John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I might just add to that. I represent 20 percent of Pennsylvania, which includes State College, a fast-growing suburban type area. My district has historically received no NEA funding.

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

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to, I guess, maybe throw a wet blanket over a love fest that we have been listening to for the last hour, 45 minutes. This will be the fifth amendment that cuts energy programs for America. I find it interesting and troubling. We found that weatherization was ahead of having a strategic oil reserve. This will be the second amendment that strikes at the funds that are needed to manage the future energy supply for this country. A few hours ago or yesterday, we provided that State parks were more important than energy research. We also yesterday said payment in lieu of taxes, an issue that I have always fought for, was more important than energy. I was forced to not support the PILT amendment. Now we are having a very impassioned argument for NEA and NEH. But this will be almost $100 million taken from the future of America's energy needs. Have we forgotten 1973 and 1974? Have we forgotten the lines in this country? Have we forgotten what it did to our economy? Have we forgotten what it did to job opportunities and growth in this Nation? Have we forgotten how it made us vulnerable? This country does not have an energy policy. We have drifted to where we are more than 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. Are we comfortable with Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, Kuwait, Iraq, Indonesia, and Russia as our source of energy? We have been fortunate to have Saudi Arabia, our friend. But remember when Iran was our friend, how quick that can change. If Saudi Arabia leadership would change and we lose that cheap source of oil, this country would be in jeopardy. Our future and all of these things that we are talking about would seem minuscule to the energy resources that are important to this country. The energy resource that we have cut here previously is about clean air. It is about better use of our energy. The Strategic Oil Reserve that was to give us a 90-day supply in case of one of these foreign countries turning against us has never been filled because Congress and the current administration has not had the will to fill it. In fact, a few short years ago, we were selling $30 oil for $12 to run it because we did not fund it. That has been changed. This is the second cut. I am not arguing what the money is used for. But is the future energy needs of this country so insignificant that everybody is going to target energy to fund their program? I think the future energy needs of this country are far more important than collectively all the programs we funded by taking the money. We need to continue clean coal research. We need to continue to get more oil out of the ground more efficiently and more cost effectively so that we have to import less. All of those things are important to clean air, to clean water, and to the safety and future of this country. I just find it incredible that amendment after amendment attacks the energy line items that are about our future for something that may be nice, that may be good. But is it more important than the future economy of this country, the future energy needs of this country? We see oil prices double, and we will see weatherization needs skyrocket. We see oil prices double, we will see our economy go in the tank real quick. And we will not have money for anything here. We will be cutting all kinds of programs. The future of this country's military might depends on a sufficient supply of energy, and it appears we have somehow swept that aside, and this is the year to attack energy, a budget that is underfunded in its own right. I guess I have to stress that, collectively, in my view, these amendments have a negative impact on our environment. Because the research that we are cutting, the oil reserve that we are cutting is so vital to our economic future and for the clean and more efficient use of fuels and the realization that we have planned for our children's future by providing an energy source when something goes wrong in this world that destabilizes our current sources, to not have the reserve full is a tragedy, to cut its budget is a mistake.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, to support this amendment, we are voting to have less resources available for the poor to assist them with their heat and their cooling needs. I said earlier, having just spent 19 years in State government, we never missed the chance, and for 9 or 10 years I was an appropriator, we never missed the chance to get $3 for $1. Never. States do not walk away from money when they spend $1 and end up with $4. And States should be a partner. One of the strongest lobbyists for this program has been the States, so they believe in it. Well, when we believe in something, we ought to be a partner, and we are a partner when we invest. Now, who lobbies us and who lobbies the States? The utilities lobby us, and they are very effective at lobbying the States. Utilities in my district all have a program where every time I pay one of my electric or gas bills, I or my wife can decide to give a couple bucks to their energy fund, because they have one that works along with ours to help poor people who cannot pay their bills. They talked about the problem of next winter. Next winter we are dealing with last year's money. Next winter we will be dealing with this year's money. This is not a time problem. It is not a time problem. The States have more than adequate time to deal with it. I urge all of our colleagues to be futuristic. Let us make the States the partners. Let us let them stand up and support what they so adequately lobby for. I want to tell my colleagues, there is no State that cannot afford to support this program. Every State is in surplus. The State I come from has a $750 million surplus. They can fund the whole program nationally themselves and not ruin the State budget. I believe it is vital that we move forward and be futuristic with this proposal. I think it is an ingenious proposal. It will strengthen the program. It will make States be partners with us and not just asking us for something. They will be partners. It will make the program stronger. The program will be more likely to remain, not less likely. This is good public policy. I oppose the amendment that destroys one of the better ideas I have seen since I have been here.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my experience in State budgets, when we can get $3 for every $1 we spend, we seldom miss that opportunity, no matter what issue we are dealing with. When I was at the State level for 19 years, when we could get $3 for $1 of investment, we make that investment. And it is in the States where it is needed. It is where the public pressure is, where these same groups that are lobbying us will be lobbying them and they will be successful. This is an ingenious idea. We should go forth. But I want to go back to the issue of where we are taking the money, and that is even of greater concern. This Congress in my view has been far too uninterested in the energy future of this country. And when the rubber hits the road, again we will have energy prices to heat our homes that will double and triple. Then we will be looking for all kinds of LIHEAP money. We need to get our focus on our future energy needs for this country, and we need to sort out the environmental issues and all the reasons why we cannot drill for oil and dig for coal, and we do not have a secure in-house energy solution for down the road. And I believe we have blinders on because of cheap energy prices. We are only going to have a 60-day supply. The oil that is being put in the reserve, the money that we are taking is not for buying oil. It is for replacing the pump. It is for the maintenance of a very complicated system of storage. And we have cut them 30 to 40 percent in the last 4 years. Now we are cutting them again because we do not understand what they do and what it costs. Mr. Chairman, I think it is vital that we do not take $13 million from the reserve and for the operation of the reserve. If Congress was doing what it ought to be doing, we would be filling the reserve for the future of American citizens, having at least a 90-day supply of oil that we are so dependent on to get us through the next crisis. I think it is a tragedy. I was shocked when I came here 2 years ago and found out we were selling from the reserve $30 oil for $12 to fund the reserve. That has stopped, and I commend those who stopped that. But cutting this program is one of the most inappropriate programs for the future of energy availability and affordability. Long-term, we are going to lose.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if the accusations that have been made here this evening are accurate, I would support them. I do not know that they are, I do not know that they have ample proof of that. I do know I have visited one of these laboratories in my district in the Allegheny National Forest, and I have always been impressed with the kind of work they do. Our forests in the recent years have had one insect infestation after another, and they were the ones that came up with the program of how to save our forests. I think we all would have wished we had this kind of research back when our chestnut was attacked by the chestnut blight years ago. In our part of the country chestnut was the finest wood there was. It was a wood product that insects did not like, it was a great framing lumber. One could put it in the ground, it would not rot. It had so many qualities, and a blight came through. We did not have the kind of research ability then to fight that, and we lost the chestnut. A few years ago with the oak leaf roller cane they thought we were going lose the oak, but we found a remedy. When the gypsy moth came, we thought we were going to lose the oak because that was their prime wood, and we found a remedy to that. The cherry scallop. We have a very diverse forest in this country. In the west we have a soft wood forest, in the east we have a hardwood forest, and it varies in New England from where I live in the mid Atlantic States to the south. Even though the same species are there, the forest composition is different. This kind of research has also provided us with wood products, oriented fiberboard, the fancy laminated products that we use today, the wooden bridges with laminated wood that are using low quality wood to build bridges. I think this is an issue that we need a lot more information on before we decide to cut their budget. This program was just reauthorized last year. I urge further review and study if it is proven that they are wasting money as stated.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to share my concern of the impact of this amendment. I share the goal of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for funding this program. I support full funding of this program. And I personally think we need to step back and look at the big picture. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and those who came up with this idea, and we will give the credit to the staff, are pretty creative. I come from State government, 19 years. I served in Pennsylvania State government up to 3 years ago. My own State currently has a $750 million surplus from last year and over a billion dollars in their rainy day fund. I would prefer to see them there than where they were a few years ago with a billion in the hole under different leadership. States will step up and I think it is ingenious to bring them into this issue because State governments in the areas that use this program, lobby us very effectively. If they are really serious about this issue, they will pay one-fourth of the fund; and they should. They administer the program. I have had the privilege of serving in local government, in State government, and now in Washington. I have always found that we serve people best when we work as a team. And when we can put the State government together with the Federal Government on this issue, in my view we have strengthened the program long term. I find it quite confusing that the first amendment we have is to bring it up to level and then the second amendment says take away the 25 percent the States should give. Now, that will reduce the total number available. If the same gentlemen are successful twice, we will have 15 percent less money for weatherization and for fuel assistance than we do if we defeat them both.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Here we go again. Rich suburban America says we should not cut timber. They do not live there, they do not understand the forest, but, boy, they are suddenly experts. We have heard a lot today about forest restoration. How do we restore a forest? We prune it. We manage it. We do not just let it die. Because when we let it die, nature will burn it. History shows that. Habitat improvement. We could give the whole Forest Service budget to the Fish and Wildlife Service and we could not create habitat. They cannot manufacture it. We do not make it in a factory. It is part of the forest. It is the result of good management of our land. We have an amendment to cut. Why would we cut less? It must mean we are cutting too much. That must be the reason for the amendment. So let us look. We are growing 23 billion board feet. Six billion are dying naturally. That leaves us 17 billion. Now, we cut 3 billion, so we have 14 billion excess every year. Every 7 years that is 100 billion board feet in inventory. We will not have enough budget to cut the diseased and dying forest. We have 192 million acres in the Forest Service: 120 is high-grade commercial forest, 60 is potentially available for forestry, and we are practicing limited forestry on 30. Are we cutting down the American forests? No, we are not. In the West, and I know more about the East because that is the hardwood forest, but this is data on the West, the public land is 50 percent of the softwood inventory in this country. They are providing three percent to the market. We are now at 34 percent import. I guess our goal is to equal oil, where we are more than 50 percent import. Why practice forestry? We can double and triple the growth of the forest if we manage it. When we cut down the trees that are mature, the trees that are going downhill, the young trees grow two and three times as fast. So we double and triple the growth of the forest. It is also good for clean air. We do not hear much about that. When the air from Chicago goes over the eastern forest, there is a whole lot less CO2 in it when it meets the ocean. Why? Because of the health of the eastern forest. It is good for wildlife, as I previously stated, because it creates the habitat they need. And when it is all even-aged and there is no sunlight, and that is what happens to an untouched forest, there is no sun, critters leave. Do my colleagues know what is left? Insects and moles and voles. Not animals, not birds, not wildlife, but bugs. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, a few years ago we had seven tornadoes that cut paths in the forest half a mile and a mile wide, took every tree down, just destroyed it. That was in 1985. I flew over it 3 weeks ago. From the air we can hardly see the difference. That forest is 25 to 30 feet. It is a high-quality hardwood forest, and it has recovered because nature in the East reproduces. That forest today is teeming with wildlife, wildlife that never lived there. Birds have been seen there that were never there because it is like a jungle. We produce another inalienable resource, timber. We used to cut 12 billion board feet. Now we cut about 2 to 3 billion board feet. The timber program has been cut 75 percent since 1991. We are setting the stage for our forests to burn, and the gentlewoman from Idaho explained that so well just a few moments ago. Practicing forestry is good for clean air. It is good for wildlife habitat. It is good for doubling and tripling this resource. It helps us be self-sufficient. And yes, in rural America it creates a whole lot of jobs. I have left that for last because I want to tell my colleagues that their suburban ideas are killing rural America. We are in trouble. We are limiting timber production. We have all but stopped oil and gas production. Mineral extraction is being exported more every day, and now agriculture is being squeezed because the dairy farmers are going out of business as we talk. This is what we do in rural America, my colleagues. Work with us. We can do it right and we can have a healthier economy.

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

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure web site information is going to prove to us what was studied, how much was spent and whether it was worthwhile or not. I think this is an issue that ought to be researched, it is one that ought to be taken seriously, but to cut their budget this amount tonight I think is throwing the baby out with the bath water and would be a mistake.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for the time and the opportunity to share today. I join to support this proposal to protect our flag, the red, white and blue, the leading symbol of freedom not in just this country, but in the world. Much of the world, when they look at that flag, they know it means freedom, the greatest freedom in the world. My grandfather was an immigrant from Sweden, and he taught me at a very young age to be so proud to be an American because he was so proud to be an American, and he was so proud of the red, white and blue; it meant so much to him. We all know young men who have given it all. Today I want to mention three that left the small town I come from of Pleasantville, a thousand people. Three young men, Roger, Danny and Bruce, went to Vietnam at about the same time. The only one to return was my brother Bruce. Roger and Danny gave it all. They left their blood in the swamps of Vietnam, they left their life there, they gave everything. They gave their future to preserve that flag. Four out of five Americans support this proposal. When do we get 80 percent to agree on anything? Forty-nine States have passed resolutions urging us to do this. When do we get 49 State governments of both parties to agree on anything? This is the symbol of freedom. Should it not have a higher priority than money or mailboxes or other things that we are not allowed to desecrate? As Justice Rehnquist noted, the flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with almost mystical reverence. All should. In my view it is literally the fabric which binds us together, it is the symbol of who we are and the emblem we rally around when times get tough. A businessman from my district, an immigrant from Iran, recently invited me to the opening of his new facility, and instead of cutting a ribbon he run up the American flag on the pole, and he allowed me to do that, and he said the reason I want that flag on my pole that looks right out my window of my office, because I understand the freedom in this country that I did not have in Iran, that I did not have when I was in Germany for a short time. I want to look at that flag and never forget. He said also outside my window at the house from my dining room table I want a flag that I can look out there in light hours and see the symbol of freedom that America has presented to the whole world. Let us join those, the majority of Americans, the majority of States, who realize this is more than a flag. It is a symbol that embodies the bloodshed by Americans so that we can be free.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have found tonight's debate incredible. Just a few moments ago, we were accused of wanting criminals to get guns. Now, does anyone really believe that any Member of this body, I would not accuse anybody of that, wants criminals to get guns? Criminals steal guns. Criminals do not buy guns in the marketplace. They buy them in the black market. They steal them. We also have trivialized the Ten Commandments. I would urge the gentleman to read them. One is, Thou shalt not kill. That is one of the Ten Commandments that was talked about today, and it was trivialized here a few moments ago. Earlier this evening in this debate, we heard the figure of 13 children. Now, one child is too many, but what is children? I asked several people what they considered children and they said 10 and under; 12 and under. Well, let us take 14 and under. The national statistic is less than 2, but we hear from the President, we hear from the minority leader, we hear from leaders trying to make this issue 13. That is a lie. That is not the facts. Two is too many. We cannot afford to lose any children. I ask all of my colleagues if we pass every amendment, if we pass every bill that is before us, will Littleton have been prevented? No. No, it would not. What has happened that very young children can pull a trigger and kill another human being? It used to be people who had been in the war and had scars and had emotional problems that would crack and we would suddenly have a crime wave in one of our cities. In World War II, I have been told that less than 35 percent of the trained soldiers could pull the trigger when they had the enemy in front of their sights because of the value of life that we have all been taught to treasure. What has changed us? In the Vietnam War, I am told through video-type simulations, that number went up much higher because we taught them to pull the trigger and pull the trigger at targets that were like people, until they were desensitized, and so they could take a life without giving much thought. Something has changed in this country. The people do not value life. That is what we need to deal with. It is not guns. Nobody wants criminals to have guns. What has desensitized young people? Just a few years ago when I was State chairman of health in Pennsylvania, I was at Temple University at the trauma center. I was a member of the trauma board and they told me that 45 to 50 percent of the people at their trauma center was from street crime in Philadelphia. Now some of that has moved out to rural America where I live, and I am as concerned as the people in Philadelphia and all of our cities. But what has changed? They told me that street crime dominated their trauma centers; a third guns, a third knives, and a third clubs. Are we going to deal with clubs and knives? That was their statistics, unsolicited, for when I was chairman of health and welfare in Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, what has changed in our communities and our schools about drugs? Twenty years ago, there were few drugs in rural schools. They were in urban schools, and the crime was in urban cities. Today there are drugs everywhere in this country, every hamlet, every corner. Drugs are available to 7th and 8th graders. What are we doing about that? We have lost the war on drugs. We spent $18 billion, Mr. Chairman. The problem before us is far beyond the gun. That is just part of the problem.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a distinguished constituent of Pennsylvania's 5th Congressional District. On June 26, 1999, Dr. Harvey P. Hanlen of State College will be sworn is as the 78th president of the American Optometric Association during AOA's annual Congress in San Antonio, TX. Dr. Hanlen is a graduate of the Pennsylvania College of Optometry and Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry. Throughout his career, Dr. Hanlen has been dedicated to the profession of optometry at the local, state, and national levels. He is past president of the Mid-Counties Optometric society and the Pennsylvania Optometric Association. In 1987, he was named Pennsylvania's Optometrist of the Year as well as the Pennsylvania College of Optometry's Alumnus of the Year. Dr. Hanlen has served the AOA as a member of the board of trustees, as secretary- treasurer, vice-president, and president-elect. In addition to his professional achievements, Dr. Hanlen has been active in civic duties. He has been on the board of directors of the Jewish Community Council of State College. He also served as campaign chairman for the Centre County United Way. Dr. Harvey Hanlen has distinguished himself as an outstanding leader in his profession and his community. I am pleased to join his many friends and colleagues in congratulating him on becoming the new president of the American Optometric Association.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this legislation. I find it very difficult to understand the arguments of those who oppose it. What is wrong with Congress being in control? What is wrong with the people in our districts, if they agree or disagree, having a right to talk to their Congressman? Don Hodel also said, ``During the Reagan administration, these designations were honorary and benign in nature. However, like so many United Nations programs, this one has fallen subject to inappropriate mission creep. It has become a proxy for international attempts to override national sovereignty and control land use.'' Why was America founded by Europeans and Asians? Because they wanted additional freedom, they wanted control, they wanted to be in charge, and they certainly do not want people from other countries, and designating is fine, but having other people to have a say about how land is used in our parks, in our public lands, makes no sense in this country. This is about sovereignty. This is about freedom. This is about America being in charge of Americans; having relations with other countries, but they should not have a say in America, and the American public should have Congress to go back to. That is all we are asking, for Congress to be the final word.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of several students of Bellefonte Area High School in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. On April 7, 1999, Juniata College hosted the 1999 History Day Competition. This year's topic for students was to explain the impact a particular invention had on society. Working long hours with their teacher advisors--Martha Nastase and Ed Fitzgerald--these Bellefonte High seniors exhibited scholastic excellence via an eagerness to share their acquired knowledge with peers and others. Award winners in the Senior Group Project category--prsenting on their topic of Animation--were Melissa Clark, Kendra Gettig, Kim Marchek, Elizabeth Rodgers, and Cary Ziegler. Also taking home winning ribbons in the category of Senior Media Presentation with their project on birth control were David Barningham, Greg Shoemaker, and Mike Wilson. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all our House colleagues to join me in recognizing these Bellefonte High School students who brought deserved recognition to their school and community. Following their tremendous example, America's youth will no doubt shape a brighter tomorrow for all of us.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate him and all those who have worked on this legislation. This is one of the most needed pieces of legislation in the economics of this country. At a time when we are at an all-time high economically, when our economy is growing faster than it has ever grown, we end up with the highest number of bankruptcies, 1.42 million, costing consumers over $40 billion in the past year. In 1998, more people declared bankruptcy than graduated from college. That is inconceivable in a country like this. Why is that the case? It is because it is so easy. It is because we have current laws that allow people to choose, well, I guess it would be easier to go bankrupt, so I will do that. That is not what made this country strong. When we owe money, when we have debts, it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to pay those debts, however long we have to work, how many hours per day, how many days per week, how much effort is needed to pay our debts. I was a businessman, a supermarket operator for 26 years. When I am out in my district, I always say to businessmen, and business is what makes this country go, that is what makes our employment base; to independent businessmen I will say, how is business? And they will say, it is good. But I so often hear the complaint, if it was not for bankruptcies, I would have had a good year. I had seven bankruptcies this year and wiped out my total profit picture. That is happening to small businesses all over the country because people choose to go bankrupt rather than stay and fight and pay their bills, as they should have. The American economy is built on financial responsibility. That is what is different about this country. When we owe something, we pay it. Currently, child support and alimony are only accorded seventh priority. They are going to go to the top of the list in this bill. That is why H.R. 833 is so well-designed. It put responsibility back, that when you owe money, you have to pay it. You have to make your very best effort. Bankruptcy should only be the very last extreme, where you just cannot physically do it. It is not something that you choose, it is not a choice you make. Bankruptcy should not be easy, and this bill changes that.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is April 15, and Americans will pay more in taxes than they have ever paid before this year. In fact, they will pay $1.815 trillion. Is that not enough government? Can we not fund defense, Medicaid and Social Security with $1.815 trillion? You bet we can. Our government is large enough. It takes enough of our income. Our Tax Code is complex. It is not flat. Every year the taxpayers of America have a tax increase unless we cut taxes. Every year they pay a bigger percentage. And so if we do nothing in the next 10 years, Americans will pay a whole lot more in taxes. It is not about nothing, it is about controlling the uncontrolled growth of the Federal Government. Congress historically has not made the tough decisions to cut wasteful programs that no longer are needed. It has been easier to raise taxes, and it should not be. This amendment will not make it easier, it will force Congress to do its job and allocate $1.815 trillion because that is enough Federal Government.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Brookville High School wrestling team--the 1999 Pennsylvania AA State Champions. In addition to their state title, the Raiders won the PIAA West Regional Dual Championship, the District IX Dual Championship, and the District IX Tournament Championship while amassing a dual meet record of 18-1. However, the program's victories on the mat were exceeded only by their inspirational drive to succeed in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. I followed the emotional roller coaster ride that was the Brookville wrestling program over the past few years, and admire the commitment to achievement they maintained when similar obstacles may have defeated others. In January of last year, beloved Head Coach Len Ferraro passed away. A Brookville native, Coach Ferraro wrestled for Brookville High and later returned to the coaching staff in 1984 and took over head coach duties in 1993. Still healing from the loss of their coach, a dear friend of the program, Andrew Lentvorsky, was lost four weeks later. Grandfather to team senior Adam Steele, ``Pap''--as the gang called him--drove the boys to tournaments since their elementary days. Yet another tragedy occurred the following month with the passing of team senior Michael Lee Park. Despite suffering such emotional devastation in only a few short months, these young men managed to hold steadfast to Coach Ferraro's ultimate goal of delivering a State Championship to Brookville High. Nurturing his young wrestlers from any early age, Coach Ferraro developed an ever-improving wrestling program thirsting for a state title. His boys got that chance this year with the inaugural PIAA Dual Meet State Championships. Lead by Head Coach Thad Turner and Assistant Coaches Roland Reitz and Matthew Smith, the Raiders sought inspiration from senior Keith Ferraro, whose strength exhibited after the loss of his father is nothing short of heroic. Other seniors include Matt Geer, Jason Gilligan, Jason McKinney, Jeremy Reitz, Randy Stout, and B.J. Thomas. The junior team members are Casey Belfiore, James Bishop, Brad Cieleski, B.J. Darr, Garrett Hurd, Emil Johnson, Jeff McLaughlin, Eric Painter, and Clint Puller; along with sophomores Rudy Bullers, Gian DeLoia, Trevor Doust, Joel Hammond, Mark Himes, Mike Miller, Josh Sammons, and Justin Steiner; as well as freshman Nick Neil. For Brookville High School, the 1999 wrestling season demonstrates not only greatness of body and mind, but also perseverance of spirit. Mr. Speaker, as their classmates and community celebrate their inspiring accomplishments today back in Pennsylvania, I ask you to join me in thanking the young men and coaches of the Brookville Raider wrestling team for showing us all that even the shadow of adversity, continued belief in a unifying goal will bring shinning success.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts that I have on the budget proposals that are before us today. Mr. Chairman, I am thankful that we are not going to have to deal and live with the President's budget, because if we did, and he promised us that he was going to secure Medicare, but with the left hand he cut it. I am pleased that we have an alternative budget where we are saving 100 percent of the social security surplus for social security and for Medicare. Our seniors have been misled by the President; double-speak at its best, when one talks about securing social security and Medicare when on the other hand one is actually cutting it. Prescription drug payments, hospital payment freezes. I represent a lot of smaller rural hospitals who are struggling with red ink today. With the proposed cuts that are coming, they are possibly going to go out of business without the President's budget cuts. There is a complete lack of sensitivity to rural health care in America by this President and by this administration, when the facts are in. It is obviously clear that rural health care in America is already in trouble because of the lower payment they receive from HCFA, from the urban and suburban centers, and we are going to cut them some more if we would follow the President. I think it is vital, when we pass a budget later today, that it is a budget that really secures social security and Medicare and is not a phony budget, as has been presented by this administration, that says one thing on the right hand but on the left hand is actually cutting to the very heart of real health care in America, and would deprive rural Americans of the quality care they depend on. I am pleased that we do not have to pass the President's budget.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. It was interesting listening to this discussion today on a bill that is geared to give schools more flexibility. The first argument against was we should not rob Peter to pay Paul. Now, as I looked at this bill or this language from Senator Lott, it says ``you may''. It does not say ``you shall''. Now, if we are robbing Peter, that means we are taking it from him and we are giving it to Paul. That is not happening. It is interesting who is doing the robbing. The language we are now being asked to include is robbing our communities of their wisdom, it is robbing our schools of fixing their priorities if they choose to. Then we have the argument that we are trying to deny the President his program. I fault all governors and Presidents from adequately funding existing programs or fixing them. They are always wanting new ones because they can put their names on them. If we are in the business of legacies, then we are not in the business of helping schools. The more flexibility we give to schools, I want to tell my colleagues, I have faith that education will improve. We are 7 percent of the money and 70 percent of the paperwork, teachers and administrators tell me. Are we the savior? No, we are the problem. So the more flexibility we give them, the more we allow local decision- making progress, the better the quality of education will be. Nobody is robbing Peter to pay Paul. This language robs local districts to choose if their wisdom tells them they should.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today for H.R. 975, the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act of 1999. As a Member of Congress, I am well aware that the American steel industry has been facing a crisis. With the full knowledge of the White House, foreign corporations from Korea, Japan, Brazil, and Russia have been illegally dumping underpriced steel in the United States market for the past 20 months. Already, over 10,000 steelworkers nationwide have been laid off or lost their jobs. In addition, the thousands of hard-working Americans in the steel industry that have endured the crisis have seen their work hours and paychecks slashed. Mr. Speaker, I feel it is time for Congress to act by enforcing existing trade laws-- the same trade laws that the administration is reluctant to enforce. With the reluctency of the administration to do anything, I see H.R. 975 as a viable solution to the current crisis. In addition to returning our steel imports to the precrisis levels of 1997, H.R. 975 also establishes a monitoring system that requires all steel importers to obtain a ``Steel Import Notification Certificate.'' This measure will effectively arm us with a mechanism to assist in monitoring the illegal dumping of steel and ensure that our current trade laws are not being violated. Moreover, H.R. 975 will return steel imports to precrisis levels, help us curtail illegal dumping and avoid a crisis situation in the future. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of the Bipartian Steel Recovery Act and the American steel worker. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 975 and support America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the country of Iceland recently made the news with two separate announcements, one instructive and the other intriguing. First, Iceland announced it will not sign, it will not sign, the U.N.'s questionable Kyoto climate treaty because it would destroy its economy and bring unnecessary suffering to its citizens. Secondly, on February 17th, an Icelandic consortium signed an agreement for a joint venture to investigate the potential of transforming Iceland into the world's first hydrogen-based economy. One of the first results could be a hydrogen fuel cell-powered bus service. This would be an interesting development to monitor because of the environmental and energy security implications. Hydrogen fuel cells create their own electrical energy, with clean water as a by-product. Some estimate that vehicle efficiency can be improved by 50 percent, with no exhaust emissions. Mr. Speaker, it may be wise for Congress and this administration to follow Iceland's lead on both of these counts.