John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman used the words ``starve the bureaucracy.'' As I look at the Washington bureaucracy, I do not think there is anybody starving. The President, in his message, also talked about that government was smaller, I forget by what percentage than when he came here. When we add back the million people who have been taken out of the military, our government bureaucracy has grown immensely under the administration of the present President. I am told there are departments that have doubled. I think EPA has doubled in numbers of employees. There are other departments that are 50 percent bigger. While we were cutting the military immensely, the rest of this government, as far as personnel is concerned, has exploded. There is a line item in the budget called general government. And I am going on memory here tonight because I have not looked it up recently, but if my memory is correct it was a $10 billion line item that in his budget was going to increase to 17 billion. It was general government. That is personnel. That is bureaucracy. So he was asking for a 42 percent increase in that line item in this year's budget. That is an area we need to take a look at it. I know I am personally having an audit done on how many employees there are in each department and how many there have been for the recent years. And if we want to waste money, build a huge bureaucracy. The Federal Government should not have these huge bureaucracies. I know my communities cannot deal with EPA, my businesses cannot effectively deal with EPA, but they can effectively deal with their State environmental agencies, who should be implementing the programs that we designate or that we prioritize. So I think we can take a huge look at cutting back. Pennsylvania had a Governor a few years ago by the name of Dick Thornberg. I think my colleagues know him or know of him. He cut the size of government from about 105,000 to 92,000. Now, at that time I was a State legislator and then ran for the Senate about that same period of time, but I was serving in government. As he cut the bureaucracy and improved the management, our casework in our offices, helping people deal with government, went down measurably because he made those departments much more efficient, more professionally run, with less people, so our workload of helping communities and people deal with government became much less. As soon as we got a new Governor who did not pay attention to that and started adding more people to the payroll, our workload in our offices went up because of the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that was not well managed. That is another point I wanted to make in my concluding comments. We measure Governors and Presidents on what they propose, not on what they do. We really should be taking a look at this administration and why did we have $23 billion in wrongful spending in Medicare; why do we have 21 percent error rate in the tax credits? We could go on and on with the long list. That is poor management. That is the job of an administrator, is to run government. But we only talk about what they propose, what they promise, and what they are going to do for us, when the first job of a CEO is to manage a company. The first job of a President or a Governor is to manage their government. And we should be measuring our leaders on how they manage the resources that we give them and the programs we give them. I think if we did that, things would change a lot because they would stop talking about new programs and they would start paying attention to managing government. And I think we need to change our whole focus.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, there are some who think that Americans generally are undertaxed. There are those who think that the current tax burden is just about right. And then there are those who think Americans send too much money to Washington and are just flat not getting their money's worth. I fall into that category, as do, I suspect, most of my Republican colleagues. Mr. Speaker, Americans do not mind paying their fair share. Americans truly are a people that want to see others get ahead, especially those who face greater obstacles in life than most of us face. But Americans do not like to see their money wasted. They are not happy about a Federal Government in Washington, D.C. that just keeps getting bigger and bigger while at the same time becoming less and less accountable to the people. Simply put, Washington has gotten too big, too powerful and Washington should not be taking between one-third and one-half of a middle-class family's income. Mr. Speaker, I do not care what the temporary polls show. I think the middle-class, the backbone of America, could use a break. The Tax Code is aggressive. It raises our taxes without a law change. We need a tax cut to make sure that middle America does not have a tax increase that just happens automatically because of the aggressiveness of the code.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, how many times have we heard the White House or their attack dogs on their behalf repeat the lie that the Starr investigation has cost $40 million and has nothing to show for it; $40 million and produced no results; $40 million and turned up nothing? How many times, I ask? How many times have we heard this? Turned up nothing? Madam Speaker, all the Clinton associates, Cabinet officials, and business partners who are now sitting in jail might have a different view. In case James Carville and other apologists for political corruption and government fraud need a little help with their memory, we prepared a list for them. Let us take a quick look at that ``most ethical administration in history.'' Four independent counsels appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno; Cabinet Secretary Mike Espy, indicted; Cabinet Secretary Henry Cisneros, indicted; Cabinet Secretary Ron Brown, indicted; former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, convicted of fraud and conspiracy; President Clinton's business partners, Jim and Susan McDougal, convicted of felonies and now sitting in jail; and the list goes on. Nothing to show? That is simply wrong. There is a list and it is longer than I have given.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, there are schools in America that turn out more criminals than young people that will go out to attend college. Would Members like a choice if their child was attending that school? I believe they would. Madam Speaker, wealthy Americans and many Congressmen and Senators make choices every day, and our President and Vice President, they send their child to the school of their choice. Many middle-class Americans choose where they live so their children can attend a school that they know is a good school. But what about poor Americans who are stuck in a bad neighborhood with a bad school? Eighty percent of the schools in America are good and delivering a good product. Recently we had a bill that would allow choice for the poorest of Americans. What are the Democrats in the educational establishment afraid of, that it might work? We would have a chance to change education, and education would change, if we had choice. Bad schools would close, and the children would have a chance to go to a good school.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and commend him and the leaders on both sides of the committee for the hard work they have done on this very important issue. I do not think there is any issue facing America that is more important to our future than to somehow improve our educational system to where every Johnny and Susie when they leave school are good readers. I will have to be honest, I was not excited when I saw the budget agreement that called for another new reading literacy program, but I am pleased with the work that has been done with existing programs and in streamlining this one to get the money to our schools. But I will say this: I do not think we will solve the literacy problem in this country just with Federal initiatives. We need a commitment from our school boards and our superintendents and principals that no child will leave their school without good reading skills, and, without that commitment, no State or Federal money will solve this problem. We need that commitment at the local level. But I come to the floor today to support the Reading Excellence Act. This act brings only successful components of education together, the school, the teacher, the parents, and, most importantly, the child. This focuses on providing teachers and tutors with better tools. The Reading Excellence Act provides parents with the ability to better their child's opportunity to make the grade in reading. Through the tutorial assistance grants, Johnny and Susie's parents will be able to pick from a list of programs in order to find the right program for the needs of their children. I think that is one of the most important parts of this bill. When we stop and think about it, where did we learn to read? It was a combination of school and home and family members. Another important aspect of this bill is where children are having difficulties as a result of a family environment. This act provides literacy assistance to the child's parents, allowing them to become their child's first and foremost teacher. It directs the funds to the local level, where only true educational reform happens. This measure strengthens our teachers and their teaching methods. Finally, we ensure that parents remain the key element in the education equation, providing them with literacy assistance, allowing them, the parents, the decision process for their child, ensuring that parents become the premier teachers. With this bill we only provide tools, but we still need the commitment of the school superintendents and directors back home that no child will leave their school without good literacy skills.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate and a very important debate, but to look at the total perspective of charter schools and the establishment of them and the growth of them, we must remember that the educational establishment was not for charter schools. They have been very reluctantly agreeing to support charter schools because they have been a very successful experiment. It is vital that we keep the priorities that this gentleman has put in this bill there because it is like fertilizing the garden. He is trying to allow charter schools to grow and not inhibit them. In my view the Tierney language will give all the control back to the establishment, to the Department, who are very reluctant to let charter schools grow naturally. Let us look at them. State periodically reviews academic performance of charter schools. How could we not want that to be there, that we look at their performance, because do my colleagues know what is going to happen? The performance has been good, and when the performance is good, the whole concept will grow. So we must slow that down. That is what the Tierney amendment does. State gives charters fiscal autonomy. Local control, local power, local decisions; no educational establishment wants that, and they will not give that reluctantly, they will give it very reluctantly. Let us keep that priority in there, allow for an increase in the number of charter schools from year to year. What is wrong with that? No State is going to increase the number unless it is working in that State, unless their program is proving good. These are appropriate priorities upon the new moneys going out there as a fertilizer, as the carrot approach there. Mr. Chairman, the Tierney amendment puts the power back in the establishment who will slow charter school growth down, who will keep it at a minimum. Do not let this thing get away from us, do not let local control takeover; that is what this argument is all about. It is very simple. This is a very thoughtful approach of a very little bit of money. Those are appropriate priorities. Let's go over them one more time: Academic performance, and then tell the world how well they are working; fiscal autonomy, local control, very important; allow for an increase in the number of charter schools, and that will only happen if it is working well. Let us let the bill as it is and defeat the Tierney amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we have been having an ongoing educational debate here in Congress, in the 105th Congress. There are several issues that have come out that I want to share today. Seven percent of the money for education comes from the Federal Government, yet 70 percent of the paperwork and red tape come from the Federal Government. We have discussed special education, vocational education, choice, charter schools, literacy. The Democrats have worked for more money, more Federal control, more bureaucracy, which equals more taxes. The Republicans have fought for 90 percent to go to the classroom, which has normally been about 70 percent; for local control, allowing the community and parents to choose. Federal control means Federal bureaucracy and will not be in the best interests of our students. Today I ask the American public, which do they want, more bureaucracy, or more freedom for education at the local level?

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation today. Freedom is about making choices. This country was founded upon religious freedom, religious choices, because in other countries they were not given that right. We have tried a lot of monopolies in this country, controlled monopolies. Transportation, trucking, airlines, utilities and our package delivery system were run and controlled by monopolies. We found out that they were not very efficient, they did not provide very good cost-effective service, and we have been slowly decontrolling all of those and still are today. A few years ago the auto industry and the Big 3 were a monopoly in this country. They were a monopoly until in the 1980s. They did not take the consumer into view. Then in came the Japanese and the Germans and the Swedes, and the Hondas and Toyotas and the Nissans entered the marketplace and caused real pain in America, because they took away that monopoly. But what happened? Did it destroy our auto industry? No, it made it stronger, it made it healthier, and more dominant in the world today than ever. At least 80 percent of our schools are good. If we doubled the funding for education, problem schools would remain. We will spend $300 billion for elementary and secondary education, and someone said here erroneously that we were going to take $2 billion away from public schools. This bill is about $310 million in a title 6 block grant. If one- ninth of that goes to choice, that is .01 percent of the basic education budget. Why should our poorest who are failing schools have no choice? Our Congressmen have choice, our Senators have choice. The leaders of this country have choice because they can afford it. The poorest cannot. What are we afraid of? A very small pilot project that only helps States who have voted on the public record to have some choice pilots. If students leave a school in meaningful numbers, what will happen is this: The school will fix the problem. The study done by Harvard already shows that. If you have weak math or weak science, or a drug- infested school or an unsafe school and students start to leave, the school will fix the problem. We will improve public education. Competition brings excellence to everything. Higher education works. It worked in autos, transportation, and the package delivery system. Is the education of our children not more important than all the ones above? Is it not giving Americans a choice, and we are starting with the poorest who are trapped in schools that are not delivering, that are not giving them an appropriate ability to get a good education. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to be afraid of. I urge Members to support this legislation and give them the same choices that congressional leaders have.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the bill that is before us. It was one of my biggest disappointments that the budget negotiators gave in to the President and the liberal Democrats to restrict how parents and families can spend their own savings accounts on education. I think it is un-American. The concept of an educational IRA makes so much sense. It is after-tax dollars we allow them to put away for their own families. It is an act to encourage Americans to plan and save for their own children's education, making them less dependent on government help. What are my colleagues afraid of? That is good public policy. It is about freedom, parents and families making choices, parents and families planning for their own children's future. What is the difference between grade 13 and grade 11 and 12? Well, in 13 you can choose. In grade 11 and 12, you have no choices because the government knows better. Let us look at Johnny and Suzie. Suzie needs a strong base because she has chosen a tough college program. Her parents, her educators realize that she may not be able to get into the program she wants. So she may choose a different public school for her senior year or she may choose a private school so she can get the preparation for the education she has chosen. Or Johnny, who just needs some help in 11th or 12th grade so he can go to college. He is right on the borderline of what colleges will accept, the colleges he wants. What is wrong with Johnny's and Suzie's parents having a right to choose? We heard today, how can we ask families to invest in the children's education? We are not asking them. We are giving them the opportunity. There are those who said all the money is going to go to the rich. They assume that working Americans do not care about their children's future. Working Americans will save quicker than anybody, because they care about their children. Many working Americans do not have a college education, but they want their children to and they will sacrifice, and we should give them that chance. We should give parents and families the right to choose.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, there have been several speakers who have said that parents, working Americans, poor Americans, cannot afford to do this, and they will not, and it appears with Treasury and their examples and the figures they have come up with, they are assuming they will not. If that is the case, this bill should not be a problem, because it will not impact our schools, because the parents that have the right to choose today, the wealthy parents, make those choices every day, but middle Americans and the poor cannot make choices because they cannot afford to. So if that is true, this bill should not be a problem. This whole debate is frivolous. But I cannot pass up the chance to deal a little bit with the Rangel amendment, which we are debating now. There is a stark difference here. We have a bill that encourages people to save, parents and families to invest in their children's future, empower parents to make choices, with their money, not our money, their money, and now we have a substitute that talks about making it easier for school districts to go into debt. I have been a businessman for 26 years, and I served in State government for 19 years, and watched our educational system in Pennsylvania. A business or a school district cannot borrow their way out of trouble. If they are in trouble, borrowing money is not necessarily the answer. In Pennsylvania we have one school district that we gave an additional $400 million a year, over and above the formula, because they were impoverished and struggling. That $400 million never fixed their problem, and has not fixed it until today, because you can subsidize a poor school district as much as you want and you will not fix it, because it is not being run right. We have a choice here of empowering parents, encouraging them to save money for their own children's future, or whether we want to deal with the Federal Government getting involved in local school district debt. I am not opposed to allowing them the cheapest way to borrow money, if there is a way to do that. I am not opposed to that. But that is certainly no substitute for the bill that is before us. Why do we want to deprive American families the right to choose? I personally think very little of the money will go to basic education. I think the bulk of it will be, because if I was saving for my grandchildren and helping them, it would be to help them go to college and get their education. If the crisis came in 10th, 11th, or 12th grade, to help them get into the program they want, why should parents not have the right to use it? I do not understand a government that does not trust parents to make decisions, and does not want to empower parents to save money to provide for their children's future. That is just un-American, to oppose it.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly, again, a privilege to say a few more things. I ran short of time here a while ago and didn't get to say some of the things I wanted to mention. I think one of the issues we face is that not all Americans, and especially in rural America, are willing to admit to the problem. I think everybody knows there is drug usage in our rural schools. I think everybody knows there is some drugs in our small towns. But I don't think they are willing to quite accept the immenseness of it, the gravity of it, how much of it is really going on there. We really have a population across America of people raised in the sixties, and some of those people have never stopped using drugs. So here we have families raising children where drug use has never ceased since the sixties. They have continued to use some form of illegal drugs because they are hooked, and they have not admitted that it is a problem in their lives. But it is. Last year, I visited a high school close to home, and was concerned about some information I had received about the availability of drugs within the block of the school, about the availability of drugs in the junior high school, and so when I made that visit, I questioned do you bring in dog teams, do you check lockers, do you really make sure that drugs are not kept here? I was told in Pennsylvania, you cannot do that. It is different State by State. We have had a recent court case in Pennsylvania that has somewhat put the fear in the hearts of administrators and school principles, that they will be sued if they do that. I am sort of an adventure type. I said I would get sued if it meant keeping drugs out of the school, making sure that every locker, you don't have to really search, you bring in a good dog and you will know if there are drugs in that school, what backpack they are in, what locker or desk they are in. That is just that easy. But that is not common practice in many schools. I think sometimes school boards are, again, and school administrations, are not willing to admit, I know last year when I questioned sixth and seventh grade having the problem equally to junior high and senior high, I was disputed with that. But then last year, several young people in sixth grade were caught with drugs and were arrested and were prosecuted. It is clear now. They are afraid of the ACLU. They are afraid of the legal community out there who is going to nail them. I think that is unfortunate. We somehow need to untie our superintendents', our administrators' hands, so they can take whatever means are necessary to make sure that weapons and drugs and stolen property is not being stored on school property. I think in some cases young people can harbor those things easier in a school where searches are not done and dog teams are not brought in than they can at home, and that is very unfortunate. It is interesting. I was talking to a lady at a restaurant that I stopped at to pick up something on the way to the airport the other day coming in to session this week, and she said to me she closed her private airport in a little town of 1,000. The reason she closed it was too many small planes were coming in and big cars and she didn't know who they were meeting them. It was a little grass strip in the country, but she allowed people to use it. It was a licensed, legal airport, long enough and in a good location. She closed that airport because she had a sense that drugs were being delivered there. They came in at the inappropriate times and they quickly sped away after they met the airplane and there were people who have since lobbied her that they sure miss that airport. With the small airports across America, it is very easy to fly a large amount of drugs into our communities very easily. The other problem that rural communities face, and I am again speaking in a Pennsylvania perspective, more than once as a State Senator I brought the State strike force, the narc units in, and more than once they told the local police they would hang around a while to appease the Senator, but they were going back to the urban-suburban areas where they were really fighting the war on drugs. They didn't want to be in rural America. I do not personally think in a lot of cases, small rural towns have the same ability. When you look at a small police force of 10 people, you cannot use them as narc agents. You cannot have them investigating in the school and places undercover with young people to find out or in the local pubs where drugs are often sold. You cannot have them, you have to have strangers, you have to have people who know what they are doing. It is a very dangerous business. So I think another area we need to take a hard look at is, does rural America have the same ability to fight back that urban-suburban America has. I think some people think it is their problem; it is not ours, but I want to tell you, I think drug use is almost as prevalent in rural America today as is in urban-suburban America. That is my own personal view from my own experiences as a parent, as a grandparent, and as a community leader before I was involved in State and Federal Government. It is an issue that I think we just have to start a war on drugs. We have never fought a war on drugs. We may have had a few skirmishes, a few arguments. We may have spent some resources, but when you look at how much resources, I will go back to something I was talking about earlier. In the first days of this administration, the President cut the drug czar's office by more than 80 percent and the administration cut DEA by 227 agents. Total funding for drug interdiction in the Caribbean, that includes DOD, Coast Guard, Customs, DEA and the State, dropped by more than 40 percent from '92 to '95. However, the $1.6 billion the President recently requested for interdiction is still less than the $2 billion spent by the previous administration in 1991. I guess I would like to come back and include in my comments that Congressmen need to speak out, State leaders need to speak out, and this administration needs to speak out. We need to have a crystal clear voice to America that drugs are bad. I know when I speak to youth groups, I tell them as straight as you can tell them, there is no upside to doing drugs; there is no win to doing drugs. It is a lose-lose-lose proposition. Until we get that message to our young people, until they understand that that good feeling they have for a few moments, that they are going to end up with a brain that is sub-par, they are going to end up with all kinds of health problems, and the juvenile suicide rate in this country is very much related to drugs and the abuse of drugs and alcohol. I think we must always remember that the most abused drug in this country is alcohol. All of us have lost friends and loved ones to drugs, hard drugs, but we have lost many friends and associates to alcohol.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I would like to thank and congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey for initiating this hour and this issue that we are talking about, I believe the most important issue facing this country. Our children, our young people, our future and the problem they face of drug use, which has just grown immensely. They have often talked about a war. I have not seen a war. As I look back on war, it is life and death. It is fighting till death takes over, or we win the war. I have not seen a war in this country. We may have called it a war, but it is a life and death issue, and I have not seen many leaders in this country that have made drugs a life and death issue. When we look at what goes on with professional sports today, how many football players in the National Football League and the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball which is holding a World Series game tonight, how many of their players have had multiple drug use, have been arrested for drugs, have sold drugs and continue after some short penalty to be a leader in this country, a model that our young people look up to and they have had multiple drug crimes, multiple instances where they have used drugs in this country, a terrible example that we have allowed. Television and the movie industry have glorified drug use. The results of that have been 47 percent of 14-year-olds today say they can buy marijuana within a day. That is half of our young people. 76 percent of high school students and 46 percent of middle school students say that drugs are kept or used or sold on school grounds. 29 percent of high school students and 12 percent of middle school students say that a student in their school died in the past year from an accident related to alcohol or drugs, an astounding figure. 56 percent of high school students and 24 percent of middle school students have attended a party in the past 6 months where marijuana was available. 41 percent of high school students and 18 percent of middle school students have reported seeing drugs sold in school or on school grounds. High school students say that 50 percent of their peers are using drugs at least monthly. 35 percent of teens cite drugs as the most important problem they face. Every youth group that I speak to, and I never turn one down, and some we organize and we bring them into our district from schools all over our congressional district. We used to do it in the Senate district when I served in State government, and we have panels of issues where we are teaching them about government and talking about issues, the number one issue they want to talk about is drugs. Why is it that young people bring it up again and again? Because they are scared, because they know in some instances that they do not do drugs and that they do not participate in alcohol. They are looked at as some kind of a square, they are not cool, they are not part of the in group. There is a little bit of good news. In 1996, there may have been some good news. Our overall current has remained about the same as last year and currently illicit drug use among teens 12 to 17 years old appears to have declined for the first time since 1992. However, current drug use among 18 to 25-year-olds is still on the rise. While teenage use of marijuana in the past month appears to have declined, in 1996 first- time use of heroin and cocaine has increased. Heroin and cocaine is in our small towns. It is in rural America. It is not just in the cities. Many people made fun of or made light of the Just Say No campaign. But as we look back, even those who criticized it at the time realized it was a crystal clear message. There was no way you could dispute it. There was no way you could not understand. During that period of time, drug use was really declining. We were making major progress. And then we come to the current administration, the Clinton-Gore administration. Since they have been in office, marijuana use is up 140 percent. LSD use overall is up 183 percent. Use of LSD has reached its highest rate since they began keeping statistics in 1975. Fully 11.7 percent of the class of 1995 have tried it at least once, LSD. And we all know the dangers of that drug. The number of cocaine and heroin-related emergency room admissions has jumped to historic levels. Perhaps most troubling is the rise in teen drug use during the Clinton administration. The number of 12 to 17-year-olds using marijuana has doubled. Teenage use of cocaine is up 166 percent. I think a lot of that has been this ambiguous message, no clear message. What are the costs? The costs are unmeasurable. Loss of loved ones. How many of us know a friend who has died? How many of us know a family who has lost a child? The juvenile suicide rate has skyrocketed. I have two granddaughters, Tara and Nicki. Tara is in seventh grade and Nicki is in fourth. My number one concern as a grandparent is their exposure to drugs in school because they are there. The school administration last year thought I was overevaluating the issue. But last spring at the close of the year, two 6th graders were arrested with drugs. The greatest problem facing this country is out of control use of drugs. Our young people are exposed to it on a daily basis. It is an issue that we must make the number one issue in this country. We must start a war on drugs.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the privilege to join him in support of H.R. 1127. My father always told me, ``If it is not broke, don't fix it.'' The Antiquities Act was not broken, but the Clinton/Gore administration abused the process. It is time to bring people back into this process. Thirteen Presidents have used it, and in my view, two have abused it. Those who have said we are going to upset the balance, I do not believe we are going to upset the balance. We are going to bring balance back. I come from a large, rural district in Pennsylvania where there is a lot of public ownership. I want to tell the Members, people are very concerned about regulations and declarations and laws that are passed and how it impacts rural America. Utah is 73 percent public land. They had no input. They deserved better. They have a right, when regulations and declarations are coming at them, to have an input. The President should explain why 1.7 million acres was needed. Was it to increase the ability of foreign friends to import a simpler type of coal? That is a public debate that should have happened. This bill does bring balance back to the process. States and local governments should have input. Citizens need a voice. This act, if amended, will still allow Presidents to act. Utah deserved better. I urge Easterners, my fellow Easterners from the East, and urban and suburban legislators in this body, to be a whole lot more sensitive to rural America. Regulations and laws and declarations have a huge impact on rural life. We are taking away their very ability to earn a living and to exist and live where they want to live. I urge all Members to be much more sensitive. This bill is modest. It gets at the problem because this administration broke it.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to vehemently oppose this amendment. I come from rural Pennsylvania, a rural part of Pennsylvania that has been struggling economically. We look at EDA as the doctor who can give us a transfusion to help us maintain economic life. It has been interesting to listen to those who talk about this as pork, as waste. Let me tell my colleagues what happens in a small town in America when you lose the only factory, when you lose the only major employer. And I wish some of those that are proposing this amendment looked into the eyes of the people in the glass plant in Marienville when they knew their job of the last 50 years was gone forever and there were no other job opportunities within 40 miles. I will never forget the look on those people's faces, and I sure do not want to tell them that there is not an Economic Development Administration to help them. In State government, we had a lot of economic development plans. I was often critical that a lot of that money went to very affluent areas, went to areas that were fighting growth, who were growing faster than they wanted to. But EDA targets its resources. It targets it to our communities that are the most in need, communities that have lost their major employers. Tell the community in Jefferson County that their industrial park, the 70 new jobs, was not worthwhile. Tell the people in Centre County who purchased a rail line that would have taken rail service away from employers and has since created 1,000 jobs. Tell the community in Tioga County in Pennsylvania that repurchased a Conrail line that was going to remove 450 jobs from their community because they could not function without rail service. I am here today to tell Members that this is a program that if we do away with in these small rural towns, where are those people going to go? The unemployment lines, the welfare rolls. It is going to cost us a whole lot more money than this measly $340 million that helps distressed communities all across this country. Tell this to a community that lost a USX plant, a Quaker State headquarters, a Worthington Pump plant, a Van Huffel Tube plant, a Foster Forbes Glass plant, a Graham Packaging plant that we do not care. Tell them that, that we are not going to help them pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If we want to look for economic development funds, why do we not look at the International Development Association that does economic development around the world? If we give them a 26 percent cut, we could save $160 million. The USAID, Agency for International Development, if we gave them a 26 percent cut, we could save $130 million. Aid to the former Soviet Union for economic development, if we give them a 26 percent cut, we could save $160 million. Mr. Chairman, this is a small program that targets its resources well to the poorest communities in America. I urge Members tonight to defeat this amendment and put it to bed forever, and let us work with a program that helps the poorest communities pull up their bootstraps.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Goodling amendment. The reason we are here discussing this issue tonight is that Johnny and Suzie cannot read as well as they should, and Suzie and Johnny do not do mathematics, they do not add, multiply, subtract and divide as well as they need to, many of them. So that is why we are discussing this tonight. I ask my colleagues, do we really think a national test will help Johnny read and Suzie do math? Do we really think it will make a difference? What are some of the problems that we are facing in basic education today? Parental involvement, helping Johnny and Suzie read and do math. Will a test change that? I do not think so. Discipline in the schools, to help Johnny and Suzie read and do math. Will a national test change that? I do not think so. National and State bureaucracies which chew up our administrators and principals' time, if my colleagues have ever walked through a school, how often do they really get into the classroom? They tell me by the time they get the State and Federal paperwork done, the day is over. They do not have time to get into the classroom like they need to. If my colleagues have ever walked through a State bureaucracy, they are very busy. Ninety percent of the bureaucracy is caused by the Federal Government which gives 6 percent of the money. Do we reward good teachers? Oh, no, that is not cool, that is not appropriate, to reward good teachers. Will national testing help there? No. Is funding fair and equal in all of our schools? Absolutely not. We have schools that spend 2 and 3 times as much per student as others. Will national testing change that? National testing will not change that. Is the classroom size equal from school to school? No, it is not equal, and national testing will not change that. We will add another layer of bureaucracy. We will have a Federal bureaucracy, we will have a State bureaucracy in 50 States, regional bureaucracies and local bureaucracies administrating tests. One hundred million dollars to set it up and approximately that much at the Federal level to administer it thereafter, plus the unmeasured costs at the State and local level that never gets figured into the mix. National testing will not change education, I say to my colleagues. We would be far better off to spend that $100 million getting at one of the problems I have mentioned, but a test will give us a couple more years to observe, we will hire some more employees for the Federal and State governments to build the educational bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], our chairman, is right on the ball, he is right on the money. National testing is not the answer. It will not change a thing. It will give a few people a few jobs, but it will not help Johnny and Suzie read and it will not help Suzie and Johnny do multiplication, add and subtract.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for support for the Peterson-Blunt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the subcommittee, for his willingness to facilitate this amendment. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member, for his cooperation, and I would also like to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt] for his support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to reaffirm actions taken by the House at the end of July. Before we left, this body overwhelmingly adopted H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Amendments Act, by a vote of 414 to 12. Mr. Chairman, it was this tremendous support that encouraged me to offer this amendment. The amendment which I am offering today will increase the vocational education basic State grant account by $20 million, with an offset from the Goals 2000 Program. Vocational education is a very essential part of our educational system and particularly for rural America. For a variety of reasons, a postsecondary education is not the answer for every student, with many of them living in rural America. In fact, about half of our Nation's graduating senior class will choose to attend college and roughly half of those will receive a degree. Mr. Chairman, a responsible and appropriate avenue for outfitting the rest of our Nation's youth with the skills to make them attractive and competitive in the job market is a commitment from the Federal Government in assisting local schools. The best avenue for this commitment is through continued support of vocational education. Mr. Chairman, true education reform will only take place at the local level. It is time that we provide the resources to our schools to make the needed and necessary changes for improvement. H.R. 1853 will enable this to happen by directing more funds to local education agencies and removing a number of requirements which prevent school districts from taking steps necessary for providing an appropriate academic education. How significant is a $20 million increase for a program funded at nearly $1 billion? In these times of budget constraint, any increase is significant. However, Mr. Chairman, if H.R. 1853 were law, the formula that we have in it will drive 90 percent of the money down to the school districts, where historically under the current vocational act only 75 percent of the money actually reached the school districts. So this will be a significant increase, the 2 percent that the $20 million will give. Mr. Chairman, to put this another way, a 2-percent increase will enable a 20-percent increase in funding for local education agencies if the House-passed measure becomes law. Being a legislator for nearly 20 years now, I have always felt it was important to reinforce legislative improvements through the budget process. By adopting the Peterson-Blunt amendment, we will be doing just that and sending a message to the American people that we are serious about legislation enacted by this body. Vocational education is a vital program for the future of America. This legislation, overwhelmingly agreed to, is good legislation. I urge my colleagues to support both. Support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the amendment is agreeable to both sides and will be accepted. For that I again thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin for their willingness to work with us.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Roemer-Riggs amendment. I think it strikes right at the heart of one of the most exciting concepts in education in this country, no matter what part of government we are dealing with. And I have always liked pilot projects, where we test how things work before we nationalize them, or before we make them statewide, or before we bring them into the system. Charter schools are making a difference in this country. Charter schools are one experiment of the many educational experiments that I think people all over this country are excited about. We should not allow the educational bureaucracy to just allow them to grow very slowly. When we look at the numbers, we heard today that 600 in this country out of 16,000 schools, that is about 3\1/2\ percent, are charter schools. That needs to grow. I, too, am a very strong supporter of the technology literacy fund. But that received a 130 percent increase over last year. It will still have a 110 percent increase. I have heard the words here today several times that you can grow funding for a program too fast and not spend it wisely, and that might be the case here. It will not be underfunded, and it will bring the charter school funding up to what the President felt the needs were. This is one area where the President and I sincerely agree. All the new research documents show that the reason charter schools are not moving forward faster is the lack of startup funds. That is the role we can play. Even the NEA, I am told, is talking of doing five charter schools. When the establishment starts to get into the charter school business, it shows us that this is a concept that is making a difference. In my district, I have a regional charter school proposed that I think is exciting. Small, rural school districts really are challenged to deal with troubled students, students that are truant, students that are in trouble with the law and cause a lot of problems in the school. When there is a certain amount of that, the whole school is disrupted, and the educational process. We have a regional concept where they are going to hopefully get chartered soon to have, for a multicounty area, a place where troubled students, delinquent children in these small, rural school districts, that could not deal with them in a positive way, a place to offer them a kind of program that would help them, but done on a regional basis. The grass-roots support continues to grow as people learn about charter schools. In Florida, where independent observers first predicted a relatively small amount of activity due to aspects of the State's enabling legislation, 40 schools were approved in the first two rounds. In North Carolina, more than 60 groups applied for charters in the first round of applications. In Pennsylvania, my State, 90 groups wanted to have a charter school before the law was even passed, and 67 are now receiving State support. Mr. Chairman, this is an educational experiment that has proven it can make a difference in American schools, all different types of charter schools, and it is one we should force-feed. We should at least fund the President's recommended request of $100 million, which the Roemer-Riggs amendment does. I think it is one of the best amendments I have seen in the educational debate here. I urge my colleagues to vote for innovation, to vote for change, to vote for the funding for charter schools that are making a difference, and will make a great difference in this country if we adequately fund them.

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

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman for his support of this program, and I appreciate his willingness to work with me on the issue of rural health care.

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