John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I find this amendment interesting. These 36 leases are suspended. They are not active. This language only deals with 1 year, if my information is correct, so it says no money in this budget could be spent. From my understanding of the oil and gas business--and I come from where it started in Pennsylvania, I live 5 miles from the first oil well--is that really this legislation is of no value, or is somewhat meaningless, because you could not facilitate in 12 months what it would take to get these leases active, and so it prohibits activity for the next 12 months. But I would like to speak a moment on the bigger issue. Coming from an oil patch, I want to share with you what nature does. The hills in Pennsylvania where oil was first discovered, and we did not know much about production, they had gushers, it comes spurting out of the ground. There are pictures of a place that is now called Oil Creek State Park where there was nothing growing. Every tree was dead. Every blade of grass was dead. The streams were polluted. The hills were washing away every time you would get a rainstorm. Today, that is a mature oak forest. It is a State park. It is beautiful. The springs are clean. The streams are natural habitat for brook trout, as good as it gets. It was totally destroyed 100 and some years ago when oil was discovered, but nature has healed it. Back then, we did not know how to produce oil. But I find it troubling every time we get an oil or gas vote on this floor, we vote to lock it up. We had the President's set-asides with his areas. We had a vote last year on the Great Lakes where you now do slant drilling and you do not drill into the lake but you drill under the lake. We buy oil and gas from Canada that comes out from under the Great Lakes but we prohibit Great Lakes drilling in the States. Much of the coastline is locked up. Last year we locked up some more of the Gulf. Much of the Midwest is locked up. I guess the question I ask is, is it more important to lock up oil and gas drilling around this country when we have safe, modern methods that do not cause environmental degradation? You look at the record in recent years of oil and gas drilling in this country, and it is pretty good, because we have the skill to do it. For a country as dependent on energy as us and that energy comes from countries like Iraq and Iran, does it make sense to continue, every time we have a vote on oil and gas, to lock it up? I find it interesting that one of the debaters for this amendment supports mountaintop mining, certainly with greater environmental degradation than drilling an oil and gas well, punching a little hole in the ground. I think we as a body need to be more thoughtful. Where do we go with energy? We know it needs to be more renewable. We know we need to be better conserving. But in the interim, until we have something to replace oil, we need oil for this country. Every time we have a spike in oil and gas prices, and we had one in 2000 and 2001, this economy pays. We lost millions of jobs in this country with a spike in energy prices just a year and a half ago. Yet we continue on a course, with supposedly good environmental stewardship, of locking it up, resources that we can extract today with good sound science, and I think it is a debate we better think seriously about. These leases could not be developed in the next 12 months if we wanted to, yet that is what this amendment does. It says we lock it up for 12 more months because no money can be spent. It is an amendment to raise another vote against oil and gas development, something this country is dependent on for its absolute economic future. I think it is something we need to be very thoughtful about.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to question this amendment, the fact that if we were awash in money, if we were in a surplus, if we had lots of cash to spread around, I think this amendment might be appropriate. But when it really comes down to it, we have gotten by the original NEA debate in this country. A lot of positive changes have happened. A lot of the things that upset the American public have been changed. But is it really a priority in America to have almost a 10 percent increase in the arts when we have an economy that is in trouble, when we have poor people in this country who have lost their jobs, we have people underemployed, unemployed? Is this a prudent expenditure of our funds? When we are in economic trouble, is there no line item that can be level-funded? And this is not level-funded; it is increased. Does it really stand up to a test of almost a 10 percent increase? I think not. The arts and entertainment community in America is the richest of the rich. I applaud them for what they do. But this is a time that they can step up and help expand the arts to all Americans. I find it interesting that those who are vehemently supporting this 10 percent increase oppose across-the-board tax cuts because some of them go to the more successful Americans. We all know when we cut taxes across the board, we stimulate the economy because we give American employers more money to invest in their businesses. I think it is the wrong time to ask for a major increase. We have gotten by the debate of the past. Let us stay there. Let us not revive that issue at this time when America is struggling to balance its budget. We cannot willy-nilly hand out 9 and 10 percent increases to nice things. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an inappropriate amendment. I think it is not well thought out. I think it revives the debate we could get by this year if we do not do it. I urge Members to say ``no'' to this amendment. It is the wrong time, the wrong place, and sends the wrong message to the poor of America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I first would like to open my comments with my thoughts of Chairman Skeen. He is an absolute gentleman. He is the epitome of what a legislator ought to be. I have had two staff people that worked for him for a number of years, and they have shared with me so many times what a wonderful man he was to work with and how well he trained them. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to have two of his ex-staff people who served me very well. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to oppose this amendment. The interior bill is the one bill in Congress that invests in rural America. Rural America. I represent the most rural district east of the Mississippi. Everybody thinks that when you invest in rural America, you are talking about agriculture. That is true. But agriculture only impacts 10 percent of rural Americans. Ninety percent of rural Americans are not involved in agriculture. So this bill and the 100 amendments or so that have been drafted is cutting rural America. Rural America is economically struggling. The national parks, very much a part of rural America's economy, manage 90 million acres. The forest service manages 192 million acres. The Fish and Wildlife Service manages 85 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management, which this amendment goes to, manages 262 million acres and makes those properties available to the American public so the American public can enjoy nature, can enjoy recreation and can enjoy the natural resources that come from there. This bill deals with the special responsibility we have to Native Americans, our Indians. This bill deals with energy R&D and our future. The economy of this country depends on the future of energy and how we use it wisely and what alternative energies we come to. This is what this bill will fund. This bill finally, not completely, but funds PILT more fairly. That is Payment in Lieu of Taxes. All this land I mentioned, we have never paid our taxes to the local governments, to the local people. This bill funds the geological service that does natural resource science for America. The Smithsonian Institution. This is the bill that deals with rural America. We are going tonight to be hit with dozens and dozens of amendments taking a cut out of rural America. I will rise to oppose them, because rural America needs a break. Rural America needs to be treated more fairly. This is the one bill, one of two, agriculture and interior, that deal with rural America that is being targeted for these cuts that I think is unfair. It is not well thought out; $162 million out of management of one agency is not well thought out. For that reason, I oppose this amendment. I urge those offering it to think more clearly about the impact they will have on the part of America that is struggling the most economically, rural America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 19 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work. I was excited when I got appointed to this committee. Having served in the State for 10 years as chairman of health and welfare issues, it was just exciting and exhilarating to get back into the issues that I loved. I rise to support this conference report and commend the staff, who did a wonderful job and have been great to work with, and for the bipartisanship of resolving so many of these controversial issues. I was pleased that we had a President that is leading us in education and making education funding more simple and easier for our small, rural school districts to use. Federal programs have not always been easy for small districts to obtain and utilize; and I think the bill we passed, H.R. 1, does a lot of that, and this funds it. I am just pleased to be part of that. I am pleased we have raised Pell grants to $4,000. I am especially pleased that our children's hospitals in this bill have finally had the bias against them removed. Our teaching hospitals have always had general education money, except our children's hospitals that teach our pediatricians and people who treat the most vulnerable among us, who are children. This bill equalizes for the first time the funding that our children's hospitals will now receive, the same as our other teaching hospitals have historically received, to train those who treat our kids, our smallest. I am pleased that this is the first decent increase we have had in vocational education, $80 million. I want to thank the chairman for his generous mark of $150 million, which we worked against the Senate, who did not have any increase, which was historic to this body for many years, flat funding for vocational technical education when the need for it has quadrupled. The military used to train our poor. The volunteer army has changed that. Poor young men and women used to go into the military and get their skills. That does not happen anymore. We have never replaced that. This $80 million goes to our high schools and our community colleges. That is not a lot of money; but I am pleased, in talking with the chairman, that we are going to work with the Senate and next year try to get a sizeable increase. I am also pleased with the adult education fund. This funds GEDs and allows people who have dropped out of the system to get back in. Our educational ladder has to reach from the ground up, and adult education needs to be looked at and I believe expanded, also, because we have a lot of adults that have slipped through our high school system in the past who got a degree but did not really get an education and need to get back on that educational ladder. It is only going to be through adult education. It is one I think we really need to look at. Again, I want to conclude by thanking the staff and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula). It has been a delight to work with him and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I excitedly look forward to what we started this year in technical education, and next year we are going to give it a better hit. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a delight and a privilege tonight to stand here and honor one of America's greatest, my friend, and my colleagues' friend, Mr. Joe Paterno. Mr. Speaker, H.Res. 276, we had hoped to make it H.Res. 324 to honor his 324 victories, but the bureaucracy would not let us do that. But I am pleased to report that this resolution is sponsored by the entire Pennsylvania delegation. They were excited to do that. If Members had ever had the chance to sit down, meet, and talk with Joe Paterno, it was quickly obvious why he is so successful. I remember vividly one time I sat in his office, expecting to spend 5 or 10 minutes with him, and I was there most of an hour. He oozes enthusiasm. He is real. He is genuine. We talked football, we talked education, and we talked a little politics. Mr. Speaker, Joe Paterno set the standard that education comes first, then athletics, a priority that all coaches should follow. Joe Paterno coached Penn State's Nittany Lions football team to a 29-to-27 victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes on October 27, 2001, at Beaver Stadium in Happy Valley with over 108,000 patrons in attendance. That victory was Joe Paterno's 324th career coaching victory, making him the winningest Division 1-A football coach in NCAA history. But Joe Paterno was much more than a college football coach, Mr. Speaker, as is shown by this resolution's referral to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, that says a lot. After being named head football coach, he launched what he termed ``The Great Experiment,'' and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) shared that with us. Mr. Paterno's experiment is succeeding in spades. He nurtured 21 first-time Academic All-Americans, 14 Hall of Fame scholar-athletes, and 17 NCAA postgraduate scholarship winners. From 1996 to 2000, he nurtured nine Academic All-Big-Ten football honorees, more than any other Big Ten Conference institutions during that period. According to the 2000 NCAA Graduation Rate Report, the 4-year graduation rate of Joe Paterno's Penn State players was 76.5 percent, more than 50 percent above the 48 percent national average. Mr. Speaker, Coach Paterno's contributions did not end there. He and his wife, Sue, have been so unselfish with their time and their resources over the years. Joe and Sue have continually demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to Penn State through volunteer efforts and contributions, including a $3.5 million gift, the most generous gift ever given to a university by a coach and his family, for academic scholarships, faculty endowments, and campus construction projects. Immediately following his first national championship in January of 1983, Joe Paterno bypassed the customary acceptance speech and instead pressed the university's board of trustees to make Penn State number one in academics as well as athletics, and began advocating for the libraries of Penn State. Joe and Sue Paterno then served as cochairs of the campaign for the library, which raised $11 million for an expansion effort that would double the size of the existing library at Penn State's University Park campus. The Paternos' generosity and vision were recognized by vote of Penn State's board of trustees to name the new world-class library after the Paternos, and at the dedication of the Paterno Library of Penn State's University Park campus, that occurred on September 8, 2000. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Joe Paterno has received countless awards for being a role model and mentor for his players, a community leader, a humanitarian, and a philanthropist who exhibits and promotes the time-honored values of selflessness, equality, dignity, educational achievement, and community service. On the field, Joe is in a class by himself. He has accumulated all 324 of his coaching wins, now 325, where he is currently in his 52nd season as head coach. He has been on the coaching staff during more than half of all of the football games played at Penn State since the football program began in 1887, over half. He has led Penn State to two national championships, in 1982 and 1986. He led them to five perfect seasons, in 1968, 1969, 1973, 1986, and 1994. He has won 20 bowl games at Penn State, an NCAA record. He is the only coach to have won all four traditional New Year's Day bowl games, and the Fiesta Bowl. I clearly remember on many occasions, and even recently, when he did not allow one or more of his star players to play in a bowl game. It was more important that they kept the rules than for him to win the bowl game, a message that I think will be felt by those young men and appreciated the rest of their lives. The American Football Coaches Association has named Joe Paterno the Coach of the Year four times, in 1968, 1978, 1982, and 1986. Mr. Speaker, JoePa, as he is affectionately known to his extended Penn State family and to the rest of the football world, has coached 55 first-team All-Americans. In conclusion, I would like to read the closing of this resolution, as well as relay a touching quotation which sums up Joe Paterno best. First, the resolution reads, ``The U.S. House of Representatives praises Joseph Vincent Paterno for his steadfast commitment to academics, service, and citizenship; And congratulates Joseph Vincent Paterno for his many coaching accomplishments, including his 324th career victory; And thanks Joseph Vincent Paterno for his contributions to college football, to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and to the Nation. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Joe received a touching retrospective from his high school mentor at the Brooklyn Prep School, the late Father Thomas Bermingham, who said, ``The Father gave me the sense that I was being handed a treasure.'' Yes, Joe is a treasure, our treasure. Joe, we are so proud of your accomplishments and for the privilege to honor you tonight.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 981.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the statement that if milk marketing belongs in the Committee on the Judiciary, then missile defense belongs in the Committee on Agriculture. How many staff people on the Committee on the Judiciary know anything about agricultural marketing systems? There is nobody, and there should not be anybody. To use a stretch of the rules, to use a technicality to deprive this House of a debate of one of the most important farm issues facing this country is wrong. For this House not to have the right to debate this issue up or down is wrong. It is unfair. Just last week in response to a terrorism act, we spent billions on American airlines to help them. This bill gives millions to corporate, rich farmers to help them. An amendment yesterday that I supported that limited that help to $150,000, which is pretty sizable, was defeated. Wrongly, but it was defeated. The most important issue facing this country, dairy, what is in this bill to help it? Not a dime. Not a word. Not any guidance, and that is wrong. This House needs to debate agricultural issues with the agricultural bills before this House, not in the Committee on the Judiciary. Dairy farmers are fighting for their life for a stable market, a stable market. It is the most wholesome natural food we have. I have a perspective that is different than most of my colleagues. I was a supermarket operator for 26 years. I sold food for a living. Mr. Chairman, I understand the food distribution system. And we have the safest system in the world; the most cost-effective system in the world; and we give the best, purest products to our people. When our people go to our supermarkets and come home, they have fresh products because we have the best system in the world. Yes, milk is very reasonable. You can buy it for $2.50 a gallon. It is often cheaper than soda which is flavoring, soda water, and sugar. Milk is often cheaper than the juice drinks which are a little bit of juice and a lot of water and sugar. Yes, when my colleagues go to convenience stores, they pay $1.90 for a 16-ounce or 20-ounce bottle of water. More expensive than milk. Can we not be put in the Committee on the Judiciary? Can we have this issue before us as part of the agricultural issue to develop a marketing system that is fair? That allows our farmers to have a stable price. It is okay for the moment, but for 2 years our dairy farmers produced milk at less than what it cost. For 2 years, not 2 months, not 3 months; and it has put thousands of them out of business. The Northeast Dairy Compact had a steadying effect upon farms with fewer farms lost in compact States after the initiation of the compact. A new policy is needed to address the complete failure of our current dairy policy. Dairy compact legislation has passed in 25 States. Dairy compacts return power to the States over fluid milk. We must make sure that we allow a stable supply of milk and dairy products throughout this country, that we are not hauling them from coast to coast. We need regional dairy supplies, and the dairy compact legislation will allow us to work towards that. Consumers are not stuck with higher prices in compact States. OMB and others found that price surveys show that compact retail prices are more stable and not more expensive to the consumer. We just want a fair debate on an agricultural issue with the farm bill in front of us. I urge Mr. Chairman to rule that this issue stays before the Committee on Agriculture where it belongs.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have heard today that this would harm the commodity programs. I believe that 2 percent would not ruin any program. It is important that the communities that our farmers live and raise their families in are good, solid communities and have the leadership they need. Our rural communities are struggling. They are the most struggling part of America. This Congress has reached out historically and helped urban communities. We have all supported that. Now it is time to help rural America. We have lost farming, in many ways. We have lost mining. We have lost resource drilling, oil and gas drilling. We have lost our local banks. We have lost our local utilities. Rural America is a different place today than it was 10 years ago. It has not enjoyed the boom that was in this country for the last 10 years. The highest unemployment in this country is in rural America. The most underemployment in this country is in rural America. The most dilapidated housing in this country is in rural America. These are the communities our farms live in. USDA, in their ``Food and Agriculture Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century,'' say seven out of eight rural counties are dominated by a mixture of manufacturing services and other non-farming activities. The next part is what is important. ``Traditional commodity support and farming-oriented development programs play an increasingly limited role in improving the prosperity of rural America.'' I am not here arguing against the commodity supports, but when Members support the farmer who is less than 10 percent of the community and he does not have a community to support him, we have left out an important ingredient of rural America. The community we live in, no matter what we do, is the most important part. We are putting the money back too often into rich farmers' hands; and we are forgetting the community that the small, poor farmer lives in and is struggling for his meager existence. The farmers in my district are poor. They work the longest hours of anybody. They are struggling. We need communities to support them. This 2 percent of this $5 billion a year is $100 million. Let us put 2 percent into the rural infrastructure where our farm families live and raise their families. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the gentlewoman from North Carolina to offer this amendment and to support it, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. This farm bill spends many billions supporting our farmers, but it does too little to assist rural communities where farm families live and raise their families. We are asking for a crumb from the table, Mr. Chairman, $100 million out of a $50 billion pot of money; less than 2 percent. A crumb for rural America. Not a whole cookie, not a slice of the pie, just a crumb. Who lives in rural America today? A lot of ex-farmers. The majority of people living in rural farm towns are not farmers. A lot of ex- farmers, a lot of ex-oil workers. A lot of ex-miners as our mines have been closed. A lot of ex-loggers as our forests are locked up from logging. A lot of ex-manufacturers, as small manufacturing plants have left, too often, small rural communities. A lot of ex-utility employees. My gas companies come now, I am from Pennsylvania, from New York, and all of the staff and all of the support offices from out of New York State. Very few of them come from my area. My electric company now is out of New Jersey and will soon be out of Ohio, and all of the staff and all of the support people that help run our communities are no longer there. My telephone company comes from New York also. Those were people who made up the rural communities and helped lead them. Our ex-bank employees, as bank mergers have devastated rural communities. Three regional banks in my area are all now governed out of an Ohio bank. All of those support offices, all of those people who made up our communities are now living in large cities and neighboring States. Rural is much more than agriculture, and the future and success of our Nation's family farms are critically linked to the economies of rural communities. Only 6.3 percent of rural Americans live on farms and 50 percent of those farm families have significant off-farm income. That is why we need communities to support them. Farming accounts for only 7.6 percent of rural employment, and 90 percent of rural workers have non-farm jobs to help make it work. Rural employment is still dominated by low-wage industries. In 1996, 23 percent of rural workers were employed in the service sector. Rural workers are nearly twice as likely to earn the minimum wage: 12 percent in rural, 7 percent in urban. Rural workers remain more likely to be underemployed and are less likely to improve their employment circumstances over time, and 40 percent less likely to move out of low-wage jobs than central city residents. Of the 250 poorest counties in America, 244 of them are rural, only 6 urban. In general, poverty rates are higher in rural than in urban areas: 15.9 percent rural, 12.6 percent urban. Rural families are more likely to be employed and still poor. In 1995, 60 percent of rural poor families worked some time during the year; 24 percent worked full time. Rural America has been exporting our brightest young people for years. We must reverse that trend. Rural communities need our help to plan and build a stronger economy for the future. I am here today to support this because the President said in his letter about this farm bill: ``The Farm Security Act 2001,'' the administration said, ``as drafted, misses the opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools, innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to workers, lands and aid programs that are consistent with our trade agenda.'' Our amendment redirects money to market-oriented tools, innovative and environmental programs by redirecting money to the value-added market programs to have clean drinking water. Yes, ours is about clean drinking water grants, ours is about rural strategies and planting grants, ours is about helping farmers to value add to their products, helping farmers further process their products and get a decent price out of them; helping farmers be successful getting what their products are worth. I am pleased to join the gentlewoman in supporting this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to repeat one more time that rural America needs our help. I do not really think Congress as a whole or the country as a whole realizes what has not happened in rural America. As we have seen urban and suburban areas grow and prosper and fight growth, in rural America we have had an exodus. We have had elements in this Congress that have stopped timbering and put loggers out of work. We have had elements in this Congress that have stopped mining and put miners out of work. We have had elements in this Congress that have made it pretty difficult to farm in some areas and put farmers out of work. We have had regulatory agencies that have been very difficult. There has been an attack on how we make a living on rural America. I said it many times, in my district we mine. I am from where the first oil well was drilled. We have the finest hardwood forest in America, and we farm and we manufacture. There are organizations against all of those. Rural Americans work for their money. They are the hardest working people in this country. They are the salt of the Earth in my book, and I am proud to represent them. I think we make a mistake when we put so many of our resources in helping a few. This 1 percent we are asking for helps the whole rural community. Most farmers depend on a second job for one of their family members or themselves. They depend on a second job for their children. They depend on support services in the community. When we do not support that community, we are making the biggest mistake because it will all fall apart in the end. This 1 percent is an investment this House ought to make. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support this legislation. I rise with all of my colleagues; and I want to commend my colleagues that have brought this all together, because we are here today supporting freedom, preserving freedom, not only here, but around the world. We are the artery that supplies freedom to all. This country is the beacon, is the artery; and they went for the jugular. I also am here supporting the heroes, the heroes in New York that gave their lives to get people out, heroes not mentioned. There were 2,000 Federal employees in buildings 6 and 7, and they got them all out but one because they carried out their plan so well. The passengers on the flight that came down in Pennsylvania gave it their all, and we are here supporting them. If there is something good out of this, because I said in speeches for years that we often in Washington get off of our number one priority. The number one priority of the Federal Government is to preserve freedom, is to protect this country, is to keep us safe and provide safety and freedom around the world. Oftentimes, we have been off on lots of debates and I think spent far too little time and effort on the number one role of this government: preserving and fighting for freedom and making sure that the young people in this country understand that it does not just happen, it does not just keep going on; that we have to fight for it, that we have to preserve it, that it has to forever be the number one priority of this government; that keeping this country strong, keeping this country safe and promoting and fighting for freedom around the world is our number one role as representatives of our people in this Congress. That is our number one mission. Mr. Speaker, I commend all of those that are leading us, including the President, in the direction to do that.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), for his work on H.R. 434, the Emigrant Wilderness Protection Act. This bill would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to enter into a cooperative agreement with non-Federal entities to retain, maintain and operate at private expense the 12 small check dams and weirs, located within the Emigrant Wilderness boundary. The work would be down under terms and conditions established by the Secretary and without use of mechanized transport or motorized equipment. The bill authorizes $20,000 to be appropriated to cover administrative costs incurred by the Secretary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Although not specifically indicated within the legislation, it is widely believed to have been the intent of Congress when it passed the Emigrant Wilderness Act in 1974 to preserve the 18 check dam structures. Report language for the 1974 act explained: ``Within the area recommended for wilderness designation, there are drift fences, five miles, which will be maintained, but several cabins and barns will be removed within 10 years. Two snow cabins will be retained. The weirs and small dams will likewise be retained,'' House Report No. 93-989, page 10, April 11, 1974. This is a good, well thought-out, common-sense bill, Mr. Speaker; and I urge my colleagues to support the measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 695) to establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area, as amended.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to be here today to discuss H.R. 695, The Oil Region National Heritage Area. I would first like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and their staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today. This legislation is vital to protect and conserve natural, cultural, and historical resources of national significance, while recognizing one of the single most influential resources of the modern era. The 1859 event of Colonel Edwin Drake's drilling of the world's first successful oil well has had a tremendous effect on the modern world. The commercial history of petroleum in the United States begins at Drake Well located along Oil Creek near Titusville, Pennsylvania, in fact, 5 miles from my home. The tools, the terminology, and the transportation and financial and extraction processes of the oil industry were developed here in the latter part of the 19th century and are still used today. Oil and petroleum products have transformed the world, including the automobile, the industrial revolution, and the creation of petroleum-based products such as plastics. Oil has been recognized as a potentially significant substance long before Drake's Well called the attention of the world to this corner of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Many accounts of the Allegheny valleys and its tributaries tell of springs and streams whose surfaces were covered with a thick, oily substance. Because of this, the Oil Creek Valley was so named even before Drake's well. In addition, Native Americans of the Seneca tribe gathered and traded oil, giving rise to the name ``Seneca Oil.'' About 1847, a Pennsylvanian named Sam Keir devised a way to distill petroleum into lamp fuel which he called ``carbon fuel.'' The discovery of oil caused a stampede of people, with whole towns and hundreds of new oil wells quickly appearing. Familiar words and meanings in the American language originated or were adopted for use in this territory: wildcatter, bird dog, gusher, pay dirt, shooter, and cash on the barrel head. Heroes and villains, enormous wealth, tragedies, violence, and environmental degradation are part of this story. Forests were clear-cut to provide railroad ties and material to build oil derricks, bridges and buildings. Early black and white pictures show a de-neutered landscape devoid of any trees or foliage. Part of the story that visitors learn about when they visit the current area of the Oil Heritage Park includes the degradation and restoration of the forests. Now, the visitors can see vistas of restored forests, creeks, and ecosystems. When I was a boy, you could not swim in many of these streams. Now we have some of the best trout and bass fishing in the East. I am grateful technology has improved over the years so that we can manage our natural resources in a way that is beneficial to all. The creation of the Oil Region National Heritage Area enjoys widespread support from local citizens, governments, and businesses. Last year, the National Park Service testified about their reluctance to create this heritage area. However, at my urging, they agreed to conduct a feasibility study. The team went into this study with trepidation; however, they came away supportive and enthusiastic about the creation of the Oil Region National Heritage Area. In February, we conducted two town hall meetings where elected officials, community leaders, businesses and concerned citizens met to discuss the merits of the national designation. No negative comments were voiced concerning the creation of the Oil Region National Heritage Area. Sixty-eight people attended the meetings and every person who commented spoke favorably. As my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, this endeavor was founded with true grassroots support. Today, Pennsylvania is no longer a major contributor in U.S. oil production; however, hundreds of active wells still dot the landscape. Oil Creek and its tributaries now run clear. Hillsides that once were oil soaked and clear-cut now exist as mature forests. All of the major oil companies have their roots here, including Sunoco, Standard Oil, Pennzoil, Quaker State, and Texaco. Oil fueled the industrial revolution and modernized America's transportation system. It is vital that we preserve and enhance the area that is called ``the valley that changed the world,'' the birthplace of commercial petroleum. Through the establishment of the Oil Region National Heritage Area, we are allowing this great story to be told through maintenance of exhibits, restoration of buildings, and the development of educational and recreational opportunities. I would like to thank the cosponsors of H.R. 695, including my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), a neighbor. In fact, the majority of the Pennsylvania delegation supports the creation of the Oil Region National Heritage Area, and I would like to thank them as well. This bill is supported by the majority and minority party of the Committee on Resources as well as the administration. It is indeed now time to recognize the national significance of this great region by designating the Oil Region as a National Heritage Area. I hope my colleagues will want to recognize the important contribution that oil has made to the world as we know it by voting to pass H.R. 695, the Oil Region National Heritage Area. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 695, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1628) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1828 would establish the El Camino Real de los Tejas National Trail to the National Trails system. The Camino Real, also known as the royal road, is a combination of historic routes totaling 2,600 miles used by the Spanish to connect them to Spanish Capitals. The history of the trail extends from early American Indian nations to modern exploration and colonization. Today, the trail extends from the Texas-Mexico border along the Rio Grande River to Natchitoches, Louisiana. These roads were primary transportation routes starting in the 1600s, and thus had significant influences on the culture and political identity of south central Texas and western Louisiana. In addition to the designation as a National Historic Trail, H.R. 1628 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate an international effort to recognize the significance of this trail, and foster education and research of its history with the country of Mexico. Finally, H.R. 1628 specifies that the acquisition of privately-owned land or interest in land would occur only with the consent of the owner. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1628 is supported by the majority and the minority, as well as the administration. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1628. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to share with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) that we are delighted to support his bill, and urge fellow Members to do likewise.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1937) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to engage in certain feasibility studies of water resource projects in the State of Washington, as amended.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1937, authored by the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen) will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies for three Native American tribes in the State of Washington. The purpose of the studies is to investigate the feasibility of providing potable water and wastewater distribution systems to meet the future domestic and commercial needs of the tribes. This is a noncontroversial bill, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.