John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the chairman on this bill. The bill that we presented increased special education funding by over $1 billion, and I believe those who are offering this motion to instruct tonight all voted against it. Now, you cannot have it both ways. When you look at the chart that we had up here a little bit ago, the big chart, in 9 years under Republican leadership we went from a little over $2 billion to almost $10 billion. That is just under $8 billion. Now, the 9 years preceding that, under Democrat leadership, you increased funding $1 billion in 9 years. We increased it $1 billion this year. We increased it almost $8 billion in the 9 years that we have been in control. Just count them, 9 years. Come back here 9, just a little bit over $2 billion. $1 billion in 9 years. Now, the interesting part is it is easy to say they want to fully fund it. The other body put in a tax provision to fund it that cannot stay there. It is illegal. It cannot be there. So if you are really serious about this, your motion to instruct will say we are going to take it from Pell Grants, or we are going to take it from basic education, or we are going to take it from higher education, because that is how you have to do it. You are making no choices. When we look at the record, the choices you made for 9 years previous to the 9 years that we have been in power were not for special education. In 9 years, a $1 billion increase. Just a few days ago, we passed this bill with $1 billion of additional money in it, and they vote ``no.'' I think the American public understands showmanship. I think the American public understands a sham motion, because that is what this one is. Now, I do not think there is anybody here that does not think we should not fully fund special education, and we are on track today to do it. We have the record. There has been a game plan of when we are going to reach it. Now, that is reasonable, because we will be taking new money and new dollars. But if you are serious, tell us where it comes from, because the other body's tax provision cannot remain to fund it. If you are serious, show us where the cuts are. Is it Pell grants? Is it higher education? Is it No Child Left Behind? Because it has got to come from one of them. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the record, and I am proud of our chairman's leadership on this issue, and his predecessor, John Porter's leadership on this issue. Because this is their record: getting us to where we ought to be as fast as we can.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the chairman and the staff on both sides for working on what I think is a good bill and one that I think meets the needs of firefighting, an issue that has not always been treated appropriately. I guess what a lot of people do not realize is that when we have these fires and do not fund them, the money is taken from all the other accounts. Now, think of running your business and the money for the new building you are halfway through building, money for other forest projects you are on, is suddenly snatched away from you and you just have to stop until the money comes back when it is restored. I do not think anybody realizes how we have had the bureaus managing our land working with these forest issues that have been hitting us year after year after year. So I am pleased that there has been a major effort this year, $3.2 billion, in different ways; some repayment of funds used, but money to prevent fires, money to fight fires, and money to replenish accounts. I am also pleased to see some progress on PILT. But I want to challenge the body. Payment in lieu of taxes has been an undervalued account here. When we take millions of acres, we own a third of the country and we only spent $227 million. It is still a pittance nationwide for our payment of taxes. Because when we take all of this acreage out of the economy, it does not pay taxes. But those people living in those regions have to have roads and schools and services, and we need to continue to improve there. I was pleased that we had a $61 million increase for national parks, $24 million for the National Wildlife Refuge, $30 million for geological survey, $29 million for the national forests, and $6 million for weatherization. And I was really pleased to see that that fossil energy research was increased by $60 million. Now, there has been a lot of money here, not wanting to put money into fossil research, because we all want to use renewables. I want to use renewables. But the renewables have not taken the place of fossil fuels. One final statement I would like to make. When we add up the energy used in the world today, geothermal, wind and solar are .56 of 1 percent. My colleagues, we have to have fossil fuel research.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 578, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as Representative of one of the largest rural districts east of the Mississippi and cochairman of the Rural Congressional Caucus, I rise today because I feel an obligation to uphold the will of the House, which seems to have been bypassed in this report. Just several months ago, we had an amendment on the floor here that removed a provision that forced rural airports to pay a portion of up to 10 percent of the essential air service that helps them provide service in difficult times. The House removed it; the Senate removed it. Today, it is back here. Now, it is limited to 10 communities and it will not hurt as many, but it is very possible that for these 10 communities, it could cost over $100,000. Rural airports have a very limited income stream. They do not have much means of income. They are fortunate to have money to match Federal money to pave their runways, fix their lights and run the airport. So I ask that if this bill is recommitted to conference for other issues, and many other rural Members strongly urge the committee leadership, to remove Section 408, the Essential Air Service Local Participation Pilot Program, from this provision. I personally will find it extremely difficult, and many other rural Members will too, to support the conference report, and I do not want to be in that position. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record copies of letters signed by 48 House Members and 16 Senators. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, October 8, 2003. Hon. John McCain, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Fritz Hollings, Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. James Oberstar, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Oberstar, Ranking Member Hollings: We write out of grave concern for a provision added to the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Conference Report regarding the adoption of a local cost share for certain Essential Air Service communities. This addition to the conference report not only goes against the will of both the House and the Senate, but may also have a disastrous effect on many of our small rural airports. Therefore, we urge the conference committee to remove this language before bringing the report to the respective floors for a vote. As you know, the local cost share provision was removed in H.R. 2115 by an amendment offered by Representatives McHugh, Peterson (PA) and Shuster, which passed by a voice vote. Likewise, a similar local cost share provision was removed from S. 824 by an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman. It is our understanding that negotiations are currently under way to remove language from the conference report regarding the privatization of air traffic controllers. This provides the conference committee an excellent opportunity to remove the EAS local match provision that was already stricken on both the House and Senate floors and not included in either bill brought to the conference committee. Additionally, this provision will have untold effects on many small rural communities. It is unacceptable to force communities to pay up to $100,000 in a local cost share, in addition to the many costs they currently incur in running a small local airport. We respectfully request the removal of Section 408 from the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act Conference Report before it is brought to the House and Senate floors for consideration and we look forward to working with you in the future to ensure rural communities continue to receive essential air service. Sincerely, John E. Peterson, Allen Boyd, Tom Osborne, Nick Rahall, Phil English, Max Burns, Bud Cramer, Earl Pomeroy, Steve Pearce, Ray LaHood, James A. Leach, ------ ------ , Lincoln Davis, ------ ------, Michael H. Michaud.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for their good work on the reauthorization of EDA. I, as the cochairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, rise today in strong support of this reauthorization for the Economic Development Agency. The programs under the EDA are tremendously vital to rural areas. Without Federal economic development investment in rural economies, many of these communities would lack the resources to attract the next generation of manufacturing jobs and they would wither and dry up. The reauthorization passed in the 105th Congress focused these programs toward serving the most needy, and I am pleased this reauthorization will continue to build upon those achievements. I have seen firsthand how the past reauthorization has focused Federal dollars to target communities that lack the resources. I want to give my colleagues a few examples. When Knox Glass closed in Clarion County, it was EDA who stepped up to the plate with a grant that allowed them to build a new industrial park there on 80 and replace many of those jobs. When Franklin Steel closed, it was an EDA grant that allowed Franklin Industries to reopen that factory and have several hundred people working there. When Kendall Refining closed in McKean County, and now we reopened American Refineries, it was an EDA grant that allowed that to happen. When the Stackpole Corporation closed and thousands of jobs left Elk County in Pennsylvania, it was an EDA grant through the North Central Planning Commission that now has 200 and 300 people working in different companies within that complex. And when the Cyclops Steel Plant closed 5 miles from my home and 1,000 good jobs went down the drain, it was an EDA grant that allowed that facility to be taken over by a local development agency, and there are several hundred jobs and about 20 companies providing employment there today. Do we need it in the future? Yes, we do. In my 16-county rural district in Pennsylvania, we have lost 17,000 manufacturing jobs in the year 2001 and 2002. So I stand here today saying we need an expanded EDA. We need an EDA with more money, with a bigger budget. And I am here today on behalf of the reauthorization of this agency because their structure allows them to go into a rural community that has been devastated by losing their major employer and give that grant that is the glue that will put an economic opportunity back there in those communities. Rural America is in trouble. We need a bigger, stronger EDA to help us. They have an agency with a good track record. I want to commend Secretary David Sampson for his strong leadership there, and I want to commend the committee for their good work in bringing forth this reauthorization.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When 9/11 hit this country, our airline industry had a crushing blow, and the part of it that is probably hurting the most is the commuter system out there that serves much of rural America. It is vital that we continue the essential air service program that helps them maintain service until they can build their business back up. Currently, though inadvertently, this bill no longer has funding for essential air services. My amendment is very simple. I will keep it very short. My amendment restores the funding that was in the original committee markup, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who has not arrived yet, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Before I do that, I would like to correct one thing on the record a few minutes ago. A statement was made that the timber companies get huge bonuses for cutting timber on public lands. That is not true. Timber companies bid for timber, a very little bit of it that is put up for sale, and there is no subsidy. They bid for it. They win the bid, and they pay for it. I do not know how you call that a subsidy. Back to this issue. I have many forest service recreational sites in my district. We do not get a lot of complaints on this program. I see the benefits as where the money is put back into enhancement. Let me tell you why it was needed. This Congress every year will take money that ought to go for maintenance of our parks and our forest service recreational sites to buy land. Buying lands wins every time. We have underfunded every one of our recreational opportunities, and because of that we have gone to a demonstration fee. My State parks have fees. We want enhancement. People like these sites. People are using these sites more and more. They are wonderful. But if we want them well-maintained, we will have to help pay for them. I think there are some problems in this system, but everything I have heard today would be very fixable.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. When this debate started, I was disappointed. We saw a picture up here of a clear-cut, trying to inflame the American public. That clear- cut picture had no reason to be in a roadless debate, has nothing to do with it. It is another whole issue, but let us look at the Forest Service. The Forest Service has approximately 175 million acres. Over 75 percent of it is never considered for forestry or able for forestry. That is 135 million acres. Of that that is practiced forestry, it is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Forest Service land. If we treated all the Forest Service land in that manner, it would take 1,000 years to treat the forests owned by the National Forest Service. We used to cut 10 to 11 billion board feet of timber that is dying and going to waste today. We now cut less than 2 billion board feet on all the Forest Service land all over America, and I have one of those forests in my district. I know what they are about. What is roadless about? Roadless is peopleless. How many of my colleagues have walked a mile from a road in a land they do not know? How many of my colleagues have walked 5 miles from a road? A few, not the majority of Americans. I was up in an aircraft recently on the first day of buck season in Pennsylvania, one of the heaviest hunted States. We seldom saw one of those orange coats a mile from the road, and the aircraft pilot and I talked about people in the Allegheny National Forest. They cannot kill the deer because they cannot get the hunters back in those huge areas. Roadless is peopleless. Who uses roadless areas? Very few Americans. A few young hikers will do it, routine. It is certainly no to seniors. It is no to most of the young youth of America to go back in very far. In a mountainous area like I live in, it is easy to get lost. Even hunters seldom go way back in. Roadless is ``no'' to treating disease. Roadless makes it almost impossible to fight forest fires. It is ``no'' to the vast majority of Americans to utilize and appreciate. A speaker a moment ago said about appreciating. How can we appreciate a 100,000-acre plot when there is no road in it? Think about it. A road is not some destructive process. The vast majority of our public land by this country, we own a third of the country, is not timbered. It is not used for forestry. It is roadless. It is wilderness, it is recreation, and a lot of it is just abandoned land because it is roadless and people cannot use it.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and compliment him on a good process in tough times. I have listened to the discussion so far this morning, and I find there are two different schools of thought here on the floor. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) I think believe from my long years of friendship with them, and I consider them friends, they believe that our future in this country depends on what we spend here. I do not agree with that. I believe our future depends on the opportunities we provide to have good jobs for people to be self- sufficient, to be employed, and to pay taxes. All the programs we provide here help those who cannot participate in that and help them get the education they need and the health care they need. We keep hearing about these horrible, huge tax cuts. A huge number of the taxpayers they keep talking about are employers. They are people who provide our children and our grandchildren jobs. They are the growth part of this country. They are individual family businesses who, through subchapter S corporations, pay the individual tax rate. Now I have been in government quite awhile. I have been in business and government about the same length of time. I was in local government, State government and now in Washington. There is a rule that I believe in: If you want less of something, tax it. If you want less, tax it again. The more you tax something, the less you will have of it. If you want something to prosper, tax it less. The theory is the individual family businesses that pay that individual rate, they are the ones that are growing this country, not the global corporations, not these huge companies that we talk about. It is those family businesses. The more we tax them, the less their business can grow because as they make profits, and I know businesses that have poured all of their profits back into the company, buying machines, putting more people to work because they did not have to pay it in taxes. We cannot have it both ways. The more we prevent them from growing, the more programs we are going to need to support the people that do not have jobs. So the tax cuts Members rail against are the hope of our young people, and I will debate that issue with Members any time. We heard that in education title I, a $666 million increase was categorized as a $340 million cut. In IDEA, a $1 billion increase was characterized as a $1.2 billion shortfall, but let us talk about IDEA a minute. When I came here, we were at 5-6 percent of the 40 percent that we had promised. We are now at 20 percent. That is a wonderful, huge increase that did not happen when the other party was in control. NIH, we doubled their budget and they are now at $27.7 billion. This year they will have an additional $1.7 billion in new research funding. We can play with those numbers and some of last year's money went into construction of buildings and things, but in reality they will have a $1.7 billion increase in research funding. To conclude my comments, yes, we stand for helping people have a job, and to help people have a job, we help businesses grow by cutting the individual tax rate that prevents them from putting that money back into their business. The big taxpayers in this country, the bulk of them are businesses that are putting our people to work. I am for growing them so that our social programs will be less needed.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 280 had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for, I think, putting together an exceptional bill. I want to thank them for working with us on this amendment that we think will improve the bill. I am glad to be joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) to offer an amendment that will remove the copayment for a number of the smallest airports who will be receiving essential air service, saving them from making a copayment. We understand the logic, but at the present time we all know that our airlines are in trouble. We have bailed them out with $18 billion trying to keep them solvent. We know airports are struggling. We know the commuter services are struggling even more because a lot of the commuter services got no portion of that bailout. We know that small commuter airports are fighting for their economic lives, and often in communities that are fighting for their economic lives. Just for example, the Venango Regional Airport is trying to raise $6,000 to market the services there and improve emplanements. If this amendment was not accepted, they would be paying $22,000 the first year, which I think would be much better used marketing, and on the fourth year would be paying $87,000. It is important that we pass this amendment that allows these small regional airports to rebuild the services. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who wants to help support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). (Mr. McHUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their support. I understand how they were trying to protect this program. As an appropriator, I can assure the gentleman that I will be working to solve that problem on the appropriations side. We have had our opponents. I have never understood when we can spend $7.5 billion for mass transit and not ask a question. We spend merely $100 million to provide rural air service, it is the one rural program, it has been continued under attack since I have been here. And I understand, but I do not think there has ever been a time that we need to give the rural airports a chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to reinvigorate the use of these airports, when the airports were shut down literally because of the parking requirements, they all lost their parking lots because it had to be so many hundred feet before you could park a car from an airport; these rural airports were all shut down unless they were parking in plowed fields. It caused damage that has not recovered yet. We are hoping to get some marketing money so we can get the service back there to these rural communities because it is a vital part of economic development and growth. And we know that most of the money went to the big airlines and did not trickle down to the privates that served them. So we just are thankful that the gentleman is willing to work with us. We might be willing to look at a partnership with the States if we can get the States to buy in to help a little bit with this program, but to put it on the individual communities will not work.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 224 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Committee on Ways and Means and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for her leadership on this issue. I come from western Pennsylvania, which has been struggling with high unemployment. We have had many plant closings, a very difficult time. I believe this committee and this Congress has been meeting these issues head on and appropriately. Why do we have the high unemployment? I hear today we are laying blame. If we are laying blame, I mention where I think the blame lies. September 11 shook the economy of this country. Why did we have 9/11? We had two embassies blown up. What did we do about the terror? Nothing. We had a barracks blown up, and several hundred of the Marines killed. What did we do about the terror? Nothing. We had the side of a ship blown up. What did we do about that terror? Nothing. We had an attempt to blow up the towers in New York before 9/11. What did we do? Blow up a baby milk factory. We have an energy issue in this country that the last administration ignored. Every time we have had energy spikes in this country, our economy has gone down. Because we do not have adequate energy supply in this country, and when we do not have ample supply of all energies, we have spikes in prices. We have been unwilling to have an energy policy. We have moved to all-natural gas for power generation. This very day we have gas prices that are going to hurt this economy in the year ahead because they are the highest they have ever been, and our storage is the lowest. Yes, a lack of fighting terror years ago in the last administration, lack of an energy policy in the last administration, is the reason. Unemployment does not happen in a year. Those things happen over years of not taking care of business. I just wanted to share my thoughts of where the blame ought to be.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Miller amendment would eliminate title 4, and it is about management techniques on an accelerated basis to stem the exploding insect epidemics. To say that a research program is a ruse for commercial timber harvest is to ignore the plain language of this legislation. Large- scale studies are needed to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments. This title creates a partnership between the Forest Service and academia to bring the very best minds in this country to solve these problems. We want to talk about a new insect, the Hemlock woolly adelgid. It has come into the eastern part of this country. It came in 1950, and by the early 1990s this had spread into 11 States from North Carolina to Massachusetts, causing extensive Hemlock decline. This map shows where it is now spreading. This insect, the adelgid, kills infected trees in 3 to 5 years after attack and spreads quickly. This next picture here shows these egg sacs that have up to 300 eggs apiece and how to identify a tree that has this insect. It feeds on the needles, and when they are done, here is what a Hemlock tree looks like. A beautiful Hemlock tree now looks devastated. We need research. We need the ability to stop these insects that will destroy the Hemlock forests in the East. The substitute is removing the ability to do this. This substitute is not about helping fight the insects that are destroying the forests in this country.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, 7.2 million acres last year. When is enough enough? This is a 20-year-old problem. How did we get there? On the Allegheny National Forest, which I represent, we have foresters, biologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, game biologists, fish biologists, and renowned research labs trying to help to do things right. One college student with a free lawyer from the university and a judge who knows nothing about forestry suddenly stops the whole process, and that is why we are having a problem in this country. This bill is trying to open up at least 20 million acres so we have the ability to prevent forest fires; 7.2 million last year. I flew over with a group in the West a few years ago with the Speaker. We flew for an hour and a half. We never saw a blade of grass, never saw a green leaf, where the fires had been the year before. The streams were full of mud; the hillsides were washing into the valleys. You talk about devastation: no bugs, no insects, no birds, no animals. That is what is left in the path of these forest fires. You talk about environmental degradation? These forest fires are the worst, and we must stop them.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is a Band-Aid. This amendment helps people who cannot afford to pay for energy, and there are a lot of them. This winter we have had spikes in prices because we do not have enough gas and we do not have enough oil; and when prices spike in this country, it hurts our country and it hurts the poorest of people who have to still drive a car, who have to still heat their homes. This debate is about having adequate energy supplies to prevent spikes in prices, because I want to tell my colleagues, if we do not do that, we could double and triple LIHEAP next year and the year after and there will not be enough to help the poor who will need it. Because people will not be able to afford to heat their homes, our commercial businesses will not be able to afford to heat their places, and our industries will be going out of business because they will not be competitive. This amendment just helps those for the moment, but if we do not fix the main problem, we are going to really be in trouble. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleague from Pennsylvania to offer an amendment that will provide additional energy assistance to low- and fixed-income individuals under the low-income assistance program, LIHEAP. LIHEAP provides heating and cooling assistance to nearly 4 million households across the Nation. Unfortunately, LIHEAP is able to provide assistance to only about 15 percent of the 30 million households who are eligible. The amendment the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and I are offering would authorize funds paid to the U.S. Treasury as bonuses for leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to be used for LIHEAP. The Congressional Budget Office estimates $2.1 billion in revenues would be generated over a 5-year period from the bonuses. Today we all know that energy prices are high due to a long, cold winter across much of the Nation. In Pennsylvania, it is still snowing today. Energy prices this winter compared to last year are 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane, and 11 percent higher for electricity. I can testify to the long, cold winter in Pennsylvania and the great need for energy assistance. The Pennsylvania LIHEAP program in fiscal year 2003 will serve over 300,000 households. The average household benefit is just over $200. Without LIHEAP assistance, many of my constituents would have to make a choice between heating and eating. The amendment before the House will provide much-needed energy assistance to low-income consumers. The amendment can provide an additional average to $400 million annually to LIHEAP. Dedicating funds to LIHEAP from the production of oil and gas from ANWR will help low- income consumers lower their energy burden. It is a sound public policy to dedicate funds generated from the hope of oil and gas production in Alaska to people in need of energy assistance across the country. I urge my colleagues to have a heart and support the Peterson-Hart amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. We are not appropriating. We are authorizing over and above what has been authorized in the past. We are increasing the authorization. We cannot appropriate.