John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to answer his question.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Well, I think, one, if one has some record as a person to prove that one is a citizen, and one should have if one is, then one would provide that; and that serves the bill. Or the Attorney General could come forth with other means that he felt was ample proof.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time is needed to respond. It is interesting. A few moments ago, we were told that this was the most significant poison that is being attempted to be added to this bill. That is a pretty significant statement, that it is poison to try to eliminate fraud. I have a hard time understanding that. I am going to say it again. It has been said that this is the most significant poison that will be offered to this bill that only has a pilot program that allows States, if they choose, to try to eliminate fraud. I find that hard to understand. Someone else just said that it was unthinkable to amend motor voter. Motor voter had some problems and has some problems today because there is no system of verification. I could register my dog ``Ralph'' by calling him Ralph Peterson, and he would be registered. I could register my cat. I do not happen to have one, but I could. Motor voter has opened the registration process to fraud. That is one of the weaknesses of motor voter. Just to share with you, a Committee on House Oversight task force uncovered serious voter fraud in California during the 1996 election. They conducted an exhaustive year-long examination and found 820 individuals who were not citizens at the time of registration that likely voted. In 1996 the California Secretary of State found over 700 noncitizens on the California voter rolls and invalidated their registrations, and he would like this legislation to help him do that more effectively. Texas Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Tom Harrison reports that 750 resident aliens from Guadalupe, Texas filed applications for absentee ballots in November of 1994 elections, after campaign workers told them that their green cards enabled them to vote by mail. The Los Angeles Times reported in May of 1994 that Jay McKama, an undocumented immigrant, was sentenced to 16 months in State prison for registering noncitizens to vote. The bounty hunter worked for Steve Martinez, a Los Angeles political activist who paid $1 per registration. The practice of paying bounty hunters to register individuals to vote has contributed to an increase in noncitizen voting. In some cases noncitizens have been targeted by those bounty hunters. Every time someone votes illegally, they cancel our vote. They cancel a good vote.

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

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to respond to two issues first. Someone talked about safeguards. It says right in the bill, to have reasonable safeguards against the pilot program resulting in unlawful discriminatory practices based on national origin or citizenship status, including the selective or unauthorized use of this pilot program. Someone else said a national ID card. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification cards, or the establishment of a national identification card. Those are false, bogus arguments against this bill. Is Shays-Meehan perfect? We are being told it is perfect. I get mail every day that says it is not perfect. I get phone calls every day that say it is not perfect. This is only a pilot program. If it works, we expand it. If it does not work in 2001, we throw it away. Why are we afraid about stopping voter fraud? In my view, the two worst problems we face about elections are illegal foreign money and noncitizen voting, and Shays-Meehan does not do anything about either of them. The States that we have listed, many of them are asking for help. Local registrars are asking for help. How do they know if people are citizens when they register them? They are begging for us to help. Mr. Chairman, this is an argument, and those who think we should not stop voter fraud, those who think we should not require citizenship, then should stand up and support a bill that does away with it, that you do not have to be a citizen to vote, that you just have to be here. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple pilot project that makes sense, that can work. I urge all the Members to support it.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Sure.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, it has been interesting tonight as we have heard the discussion here about a number of issues dealing with EPA, an agency that I find sometimes more troubling than the IRS. They have one of the most important jobs in this country. But if you ask your local communities, you ask your state agencies, you ask anyone who deals with them, they are one of the most difficult. One of the issues that was shared here a short time ago was that the Knollenberg language was going to prevent the EPA from doing their job. This administration asked in this year's budget for $6.3 billion on the Kyoto treaty and global warming. Now, they claim they do not want to implement, but many Members have said they are going to implement and they have done many things that would start that process. $6.3 billion is almost equal to the EPA budget. I guess that is beyond my imagination, that a government would ask for $6.3 billion to market a theory, ``global warming.'' When this issue started, I asked one of the top climatologists in America, who was having lunch with me downstairs, if there was global warming, because I wanted his opinion. Without any doubt he just looked at me and said, ``There is no evidence, and I have been in this business all my life.'' I want to share with you that climate researchers do not agree whether the earth will become warmer during the coming century. Seventeen thousand scientists have recently signed a petition stating that man-caused climate change does not exist, 17,000. The petition states, in part, ``we urge the United States Government to reject the global warming agreement and other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.'' ``There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces some beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the earth.'' One of the reasons for such certainty and optimism about the future of these 17,000 scientists is that both written and oral history informs us that between 900 AD and 1300 AD, the Earth warmed by some 4 to 7 degrees, 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, almost exactly what the current computer models now predict for the coming century. Did this warm period produce the catastrophe being sold to us by alarmists? It did not. The warming created one of the most favorable periods in human history. Crops were plentiful, death rates diminished, and trade and industry expanded, while art and architecture flourished. There was less hunger, as food production surged because winters were milder and growing seasons longer. Southern England developed the wine industry, and Viking settlers pastured cattle in Greenland on what is today frozen tundra. Soon after 1400, however, the good weather ended and the world dropped into what is called the Little Ice Age. Recently Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the Nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle, and that there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it says we may be nearing the end of a global solar warming cycle, and that there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century. Still none of the global warming computer models, the foundations for nearly all the claims that warming is the result of man-made greenhouse gasses, account for solar variability, and none adequately account for the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere, or the addition of a large portion of the very warm South Pacific to the worldwide grid of temperature reporting stations in the past half century. Also, satellites and weather balloons that have been tracking temperatures for the last 20 years show a slight cooling. I would like to conclude my comments by saying we have 16 agencies being funded by the EPA to propose and sell the global warming advocacy. The Greenwood amendment, which was before us a little while ago, in my view, I was very pleased that he withdrew that, because it really cleverly destroyed the well-crafted Knollenberg language that was so vital. The interesting thing I would like to say, in conclusion, the Kyoto treaty is so flawed, if all of the countries that have agreed to bring it to their governments for approval follow it to the hilt, the developing countries, the 132 which are the growth areas of the world will more than make up for the savings. There will be no change. It seems pretty flawed for Americans to take it in the neck and let the developing world steal our jobs. There are many who feel that as many as 1 million American jobs will move to Third World countries, where there will be no controls, where there will be no penalty paid, and our American workers will take it in the neck. It is an ill-conceived treaty. I think it is time to send someone to the next treaty, besides Al Gore, to negotiate a treaty that is a fair to American workers.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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 Sanders amendment. The offset is not my first choice, but the issue of PILT is so important, I think, to rural America that I am supporting this amendment. The only thing sure in life is death and taxes. That is for my colleagues and I. But for the Federal Government, for 2 decades I feel they have straight-armed, they have stiffed rural America, because they took lands into public ownership with a promise to pay and have never delivered in 20 years what is a fair Payment in Lieu of Tax payment. The Federal Government today continues to purchase private land and remove it from the tax rolls and continues not to pay its fair share of taxes or PILT. What happens to my colleagues or I if we do not pay our taxes? Our property is sold, our taxes get paid. Maybe it is time for a Federal land tax sale to pay the debt that I think is owed to rural America. The Federal Government is the largest owner of land in America, where we are approaching 40 percent. We are the most delinquent taxpayer in the history of America. The Sanders amendment is a small step in the right direction. It does not solve the problem. And the question is asked, what is the impact when land is taken out of the tax base? It is the following: It has been devastating to rural America. Zero economic growth. Zero job creation. No aid for roads, water, sewer, and public schools and local services. A devastating impact. There are 1,789 counties involved, 49 states affected by this lack of Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Now, in Pennsylvania, where I come from, we pay $1.20 an acre. It was 60 cents in one of the last bills I helped get through. I had sponsored it for 6 or 8 years. I gave up sponsorship to get a House bill through the Senate, doubling it to $1.20. Now, we own 840 million acres approximately. If we were paying $1.20, the bill would be in excess of a billion dollars. Now, someone mentioned a few moments ago that this included military bases. That is not true, if my understanding is correct. There is impact aid which got a $40-million increase, a different budget or different part of the budget, different appropriations bill. But it is urban and suburban and it has been increased with some regularity and they get $640 million. Now, as I am look at it, when we remove property from the tax base of rural America, with no chance of economic growth, military bases bring jobs to the community, they bring stimulus to the community and the spin-off is tremendous, yet we are giving them $640 million. And that is a fairness issue. For two decades we have underfunded PILT. In 1994, when PILT was reauthorized, Congress developed a 5-year phase-in to make up for the forgone revenues caused by 17 years of inflation and they raised the authorization to $255.5 million for this year. Despite those good intentions, we are still stuck at $120 million, which is inadequate for the communities that have been shortchanged. $135 million is needed just to bring us to level funding. The Sanders amendment gives us a shot in the arm. I am from the East and I know this is a Western issue, but it affects Pennsylvania and it affects this country. Public land owners need to contribute to local services, and for those of us who continue to support more and more ownership of land by the Federal Government, it is time to pay up. Too often issues affecting rural America are overlooked and subsequently underfunded. I am here to say today, as a new Member of this Congress, it is no different than when I went to the State senate. Rural America has been getting the short end of the stick in a lot of ways, and this is just one of them, because they do not have the united voice of urban-suburban America. It is time for the Government to pay up or turn back to the States or local governments this public land. And if we continue to not pay our share, maybe it is time for a tax sale, where we sell some of the Federal land to pay the tax base back to the local governments where it should be in the first place.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think there is public land owned in America, yes, that should go back. It would be better served in local communities' ownership, local, State government, yes. I think the Federal Government should not own 40 percent of America. I think we own too much land, and we have been accumulating it for decades, and that is a policy that should change.

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

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Reclaiming my time, yes, it gets visitors.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this would not affect the Allegheny National Forest. The PILT payments do not affect the Allegheny National Forest. They affect some other land in my district. To the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who I consider a good friend and an outstanding chairman, I think the PILT issue does not really affect the NF because they get timber payments. But it is so unfair, when we have taken all of this land out of the local tax base across this country. I am arguing for it for fairness for rural America. I come from the most rural district east of the Mississippi, and I will be tough on rural issues. I just think somehow this Congress has to pay up at some point in time and pay what should go back to local communities.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure this evening to join the gentleman from New York in support of the Fossella amendment. I have found it amazing to hear the discussion on this amendment, an amendment that says you must be a citizen of the United States to contribute to and influence elections. You must be a citizen of the United States to participate in elections. But it seems for some to be all right to give thousands of dollars that might change thousands of votes when you are not a citizen. I find it incredible. Some have said it is unconstitutional. We know that is a joke. Someone said it was harmful to the bill if it passed. But they did not explain how it was harmful. Maybe if it is not right, they said, we can fix it in the Senate or maybe in a conference committee. And then the one that amazed me, because bureaucrats always scare me, it was said, we can deal with it over at the commission if it is not right, telling the commission that they must determine whether it is appropriate for people that are not citizens to give to campaign contributions. I also found it amazing that someone called it a cardinal sin and very offensive to be asked if you are a citizen. My grandparents came from Sweden. If someone asked me if I am a citizen, I will say, you bet I am and proud of it. Most of the newest citizens that I know, when asked if they are a citizen, they beam. They are so proud to be an American. It is not offensive to be asked. It is not an insult to be asked if you are a citizen. What will be the impact if we do not do this? If we do not do this, it will be easy for those who are seeking the White House to continue to funnel foreign money into their coffers. That is what it will do. Do my colleagues like what happened in 1996? I do not. Future Congress races, future Senate races will be easier to get foreign money and use it to win elections, which is wrong in this country. Mr. Chairman, this is a clean, simple amendment. The law says you must be a citizen to vote. Why should you be able to influence elections with cash if you are not a citizen? You may influence thousands of votes. This is the simplest, cleanest amendment we will face on campaign finance reform. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us stand for the Constitution. Let us stand for citizenship. Then if we are going to participate in elections in this country, you need to be a citizen, to vote and to contribute.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a reality check. Our friends on the opposite side of the aisle claim they are not the party of tobacco. The reality is that through the eighties and mid-nineties, the Democrats accepted 10 percent more money from the tobacco industry than did Republicans, according to Common Cause. The reality is that three out of five top tobacco PAC recipients in the House are Democrats, with the second biggest recipient being the Democrat minority leader. The reality is that during the recent tobacco debates, our liberal friends took a Republican proposal and turned it into a $868 billion tax increase. Yes, that is billions with a ``B.'' Additionally, that tax would have placed the heaviest burden on lower income Americans who earn less than $30,000 a year. The reality is that the recent tobacco proposal would have done little to curtail teenage smoking, which was one of its original intents, and would have turned a number of trial lawyers into very rich people. I join the Republican leadership to make every effort possible to curtail teenage smoking without massive tax increases. That is reality.