John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 119 I inadvertently pressed the ``No'' button. I meant to vote ``Aye.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Fibromyalgia Awareness Day on May 12, 2001. Fibromyalgia remains a great mystery of the medical world. It affects 3 to 6 million Americans and causes debilitating symptoms that often times make it impossible for an afflicted individual to lead a normal life. Fibromyalgia patients describe their pain as being so severe that it can be impossible to lift a glass of water or even get out of bed some mornings. While the disease tends to affect women between the age of 35 and 50, cases have been reported in children, men and the elderly. Fibromyalgia is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue and multiple tender points. These tender points are located in the knee, shoulder, hip and back and can make walking a short distance a challenge. It is also common for Fibromyalgia patients to have a sleep disorder, causing the fatigue to worsen. The most frustrating aspect of this disease is that is causes a chronic pain for which there is neither a cure nor a known cause. I hope that through awareness efforts like National Fibromyalgia Awareness Day, more attention will be focused on finding a cure and 3 to 6 million Americans can return to living normal, pain free lives. I applaud the efforts of the National Fibromyalgia Awareness Campaign and ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 12, 2001 as National Fibromyalgia Awareness Day.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 100, I put my voting card in and it did not register. Had it registered, I would have voted ``Yea''.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of one of the truly great Americans of the 20th century, Dr. Thomas Starzl, the renowned ``Father of Transplantation.'' Dr. Starzl turned 75-years old on March 11th, and his former students, colleagues, patients and others are gathering in Pittsburgh in late April for the dedication of a portrait to hang alongside other University of Pittsburgh medical research luminaries such as Dr. Jonas Salk, who discovered the polio vaccine. Dr. Starzl's pioneering work on organ transplantation is no less important to our society. One considered to be mere science fiction, the reality of organ transplantation is today often taken for granted. For years throughout his early career, Dr. Starzl tirelessly experimented with transplantation in the face of adversity and the skepticism of his colleagues and academics. But he succeeded, and because of his work thousands of lives are saved each year by organ transplant surgery. It was 20-years ago this year that Dr. Starzl performed the first liver transplant in Pittsburgh. Since that time, more than 11,300 transplants have been performed in what is now the UPMC Health System, making Pittsburgh the busiest transplant center in the world. Even though he retired from surgery in 1991, his work and dedication to the field of transplantation continues and is unmatched. Now as we proceed into a new century, his work continues. Just because he's now emeritus does not mean he will be idle. He still contributes on a daily basis (just a few years ago he was named the most cited in clinical medicine) and he will provide leadership and vision to the program that bears his name. Few in their lifetimes have pioneered and developed a field of medicine and seen it flourish, as has Dr. Starzl. And expect more from him--there are breakthroughs around the corner.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I am pleased to follow the gentleman from Arizona and my friend from South Dakota. I bring a background of being a small businessman myself. I owned and operated a supermarket for 26 years. I built it from scratch. I right now find that those who say this is about taxes for the rich do not have any idea what they are talking about. Because real rich people do not pay this tax. They use the complications of the tax system and the way they shield their resources, they are not the ones that pay it. Let me tell you who does. In the next 2 weeks, most of our small businesses that employ the vast majority of Americans are paying their income tax. They pay a lot of that, too, because they are the ones that pay the high rate. If you have a local business that has 100 employees and makes a decent profit, they are paying a lot of taxes and they are creating a lot of growth and wealth for our communities. If you are building a community, what kind of a business do you want? Would you choose some global corporation that would put 500 jobs in your community or would you take five local companies that would put 100 jobs in your community where the families live there and work in the communities and serve on local governments and serve on boards and agencies and do all of those things that make communities good places to live? I think we would all choose those five employers that have 100 people, because they are not going to be moving to Mexico; they are not going to move the plant to another State because this is their community. If you want to talk about growing your community, I have come from a part of Pennsylvania that has been hit hard with companies closing. We have been hit hard for a lot of things that are no fault of the workforce and no fault of our area. When you lose the local ownership of a company, the large global corporations may take a look at one of the businesses that have been in your community for years and has grown to 400 or 500 jobs and has a good workforce and a good product line, and let a death in the family come and that is the chance to buy that business and make it part of their global corporation. Now, I am not against global corporations but when you lose that local ownership to the global corporation, it is never the same, because 5 years from now that business could be on a little bit of a hard time and it is very easy to take those machines and move them down the road or another country, and those jobs are gone. The backbone of our communities is independent business, and this tax hits them really hard. This is the tax that forces them to make that decision, because they cannot borrow that much money and still make the business profitable, and the only economic choice they have is to sell it. I think that is the part that people must realize. This is the backbone of our communities, independent businesses that are growing and prospering. They pay that tax on January the 15th, this year, next year, the year after. They build this nest egg. They do not have huge Keoghs and huge IRAs. They have their resources in the business, in the building, in the inventory, in the machines. That is their family nest egg, and maybe the funds have helped grow the business and they have worked like troopers to grow this business and create more jobs in the community; and the father or the parent dies and the business has to be sold because there is not enough equity left after you pay the estate taxes. Whether it is farmers, whether it is a local supermarket, whether it is a local manufacturer, a local processor, whatever, it is local employers that make our communities good places in which to live, and the estate tax is the greatest threat to local jobs of any part of our tax package. That accumulation of wealth by buying more machines and adding on to the building and all of that, that is out of profits that they have paid their taxes on. This is not through some cheating or somehow taking money out of the business. This is taking the profits, paying their taxes, taking what is left and putting it back into the business and hiring 5 more people. That is what America is all about. That is where we are better than most any part of the world. The free market system allowed someone like me, when I started my business, to borrow against my father's home. Now, today banks will not do that. I knew one thing, though. I knew that I could not fail, I could not jeopardize my mother's and father's home. I had to pay that loan back, but that is how I got started in business because I didn't have any cash of my own. My father mortgaged his home and some land he owned so I could go into a little small, corner grocery store and I grew it into a supermarket that served the community for more than 2 decades. That is the future of America, the ability of individuals with a new idea, a new concept, to grow business, and the estate tax or the death tax is one of the greatest threats for that business staying in your community, staying in the next generation. There are very few businesses, because of the estate tax, that last to the third generation, a small fraction. There is a myth, a Federal estate tax is an efficient way to distribute wealth. Well, the reality is, and the gentleman said it very similarly, the Joint Economic Committee found that the cost of collection and compliance, and that includes the litigation and disputes between the IRS and taxpayers, makes it a wash. So the government really does not benefit from all the money they spend collecting the estate taxes. It is a wash. But at the same time those 500 jobs, those 300 jobs, those 50 jobs, those 40 jobs from our communities are gone forever. It is the second and third tax on the same income, and it just should not be.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if you want less of something, tax it another way, another time; if you want more of something, do not tax it. Any time we can remove an impediment from businesses succeeding, we ought to be about it. I am going to diverse just for a moment, because Bill Gates has said this 3 or 4 times in my presence and it has made a big impact on me. He said, as he travels around the world, because he is one of the leaders of the technology revolution that has brought about the strong economy in this country, he says, everywhere he goes, he will go to Japan and he said, why did it not happen here first? Why did it happen in the States? He will go to Germany and Europe and other countries, and he will say, why did it not happen here? We are smart people. And he said the reason it did not happen there and that it happened here is we have the most economic freedom. We have the least bureaucracy. We have the least power in the bureaucracy to control and regulate. Now, a lot of us think we have too much, but we do not have as much as they do. He said, they could not have brought about the changes that were necessary to implement this. This technology was around a while before it took off, before it became this spur to our economy. I just want to say that, because it is that economic freedom of this country that we must defend. The difference in America from anywhere else in the world, and our future, in my opinion, depends on the ability of any individual that has a process, a manufacturing process or a commodity to market that process or that commodity or manufacture that product and compete against the big boys. Now, when I was in the food business, I was an independent supermarket. I had to fight the chains. Now, I do not dislike the chains. They are large, they are powerful, they have hundreds of stores and the power of buying, and I had to compete with them. But that is what America is about, allowing little people with big ideas and lots of intense hard work to build a business. We never know when we have an employer of 50 people that can suddenly bust out and be 500 people, 5,000 people. I have seen it happen, where somebody started in a garage and then moved into a vacant building and the next thing we know, they are building new factories and they are employing hundreds, if not thousands, of people. We do not want to do anything to trip those people up on their way, because that is what makes America different: It is a land of opportunity. It is a land of economic freedom. When we tax two and three times and take that power of earnings away from people and cause families to lose that whole thrust, they may salvage the business, but for the next 5 to 10 years they are paying interest on this debt that they have accumulated to pay the taxes. If we add up the money that is spent in this country avoiding this tax, I would not be surprised if this tax, what it costs people and businesses and what it costs the government to collect it, that it is an absolute loser. It is not time to tinker with it, it is time to get it out of the way as an impediment to growing successful businesses in this country. It is one less impediment for families and hard-working people. Most people who own a business do not work 8 hours a day, they work double shift, triple shift, whatever it takes to make the business work, to pay the bills. Those people should not be threatened and have the problem of spending all their resources and time trying to salvage the family business. It is time to put the death tax to bed. It is time to just remove it and get it out of the way as something that really is not in the best interests of our economic future.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Richard P. McFarland as he prepares to culminate his active duty career in the United States Air Force. Rich is the epitome of an outstanding officer and leader. Lieutenant Colonel McFarland received his commission more than 20 years ago from the United States Air Force Academy. A graduate of Auburn University, as well as the Air War College, Rich McFarland has met the many challenges of military service as an Air Force Officer, and has faithfully served his country in a variety of command and staff assignments. Rich concludes his career as the Special Assistant for Space, C3I and Intelligence in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs; he was instrumental in advising the Defense Department leadership on a broad range of national security issues of immediate interest to Congress. Rich's extensive knowledge of intelligence matters and space operations are instrumental in his role as the chief advisor to the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and other Department of Defense Officials regarding national security strategy issues. Mr. Speaker, service and dedication to duty have been the hallmarks of Lieutenant Colonel McFarland's career. He has served our nation and the Air Force well during his years of service, and we are indebted for his many contributions and sacrifices in the defense of the United States. I am sure that everyone who has worked with Rich joins me in wishing him and his wife, Anne, health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about education. We will hear later tonight from the two presidential candidates a lot about education. We will have two very differing messages. George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, will talk about getting money to the classrooms, getting money to the school districts and requiring accountability, accountability that young people can read, that young people understand math, that young people understand science and English and reach certain levels of excellence. Then we will have the Gore plan that talks about, if you do what we want you to do, we will furnish some money. If you hire teachers, we will help you. If you do new school construction, and I would say also and if you are urban, we may help you. But it certainly will not be to the most of the hundreds of thousands of school districts in this country, only a few privileged few. Now, it is interesting as we listen to this debate that we keep it in perspective. The Federal Government claims that they provide seven percent of the basic education money from K-12, seven percent. Now I am going to give my colleagues the actual figures to Pennsylvania, the fifth largest State in the country, a sophisticated State, 3.3 percent of the money in school districts. Of the 530 school districts in Pennsylvania, 3.3 percent of their budget comes from the Federal Government. So the question I ask is, that is 47 percent of seven percent, so what happens to the 53 percent? Is it all chewed up in Federal and State and regional bureaucracies that we know are often funded by the Federal Government? If that is the case, then if we are going to impact education from Washington, we have to figure out how to get the money into the classroom. Last year and the year before, we had a program called Dollars to the Classroom that took a lot of programs and made it much easier for school districts to use them and get the money out to the school districts without all the bureaucratic work that is needed, without the grantsmen, without the consultants that you need to get Federal money. It is interesting for the American public to realize, Mr. Speaker, that one of my most suburban school districts gets just a little over one percent of its money from the Federal Government. Are we going to fix education in that community? I have dozens of school districts that get between one and two percent of their money from the Federal Government. Are we going to fix education there? We can help a little bit. We can guide a little bit. But if we are going to have Washington-based programs that they have to apply for that they have to meet all the requirements of, most smaller school districts will not even apply. I think it is important as we listen to this presidential debate that we talk about getting dollars to the classroom, that we require accountability, but not Federal bureaucracies in charge of our school districts. My colleagues, we cannot improve education by more Federal programs, more Federal bureaucrats, more Federal rules and with only 47 percent of the Federal dollars reaching the classroom if Pennsylvania is like most States. And I believe that is probably the case in most States. So it is important that if we are going to really help education from Washington that we allow the local leaders, we make it easy to get the Federal dollars there. If they need maintenance, they can do maintenance. If they need teachers, they can hire teachers. If they need books, they can buy books. If they need computers, they can buy computers. Not Washington telling them, we will help you if you do what we think you should do. So I think it is very important as we listen to this Presidential debate that we realize that Washington cannot make our school districts better. We can only be a small player if we get the money to the school districts and we allow them to make the decisions that teachers and the administrators and the parents involved in their young people's education, that Washington does not have the answers, Washington will not make it better, it will make it more complicated, few dollars will reach the classroom. All these bureaucracies that are funded with that 53 percent do not teach a student, do not make a classroom better, do not make a school better, and does not help the role of education. So as I conclude my comments this evening, it is important that we get the money to the classroom, that we require accountability that students can read, they can do math, they can do science, and they know English. That will give them the basis for their life and will give them a good education.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the very strong support we have had from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson); as well as the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), who has been such a good friend; and I want to thank the staff who have worked so hard on this issue. I also want to thank the leadership and the majority leader, who have personally helped me at every turn. Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most difficult issues I have ever dealt with. Let us just think about it for a moment. For 11 days, Edmund Pope has been in a Russian prison. If my colleagues have not been in a Russian prison, I was there a few months ago. It is no place to be. He went over there in March on his 27th trip to do business. He was arrested on April 3 and thrown in prison. For 13 weeks, his wife never received a note from him, a phone call from him or any word. He never received one of her letters that she sent daily. Between two countries that have normal relations in business, a prisoner never heard from his family or was allowed to communicate with his family for 13 weeks. In June, Cheri Pope, his wife, and two of my staff went to Russia. They found out he did not have a competent lawyer, a 73-year-old lawyer that was not considered good; and so they were able to hire him a good lawyer who has been very helpful and who started to build a case. It was not long before he found out that there was no real case against Edmund Pope. In fact, the Russians had never even told us what the case was about; it was just that he had committed espionage. On August 5, his son was married in State College without his father. Then a little later, in August, Cheri Pope, his wife, and I and two of my staff returned to Russia. We were able to elevate this issue to an international issue. Before that it had not been well covered by the press. It was obvious then. And after we arrived there and made it an issue, the Russians finally responded and said, well, he was purchasing this Squall technology, which had been advertised for sale in 1996 and had been sold to other countries, we are told. The FSB, who finally gave these details, is like combining our FBI, our Secret Service, our CIA, and whatever else, and all combined into one. It is the most powerful agency in Russia, and they have been in control. This was Ed's 27th visit there. He had had many business partnerships there. He had brought many scientists from Russia to Pennsylvania, to Penn State. Had taken many groups of scientists to Russia to help them in their trying to build a free economic system. He loved the Russians, told all his neighbors and friends that I have talked to. He was very fond of the Russians and wanted them to have economic opportunity like we have here. For 17 months, Ed Pope has not had adequate health screenings. Edmund Pope, a number of years ago, was diagnosed with bone cancer. It has been arrested. He should, from the cancer experts we have talked to, have MRI and CT scan screenings every 6 months. It has been 17 months now since he has had any screenings. In August we had a hearing; and in September we had a hearing on a health-related release, and he was turned down. They had the appeal to the hearing and asked for him to be seen by an American doctor and have the appropriate test and again was turned down. It is now approaching mid-October and Edmund Pope has still not had the health screenings that he needs. If we get Edmund Pope out tomorrow, he may have reactivated cancer and he will have a very shortened life. We are still asking every day for routine cancer screening. It is available 7 miles from his prison in a Russian facility with adequate doctors to read the scans, and we again ask for that. We know that from talking to his attorney and others there, the FSB- appointed judge will find him guilty whenever this trial is held. They will be given a predetermined verdict. I do not think we in America realize how a jury trial and the chance to defend ourselves is so basic a fundamental to the rule of law. In Russia, we are told the FSB knows how to frame people, but they do not know how to convict people. If it was a jury trial, his lawyer says, he would be innocent in a moment. As soon as the trial was held, he would be declared innocent and proven that he is innocent. But Edmund Pope will not get that chance. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Congress today for their support of this resolution and sending a strong message to this administration to continue every effort they can put forward. Edmund Pope needs to have health screenings so that we know his cancer is still in arrest. We need to know that he has not contracted TB, which is prevalent in Russian prisons. He has had a cough every time we have spoken to him. We are asking for health care first and then his timely release. It is time to get Ed Pope home. I guess just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Edmund Pope is a good man, a great American, served his country valiantly, been a good businessman, and been good for the Russians; been good for economic relationships with them; helped them partner in many business deals and commercialize other kinds of technologies they had and helped do some partnerships that helped in health care and opticals. Russia should have a lot of Ed Popes helping them to build their economy and become part of the global economy. They need to resolve this issue so we can become friends, work together, and not be enemies.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 518, I could not be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I came down here to talk about rural issues, but I feel a little compelled to talk a little bit about what was just discussed. I come from Pennsylvania, and in fact 5 miles from my home the first oil well in America was drilled, Drake's well. So I come from an area where my district had four refineries, we only have three now, but an area that has been in the oil business since it started. It is where all the major oil companies in America started, in western Pennsylvania, because that is the first oil field that was developed. It is interesting to talk to people about these simple ways to fix this problem when it is obvious they have never been in a refinery and they certainly do not understand the oil business. I am going to just back up a little bit and talk about the problem we have with oil going from $10 to $35 a barrel. It is because we have been 1 million or more barrels short per day in our volume that is necessary, so we are gradually creating a shortage. When we have a shortage in the marketplace, we drive the price up. We still have a shortage in the marketplace. We are still not importing and domestically producing enough oil to build up a supply. Normally, in the spring, refineries have all of these tank farms full of gasoline because they cannot produce enough gasoline in the summertime for us to drive our cars as much as we do, so they build those supplies. In the summertime and in the fall, they build up the supplies of home heating oil, and they have this reserve. This country is way behind. All the refineries are way behind in building up just the normal stocks that they need for this winter for home heating. Now, we are talking about instantly starting a reserve for New England. In Pennsylvania, a number of years ago when we had the first energy crisis, we had reserves. We had oil and gasoline and fuel oil set aside. Then it was allocated. That is what they are talking about to help themselves in New England when the pipeline is only half full, and it needs to be full to have enough to do the winter. If we put some in a set-aside reserve, we cause a shortage. I remember when I argued with our Department of Energy in Pennsylvania because we were having this problem every year, and I spent half of my time helping people get fuel oil or gasoline for the gas stations. I said, I think we are close enough in volume now where if you would not have anything in reserve this year, the system would work. And we argued for weeks. Finally they did that, and we did not have any problem that year. But the problem we have now, no matter what we do, the refineries in America cannot fill those tanks to supply us, and especially if we have a cold winter, we really are in a dilemma. They run at 96 to 97 percent capacity, so there is not much room to refine more than they are refining. What people do not realize, my son works in a refinery. He is an electrician in a refinery. They are getting ready for a 4- or 8-week shutdown where they stop refining. They have to do this to different parts of the refinery annually, and sometimes twice a year, because the refinery runs at such high temperatures, such high pressures, certain pipes and valves and things all have to be replaced every so many months. So they shut the refinery down and rebuilt all those lines and rebuilt all those things so that it is safe. Otherwise, these lines would wear out from heat and pressure, and the refinery would blow up. They are a very dangerous facility. So refineries have to shut down for weeks and months and sometimes 2 months at a time. It depends on if it is a minor overhaul or major overhaul, and they just have to do it. Some of the shortages that we have had is when we have had refineries down longer than they anticipated. I can remember when my son said they were going to have a 4-week shutdown, and they ended up with a 6-week shutdown because they had problems they did not realize they had. So this is not a simple process. Suddenly saying we are going to set some oil aside for New England could actually cause us a national shortage that would double the price. So I think those from New England ought to think carefully that we need to fill the pipeline of oil that we refine, we need to get some more normal reserves that we historically have had before we start setting some aside for any one part of the country. It is not a simple issue. I also was a little amused. I am not going to say that wind does not have some potential in a few parts of the country. We spent billions on wind. We have not had much progress. The researchers have told me they have just about researched wind to death. I heard a speaker last year that said if we built windmills, the latest type of windmills, a mile wide from coast to coast, that would be 3,000 miles of windmills a mile wide. Now think of the imprint that makes on the landscape. Think of the environmental impact statement one would have to get to do that. We would produce 11 percent of our electricity. Is it the answer to our future energy needs? No, I do not think wind will ever be. It is not dependable. So many parts of the country, one just cannot count on it. One cannot store it when one has it. It is not a resource that we can count on. So I think to pour a lot of money in wind is throwing the money to the wind from my point of view. I do have to say that those who are suddenly trying to say the Republicans are the cause of high oil prices in this country, I was one a couple years ago that said $10 oil will destroy our country's ability to produce its own oil. In Pennsylvania, most of the producers have gone broke. In Texas and Oklahoma, many of the producers went broke. Mr. Speaker, $10 oil destroyed our oil infrastructure; and because of that, one just cannot turn the spigot on. We have to find ways to get them the resources they need so they can rebuild, because a lot of them went broke with $10 oil; and the infrastructure is no longer in place. It is not a simple issue.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about rural America. Sometimes I think it is the forgotten part of America. Having lived my entire life there, I think it is the heart and soul of America. In my view, it is the part of this country where basic values are still important, where people believe they work hard for a day's pay and they are willing to do their fair share, they do not want a free lunch. But as we look at the history in the last 8 years, and we will start with agriculture, in the times of unparalleled prosperity, the finest economy America has ever had, agriculture is struggling to even exist. Family farms are leaving all parts of America. In my part of Pennsylvania, we have been watching that and they grow up into rag weed and other weeds for a few years and then they become brush and then they grow back to forests. How could agriculture not flourish when our economy is so strong? We have had a Clinton-Gore administration that has not kept their promise to American farmers. They promised to open world markets. We have unparalleled ability in this country to produce food and fiber. But without world markets, there is no place to sell their products. Farm products have never been cheaper. Agriculture products have never been at a lower value. And it is almost impossible for so many of our farmers to pay the bills. So agriculture has had a bad 8 years during Clinton-Gore, and I do not think we can stand 8 more. We need a leader in this country that will open our markets and help agriculture to be profitable once again. Energy, the issue that is in the pocketbooks of all Americans. We are going to have a winter this year where the poorest of Americans will pay in some places twice as much for their home heating fuel as they paid last year. How did that happen? How did we go from $10 oil to $35 oil in less than 18 months? It is because this leadership of the Clinton-Gore administration had no energy policy. They were drunk on cheap oil. They paid no attention to the oil patches of this country and the other energy resources of this country, and they allowed them to slowly go out of business. During this administration, our dependency has gone from 36 percent to 56 percent oil not from our friends, not from our neighbors in many cases, but from unstable parts of the world who care nothing about our economic future. And today, the policies of this administration have put us in a position where we could be paying $45 for oil before the year is over. And we all know what that will do to home heating, cost of trucking, cost of driving our vehicles. A lack of an energy policy of the Clinton-Gore administration has been devastating to rural America. Because not only do we consume it, that is where we produce it. The timber industry. In the West, we have great softwoods. In the eastern part of the United States, we have the finest hardwoods forests in the world. My district has one of the finest hardwood forests in America. But again we have watched Clinton-Gore policies that have tried to stop all timbering on public lands. Someone might say, well, that sounds good. But you know the Federal Government owns a third of America. When we add the State governments in, we are at about 44 or 45 percent of public ownership. And when we add local governments in, we are approaching half of America is owned by government. So government policies from an administration have an awful lot to do with whether we practice good forestry and whether we are able to timber. Timber is a natural resource and it is a resource that replenishes itself. You could have good forestry practice on the land forever and it will continue to grow fine quality timber that we use to build our homes, make our paper, and all the things we sort of take for granted. I am told we are approaching 50 percent on the importation now of softwoods in this country because we have had a policy that opposes cutting timber. Public land ownership I have talked about. When a huge part of a State and much of rural America, that is where they own, in rural America, when you have public policy changes, you have a huge impact on the rural economies; when you no longer allow grazing; when you no longer allow mining; when you no longer allow timbering. Much of our land was purchased with a promise that it would be multi-use, it would be for recreation, it would be for natural resource supply. Today, that promise has been broken. While we own all this land, our National Park Service and our Forest Service facilities, our Bureau of Land Management facilities and our Fish and Wildlife Service facilities have never been in greater disrepair, because we are on a land-buying grab. We are in the process of buying land and not maintaining the land we have. Many of these things and many more are the reasons why rural America has not prospered under this administration, and it needs new leadership in Washington if it is to survive.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today, I do not want to talk about the legislative accomplishments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I want to talk about the man. Mr. Speaker, I had a 26-year business career. I met a lot of business leaders. I was fortunate to have 19 years in State government, and I know most of Pennsylvania's leaders of today. This is my fourth year here in Congress and I have gotten to know many of the fine Members of this body. But in my view, Bill Goodling is a class act. Bill Goodling exemplifies what all Members of Congress ought to be. First, he came here with experiences in a multitude of fields. I think we are always served best by people who have succeeded in what I call the ``real world'' and then come to government and help us govern, because they have the wisdom and the knowledge from the fields they left. He was in agriculture, Pennsylvania's leading industry. He was an educator, a top flight educator. Bill Goodling is the kind of person we would like to have as a neighbor, as a business partner, as a personal friend. He not only is competent and qualified; he is a fine human being. He is an example we can hold up to our young people that this is how they ought to live their lives. Be successful in a field and then give back as he has given. Mr. Speaker, I guess what has amazed me about the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and it is unfortunate he has to leave before we say these things, but he has been here 26 years. Today, in his final weeks, he still has the passion of his convictions. He still feels passionately about local education and the importance of keeping the decisions locally. He has been fighting tenaciously in his last weeks in Congress espousing things he has been espousing for a long time, but with no less gusto. Not many people do that. I want the gentleman to know that I admire him. He is a person that I look up to. He is the kind of person that I believe exemplifies what we all ought to be, and we are going to miss him. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). I am not minimizing the importance of agriculture, because it is vital, what do we do in rural America. We farm. We mine. We drill for oil. We cut timber. We manufacture, all under attack, in my view, through the regulatory process of this administration. And it is where rural jobs come from, and it is why urban areas are becoming crowded and rural America is becoming more sparsely populated, because the jobs have been forced out of rural America. We have become as a country dependent on the rest of the world instead of strong and independent because of our own natural resources. Mr. Speaker, next I will yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who is going to talk about mining and the interest he feels passionately about.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I and a group here rise tonight to talk about rural America, the heartland of this country. The last few years we have had the most fantastic economic boom in this country in our history, but the question many ask is why has so much of rural America been left behind. Why has rural America struggled for its economic life when suburban America is flourishing and enjoying unparalleled prosperity? We believe that a lack of leadership is very much a part of that. Rural America has not fared well under the Clinton-Gore policies. We are also very concerned that rural America will not fare well under a Gore administration. Agriculture, at a time when this country has expanded its ability to grow products, wonderful products, better, better yields, better quality, our farmers are fighting for their economic life. World markets have not been opened because of inappropriate public policies. Mr. Speaker, public land, America owns a third of our land; and when we have Federal public policy changes, it impacts rural America, not urban-suburban America. It impacts rural America, because that is the land we own. We are a country rich in natural resources, and many people claim that our strength and our great past was because we had those natural resources. Have we had appropriate policies for energy, for mining that allowed us to enjoy the fruit of what was here? Many think not. Defense, the number one issue in the Federal Government, would it be strong under a Gore administration? Rural education, as we have the debate now going on education, how has rural America fared? Most rural districts receive 1 percent to 2 percent of their money from the Federal Government when the Federal Government's claiming that they are funding 7 percent. The complicated urban-type formulas are stacked against rural America in many people's opinions. Rural health care fighting for its economic life, rural hospitals fighting to stay open. Rural America sometimes gets paid half as much under the current policies and formulas devised by HCFA that has been managed by the Gore-Clinton administration. Timber, good forestry, a country rich in soft woods in the West and hard woods in the East, we are now importing, I am told, about half of our soft woods. Because of policies similar to oil we are now importing 60 percent from foreign countries. Endangered Species Act needing to be changed, positively, to save endangered species; but it has been used by radical groups to push their will on the American citizens and supported by the Gore-Clinton administration. Regulatory process, something Americans do not think enough about, because, in my view, an overzealous bureaucracy that regulates you, they are regulating instead of legislating. When we legislate, we debate. We debate the facts. We make decisions. We cast votes, but when the regulators have too much power, and I think everyone agrees that the Clinton-Gore administration has been far too zealous in their regulatory powers. The courts have been turning over many of their regulations. So as we go through these issues and a few others tonight, the first person I want to call on is my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), of the third district who is interested in agriculture in Oklahoman agriculture and energy, and how it affects Oklahoma and how it affects rural America.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. We have been joined, Mr. Speaker, by the majority leader, such a delight, and I would like to yield to him now.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to hear any speech given that they do not talk about urban sprawl today. But one of the greatest causes of urban sprawl has been the slow methodical destruction of rural America. The economies, whether it is agriculture, whether it is mining, whether it is timbering, whether it is manufacturing, all those things we do in rural America, as they have been squeezed, and they have been, and made more difficult to accomplish, young people leave, move to the urban areas, and we have urban sprawl. Yet, in rural America, the quality of life is unparalleled, but it is not a quality of life if one cannot have an income. So next I am going to call on my other friend from California who is going to talk about the fires, another failed policy of this administration.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) who is going to talk about the war on the West.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the eastern part of Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood). Rural America does not go very far without it. We do not accomplish very much agriculture without it. So I thank the gentleman from the eastern part of the State. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), another Pennsylvanian, to share with us something that he shared with me earlier tonight that a large number of our Armed Forces of our recruits come from rural America. He is going to talk about rural America's concern about our defense.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. Most of us tonight that will be speaking have large rural districts, some of the West but some from the East. I have the largest district east of the Mississippi in Pennsylvania, but our next speaker, Mr. Sherwood, who joined us in 1998, 2 short years ago, comes from a district almost as large as mine, a gentleman who was a very successful businessman and had not served in government per se except for the school board, local government; I should not say except for local government. That is the most important government we have, local government. He served very well there, has been a very successful businessman, and has transitioned into a very successful Congressman. He brings so much knowledge and experience of the community with him. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from the eastern part of Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), who will share with us the perspective of his rural district.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. If we are not mining it from our own lands, we will be buying it from some foreign country.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. On my left is a picture of Edmond and Cheri Pope, a lovely couple from State College, Pennsylvania. On March 14, Edmond left for Russia on a routine trip, a business trip. It would have been his 27th trip there. He was someone very involved in working with the Russians on business development, helping them market their declassified technology, someone who was very fond of the Russians and liked to help them economically in deals that were beneficial to both our countries. For 115 days Edmond Pope, from April 3 on, has been in a Russian prison. For 115 days Mrs. Pope has not had a husband, except for 2 hours that she spent with him several weeks ago. His children have had no father for 115 days. His aging parents do not understand why for 115 days they have not been able to talk to their son. My colleagues, Edmond Pope was placed in prison unfairly. He is not a spy. He was charged with espionage. That is not true. And what is disturbing is for the first 11 weeks his wife and family had no chance to communicate with him; did not receive one note from him, one phone call from him, or able to get a note or a phone call or letter to him. That is 77 days he was absolutely separated from his family. They had no idea of his health, no idea if he had a lawyer; a good lawyer. On June 19, Mrs. Pope, Cheri, and two of my staff, were leaving for Russia to attempt to visit him. That afternoon Cheri's mother passed away unexpectedly in San Diego, California. Mrs. Pope had to make the decision whether she went to bury her mother or she went to Russia to encourage her husband. She made the decision to go to Russia, and so she went. And several days later she had the chance to spend a few moments with him. On Tuesday, June 20, they met for the first time in 3 months, just a few feet from a watchful prosecutor in Lefortovo prison. Edmond and Cheri Pope hugged and belatedly wished each other a happy 30th anniversary. Then Cheri Pope said, ``The first thing he said to me was, `Cheri, I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't.' And I said to him, I never thought for a minute you did.'' In an emotional interview on Tuesday after that reunion, Cheri Pope said her husband, whom the Russians had accused of spying, was strikingly thin. He had a rash; he had lost a lot of weight; he had a pallor about him and some skin problems. She said, ``Even though he didn't look well, he still looked handsome to me.'' While they were there, Cheri and my staff were able to obtain a good lawyer for him. He did not have a good lawyer, and they had no way of knowing that. And since that time we have been working hard to obtain his release. On June 26, we wrote President Putin a letter, and I will share with my colleagues some of the things we shared with him. ``Mr. Putin, if you value our friendship, send Edmond Pope home. President Putin, if you value the growing business relationships beneficial to both of our countries, send Edmond Pope home.'' It said, ``President Putin, if you value the many ways we aid you financially, send Edmond Pope home. ``Edmond Pope is a man who was there on sound financial business reasons. He is not a spy. He needs to be home with his family and with his grieving wife. He needs to be home to visit his father, who is seriously ill. He needs to be home to have his own health monitored, and he needs to be home so that our relationship between the Russian Federation and America can grow and not be destroyed.'' We have not heard from that letter, though we thought we would. Today, I wrote another letter to President Putin and it has been faxed to him. One hundred fifteen days have passed. This case has no merit. His new lawyer tells us he has shredded the evidence completely. On August 5, in just a few days, his son, Dusty Pope, plans to marry a young lady named Justin. It is only fitting that Edmond Pope be home to stand with his son and his future daughter-in-law and wish them into the world of matrimony. I hope and believe that it is important that we get this issue resolved and that we get him home, because it is vital that we build a relationship between these two countries. I have a resolution that urges the President, with 109 signatures, and I could get many more, to discontinue our assistance to the Russian Federation, to approve no more loans to the Russian Federation, or no more technical assistance. I do not want to do that. I believe the future of Russia depends much on a friendship with this country. But it is time to send Edmond Pope home so that our relationship can grow to the benefit of both our countries. I ask President Putin to help us accomplish this today.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time. I thank him and congratulate him on his amendment. Mr. Chairman, there has never been a time when this country should be ready for alternatives. There has never been a time when we should be working together to solve our energy problems in this country and start moving away from a 60 percent dependency. It is bad enough to be 60 percent dependent, but worse when one is dependent on unstable parts of the world, some parts of it who desperately do not like us. On the renewable side, I think one part I want to emphasize on is the hydrogen side. One of the most renewable resources in this country is hydrogen. I believe it has been undervalued as a potential. I believe it has not received, for a long time, the support it should. This is why I have such a strong interest in the potential for the evolution of a hydrogen economy, an economy where hydrogen can compete and win both as an energy supplement, a pure energy commodity rather than simply as a chemical. Rather than suffering a dependency upon imported energy sources, we can use hydrogen produced here at home as an abundant, efficient energy source with the capacity to increase U.S. competitiveness, bringing high-salaried jobs to this country. Secondly, hydrogen is abundant. It can be produced from a variety of renewable resources, and it has many uses, offering the promise of significant benefits to the agricultural, manufacturing, transportation, and service sectors of our economy. Our aerospace and chemical industries are ready right now to implement significant increases in the production, distribution, and storage of hydrogen as an energy commodity. Also, hydrogen is a proven, effective carrier of energy. Today, our cars are fueled with hydrogen-enriched gasoline. Our automobile industry is developing fuel-cell powered cars, and researchers are closing in on ways to power entire communities with hydrogen technology. There are many who feel that the Third World developing countries will be able to utilize it before us. We can create it and sell it to them, another way to increase American jobs. I am told that hydrogen can be combined with gasoline, ethanol, methanol, or natural gas. Just adding 5 percent hydrogen to the gasoline/air mixture in an internal combustion engine can reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from 30 to 40 percent. An engine converted to burn pure hydrogen produces mostly clean water as exhaust. For example, NASA, in addition to using hydrogen to propel the space shuttle, uses hydrogen to provide all the shuttles electric power in on-board fuel cells, whose exhaust, pure water, is used to drink by those who are on the trip. While this is no secret, some people might be surprised to know that the largest user of hydrogen is the petrochemical industry which infuses oil with growing amounts of hydrogen in order to meet environmental regulations. Hydrogen also improves the potency and lowers emissions of natural gas. I believe this is one of the most immediate targets of continuing opportunity for our industry. Our economy is a fossil fuel-based economy, and we should be thankful for the success we have had there. But hydrogen, not only is an energy itself, but is an enhancer of the current fossil fuels. I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I urge a stronger emphasis be put on hydrogen. There is no downside to hydrogen. It is what we should put our investment in. I believe it will be the fuel that will operate our future economy.