Excellence in Economic Education from the Freedom's Foundation in Valley Forge, by being instrumental in starting similar programs in twenty-seven other states as well as in the country of New Zealand, by hosting students from the countries of Puerto Rico, Mexico and Russia and by serving as hosts in 1994 to a contingent of business people from Australia, seeking to pattern a program after Pennsylvania's. I applaud Pennsylvania Free Enterprise Week which continues to fulfill its mission of providing the highest quality economic education to the youth and educators of Pennsylvania, thereby insuring a brighter future for the Commonwealth.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, a petition has been signed and released by over 17,000 scientists urging the Congress and other lawmakers around the world to reject the Kyoto Protocols on global climate change. The 17,000 signers include over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. In addition, 4,400 are qualified to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life, and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to understanding climate change issues. The petition letter is a strongly worded statement that goes beyond rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. It denies the existence of any scientific evidence that man-made greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic warming, and even goes so far as to say ``increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'' That is because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a life essential gas. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this administration and its extremists to stop the deception of the American people on global climate change.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, for one minute let us say out loud what Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill are saying privately about what they are reluctant to say in public: The emperor has no clothes. It is obvious that the people who came to Washington, promising the most ethical administration in history, is nothing of the sort. The nearly $3 million the Democratic National Committee returned after the 1996 election, because it came from foreign sources, was not raised by accident. White House assertions that they do not know how the White House ended up with 900 FBI files on Republicans are not true. And the assertion that no one knows who hired Craig Livingston is not only a lie, it is a laughable one. White House denials that the Lincoln bedroom was not sold or the White House coffees have nothing to do with fund-raising are lies. Just more examples of an almost pathological inability to be honest with the American public. The latest scandals are simply more of the same, and they are popping up everywhere. Mr. Speaker, why sugarcoat what everyone knows to be true. The emperor has no clothes.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas) for bringing forth this resolution. I strongly support it. It sends a clear, unambiguous message about Congress' commitment to removing drugs from our schools. Never before has this message been more urgently needed. And that includes alcohol. I believe drugs are the single greatest threat facing our children. Drug usage with the very young is exploding. More kids are trying and using drugs than ever before, and they are starting earlier and earlier. Our schools, which used to be a safe haven, are now becoming a hostile territory because drugs are available there. I have a granddaughter in fourth grade and granddaughter in eighth grade. It is not a matter of are they going to be exposed to drugs; it is how often and by whom. Because they are there, they have already been exposed. Students in sixth and seventh grade are deciding to smoke pot before they drink beer. How did we get here? I believe throughout the 1990s, many leaders and role models in the position to set a good example have sent mixed signals about whether drug use is wrong. Prominent national leaders have trivialized their own drug use as if it matters whether or not one inhales. Hollywood celebrities have glorified drugs, using them in the popular culture. And movies have been sending the wrong message to our young people. The behavior of many professional athletes has suggested that it is okay as long as they can get away with it. This is why this resolution, and the larger Republican agenda to make America drug free, is so important. With it, we draw a line in the sand. A couple quick statistics. The proportion of 12-year-olds who reported having a peer on hard drugs increased 12 percent just last year alone. National and State and local leaders must send a strong, clear message to our youth by an example. Hollywood needs to divert from its glorification of drugs to be against drugs. Professional sport teams need to put a line in the sand that says we are going to make it clear that drug users are not welcome on our teams. It is time that American celebrities set the example, and that includes all leaders, local, State, and national.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments of a dedicated group of young people who worked together to achieve something no one in the Bellefonte Area High School has ever done. I wish to pay tribute to students and their faculty advisors who participated in the Central District History Day Project Competition. They won first and third places in the Senior's Group Project Division. This year's History Day Project theme was Migration. First place went to Kamal Aboul-Hosn, Justin Miller, and Ben Spicer for their project entitled ``Communism: Rise, Reign & Fall.'' Third place went to Stacey Waksmonski, Jessica Rhoads, Jessica Benson, Jeremy Acker, and Daria Cramer for their project entitled ``Women of the West--Travels and Changes.'' Today's youth are our leaders of tomorrow. They will become some of the very best leaders because of examples like the faculty members of the Bellefonte Area High School. Faculty advisors Ed Fitzgerald, Martha Nastase, and Tricia Steckel are to be especially commended for their encouraging efforts which led to the above awards. When we hear about the poor state of education or educators in our country, we need to think about success stories such as these. Hard work and commitment will achieve much as these students and faculty members demonstrate. I extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to these Bellefonte Area High School students as they compete in the State Championship Competition at State College on May 13-14. Their enthusiasm for this project and desire to share history is commendable and should be encouraged by all.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding this time to me and commend him on his work on this issue. Why should we make it more difficult to raise taxes? Most Americans believe the Federal Government is too big, is too intrusive in their lives. It is a bureaucracy they cannot deal with, and they do not want it to grow, so we do not need to look at more money. This government grows and our taxes grow without raising them. Many have said we are trying to protect the current Tax Code. That is a lie. If those really believe that, I urge them to join the Largent- Paxton bill that I joined and many have joined here that sunsets the current code on December 31st of 2001, but also requires that by July the 4th we have a replacement. We want to replace this code, but we do not want to make it easier to raise taxes. The vast majority of Americans believe the Federal Government should stop growing. It grows because of the aggressiveness of our current Tax Code. I come from a State government where taxes were flat. We did not get the kind of growth we get, usually double the rate of inflation just with new money every year. Then there are those that are salivating over the cigarette tax because it will allow government to grow even more. Now I am not opposing the cigarette tax, but I say for every penny that we bring in on a cigarette tax we need to decrease taxes an equal amount because we do not need more money in Washington. The cigarette tax should not come forward unless we agree that we are going to cut taxes equally. Why are Democrats afraid of tax limitation? They ruled here for four decades by buying the people's support with new programs, more government, a bigger Federal Government, and this will stop them in their tracks. The American public changed here a couple years ago because they suddenly realized that all of this free money from Washington was not free. They were sending it to Washington, and they got less back than they sent and a Federal Government that does not answer their phone calls, a Federal bureaucracy that does not care about them, a Federal bureaucracy that is totally insensitive to the needs of our communities because they do not understand them. Yes, the voters today realize that when they increase Federal taxes that the Federal Government is going to grow, and that is what Democrats want, that is what made them successful. But all of a sudden the American taxpayers had as much government as they could afford and as they could want, and that is why Republicans are running the Congress today. And this bill, this resolution, will lock in and make it more difficult to grow this Federal Government that by most people's standards is too big and too hard to deal with.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Democrats' call for national standards in education reflects their high regard for high ethical standards when it comes to raising money for their political campaigns? I have no doubt that the other side, so proud of what they did during the 1996 elections, have learned a few lessons from the most ethical administration in history. Selling the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder; White House coffees with the most impressive rogues gallery of drug smugglers, arms dealers and con artists ever assembled. I wonder if the national standards they have in mind will help with the little ``I do not recall problem'' that seems to afflict the majority from the White House who are asked to come to Capitol Hill to testify about campaign finance law breaking. I wonder if the national standards they have in mind will do anything about shaking down impoverished Indian tribes for money, using the power of the IRS to target America's most vulnerable citizens, or invading the privacy of ordinary citizens by illegally obtaining their FBI files. I wonder, Mr. Speaker. I wonder.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule. It is interesting as a former employer for 26 years and a small businessman myself, I guess I feel like I am suddenly the bad guy, that America's small businesses are some evil force that wants to hurt workers. If we are going to grow in this country and prosper, small business and workers and unions need to work together. This bill addresses a practice of professional agents or union employees or other people, a competitor's employees coming into a workplace under the guise of wanting employment when they are really there to cause problems. If you had invested everything you have into a business, you would be much more willing to discuss this issue fairly. If you had everything you owned on the line in a business and somebody was coming to work for you who was there for subversive reasons, whether it is organizing or it is your competitor to cause problems with your workers, and it happens both ways, you would be very much against that. That is not fair. In chapter 2, we talk about the NLRB to conduct hearings to determine when it is appropriate to certify a single location or multiple locations. What is wrong with business having a hearing? What is wrong with public process? Letting both sides be heard to make a decision? Chapter 3 deals about a time limit of when the rules need to come out, the rulings. What is wrong with the 1-year time limit? That just makes sense. That is what is usually done. When it is not done, it is usually done to hurt somebody. The final provision in chapter 4 is legal cost. If you are a small business and a bigger entity is after you and has unlimited legal ability, they can break you. If it is found that you have been fair, they should pay your legal fees. If we do not give small business a decent break in America, we are not going to grow, the poorest of America will not get jobs, because that is where they start, in small businesses who are growing and prospering. That is the future of America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would urge some of the previous speakers at some point recently to read the bill, because if they had read the bill, they would not have made the statements that were just made. In America, if we want the unemployed to have jobs, if we want working families and the underemployed to have better jobs, we need to nourish and be fair with small business. The Fortune 500 companies are not growing. The small businesses are growing and will grow faster if we are fair with them. What is wrong with someone, who mortgages everything they own to start a business, to ask for loyalty from those they hire to help them build that business, and if they are there to help them do that, they are going to support them? That is America. What is wrong with a hearing process to decide if they are being organized, and they have three or four sites, whether it is going to be a single site or collective? That is America. What is wrong with putting a limit on a decision to 1 year? A year is long enough to have delay. What is wrong with when the big NLRB, with all of our money and all of their lawyers, comes down on small businesses unfairly, and it is proven they were unfair, that that small business can at least get its legal fees back? That is the what America ought to be standing for and what America is all about. Those who have talked about all the labor issues of the past have not read this bill. This bill is fair to small business giving an equal, level playing field so that we can grow small businesses, so unemployed people can have jobs, so underemployed people can have a better job. It is about fairness. If we in this Congress are fair to small business, this country will grow and the workers of America will have choices of jobs.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the debate we need to have in America is do we have global warming? One study shows since 1900 there is less than a 1 degree change in temperature. Satellite data shows a slight cooling. Those who are proclaiming we have global warming want us to agree to the Kyoto Treaty that will drastically change our competitiveness and will radically change our economy. Over 130 countries are not part of that agreement. The debate we need to have is do we have global warming. We have not had that important scientific discussion. I asked a climatologist in my district, who is one of the world's most renowned, do we have global warming? He says, there is no evidence of it. Those who believe in global warming and want us to sign this treaty need to stand up and tell the American people how we have global warming, what the evidence is. Until they provide that evidence, scientific evidence, we need to say no to the U.N. and to Vice President Gore and the Kyoto Treaty.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing increased rhetoric, some of it bordering on fantasy and hysteria, concerning global climate change. What is lacking and desperately needed is a full and open and robust debate. Is our climate changing? One temperature measuring system suggests that since 1900 there has been less than 1 degree of warming. Two other systems point to a slight cooling trend. While treaty supporters assert that the science of issues of global climate change are settled, the evidence clearly and loudly says that the debate should just be beginning. Here are some of the risks not mentioned by treaty supporters: the risk that energy suppression mandates will devastate employment in major U.S. industries; that rising fuel and electricity prices will depress the living standards of American families; that new tax and regulatory policies will handicap employers, enrich special interests and expand bureaucracy and risk the surrendering of more U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. Now, some people think that the Kyoto Protocol is the flawed execution of a bad idea, based on the conceit that government planners can know today what will be the worst calamity facing mankind 50 or even 100 years from now. Mobilizing the nations of the world and spending vast sums to fend off one possible threat that may prove to be nonexistent or trivial compared to the age-old scourges of poverty, hunger, disease and oppression is not a prudent insurance policy. The resources available to protect human health and safety are limited, especially in the Third World. Any policy that diverts trillions of dollars from real problems and real science to speculative and imaginary ones, or that locks mankind into politically correct and industrial policy schemes can only make societies less resilient, less able to meet the challenge of an unknown future. Mr. Speaker, should we risk the American economy and way of life before the evidence is conclusive? Let us have the debate first. Let us not approve the many billions of dollars that the President has requested to start implementing in this year's budget. The President has not submitted a treaty to the Senate. No debate has been held in the Senate. No ratification of a treaty has taken place. Let us tell the President, no, no, no, on funding until we have the debate first and until the evidence is conclusive. I have no doubt that if the evidence is conclusive, if we do come to that conclusion, this Congress will do whatever is necessary to resolve the problem. But until we have that debate, until the evidence is in, until we have absolute proof, let us say no to the President to spending billions of our tax dollars, starting this year, on a treaty that has not been approved by the Senate.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I guess a concluding remark for me is one of the first things I said tonight. I think we really have 3 years to back out of the trust funds. If we do not stop borrowing from the trust funds the next 3 years, we probably will not have an economy that will allow us to do that. I think we have a limited time to stop borrowing from them. I think the pressure ought to be on. I do not think we have to whack and cut with a cleaver. I think we just have to be a little bit frugal like we are with our own money, just a little bit frugal here in Washington. We can stop borrowing from the trust funds, and we can make sure Social Security and Medicare are strong and that our children do not have the debt that we are going to leave them if we do not do it.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield there, I would like to ask this question of the gentleman from Michigan, who is our education expert; if we had a sunset provision in all 700-some programs in the Department of Education, the gentleman's committee would be pretty busy, would it not, reviewing all those as their times came due?

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I wanted to share my perspective of the President's message that we heard here in this hall a few weeks ago. It was a pretty smooth message. But in the first two paragraphs, he talked about Social Security first. That is pretty basic. That has been applauded throughout the country. But when he went on in the hour-long speech, he spent the money that could have put Social Security first. I guess it is pretty basic fundamentals. My colleagues have already chatted about it a bit. But we are balancing the budget by borrowing $100 billion in his proposed budget from Social Security. And when we add up all of the trust funds, we really will increase the debt if we pass the President's budget by about $140 billion to $150 billion. That is increasing the debt. We may not be spending more general fund revenues than we are taking in, but we are spending more money than we are taking in. To me that is basically fundamental. So I think the President in his smooth talk, as I call it, talked about Social Security first and then put it last. The other issue about his overall proposal that bothered me in basic budgeting, this is only my second Federal budget but I have dealt with 19 State budgets. In the State, whenever we got a one-time funding source where we had a windfall of a few million dollars, in the State it was millions, here it is billions, but he was going to use the supposed talked-about tobacco settlement to build a budget. And when we take one-time revenues, and we may get them 2 or 3 years, I am not sure what the settlement will be or how soon it is going to pay out, but it is not forever revenue. It is temporary revenue. When we build a budget with temporary revenue, down the road we are either going to cut that spending or raise taxes to replace that spending. That is bad budgeting. That is basic, fundamental poor budgeting. That is part of the President's proposal. I think if we really want to put Social Security first, I think we have a very short window. I think in the next 2 to 3 years, we have some unusual revenue growth, if we do not somehow screw up the economy in this country, if we do not take this opportunity to back out of borrowing from Social Security and actually start a trust fund, leave that 100 million, make that 100 billion. In a 3-year period if we could stop borrowing at all, we would already have accumulated 200 billion actual money in the bank to be invested wisely and could be building for those who are worried about Social Security in the future. If it was my choice, if I were king, I would take the tobacco settlement and whatever payments are part of it. I know we have farmers to take care of. There is a lot things to solve with the tobacco settlement because there are people that are going to be displaced out there. I have sensitivity to that. But whatever money is not allocated in that settlement, I would put in the Medicare Trust Fund. Now we have started to help extend the Medicare program for more than 10 years out because that is all that it is solvent today. Those are two things that would send the right message to especially the seniors in this country. A couple other things that I wanted to mention was the sunsetting the IRS. I see the President has taken us on for sunsetting the IRS in the Tax Code as if that is irresponsible. I think the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) did an outstanding job the other day of his theory that it should be a national debate in the next Presidential election. And if we sunset it and give ourselves the time to go through the next election, when we are electing the next President, we can elect a President that tells the American people what kind of a simplified Tax Code they want and that he is going to give them. I think it would be an absolute time to debate that nationwide. Those are just a few of the things that I think are very important.