John Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee in a colloquy concerning rural health care. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois I intended to offer an amendment today that would provide a $2.3 million increase to the Rural Outreach Grant Program. An increase of nearly $2.3 million would bring the Rural Outreach Grant Program in line with the Senate bill. The grant program was level-funded in the House. Mr. Chairman, I come from a large rural district in central northwest Pennsylvania. Federal dollars for rural health care have been and continue to be increasingly difficult to come by. The Federal Rural Outreach Grant Program promotes innovation in the delivery of health care to rural areas by encouraging collaborative efforts among health care entities and the communities in which they are located. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment. However, I would like to ask the chairman that as he works with the Senate during conference on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, he will make a commitment to rural health care by working toward the Senate number for the Rural Outreach Grant Program.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. This has been an interesting debate to listen to. I support the goals of the Mink amendment, I support the gentleman from Indiana and what his goals are, and the gentleman from Cleveland and the gentlewomen from the different parts of this country. But what we are really doing with the Mink amendment is we are going to be putting a lot more money in bureaucracy and less money in the classroom. It is a bureaucracy builder. Historically, we set aside at the State level. The Mink amendment says that each and every school district must spend no less than it did in the previous year. That means we have to have a Federal bureaucracy and a State bureaucracy that will monitor every district in this country, every vocational school in this country to make sure that they spend the exact dollar amount that they spent last year. Do we need this kind of oversight from the Federal Government? My colleagues keep talking about the welfare-to-work bill. I helped write Pennsylvania's welfare bill. Every State is targeting the population of displaced homemakers, single pregnant women and sex equity program because that is the majority of the welfare population. They are using Federal and State welfare-to-work moneys to do that. We have expanded the ability to use the job training moneys in a bill we recently passed. Many States have promoted and expanded their homemaker training programs. And any State that wants to meet the Federal mandate is going to target this population. The bill, in four different areas, talks about this population, that it must be part of the plan, it must be a benchmark, we must meet those goals or they do not get the money. To put a mandate on every vocational training program in America, that they must spend the exact same amount as last year, does nothing but create a bureaucracy that will waste millions of dollars that will train nobody. I think the Mink amendment, Mr. Chairman, has laudable goals, but I think it misses the mark. What the gentlewoman is talking about is happening. Any State that is not making it happen is not going to be able to implement the welfare reform bill. It is an unneeded amendment, it is an amendment that will waste dollars in bureaucracy at the national and at the State level. It will force every State to hire a $60,000 sex equity coordinator, whether needed or not. Let us leave that up to the States. Every State has a built-in incentive to make this happen. This amendment will only put money into the hands of bureaucrats and not train displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, or bring sex equity.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I find this debate interesting. I would like to ask the Members here today how many of them would like to have a partner in their business that provides 7 percent of the capital and wants to run the business? We provide about 7 percent of the money in this country for vocational education, and here we sit in Washington and we want to say how it is best to do it in all 50 States, and we provide 7 percent. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. If there is one message that I have received from educators as a local leader, as a State house member and a State senator, was get Washington out of our school districts. We get a little bit of money from them, and most of our people are spending the bulk of their time trying to deal with Federal bureaucracies and Federal rules. And then we get down to this issue, and on page 52 of the bill it says providing career guidance counseling, almost providing work- related experience such as internships, cooperative education, school- based enterprises, entrepreneurship, job shadowing that are related to vocational technical education programs, programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, local education and business partnerships, vocational student organizations, mentoring and support services. Now we do not tell them who they have to hire. We just gave some guidelines of directions that the programs ought to cover, and that is all we should do. At the Federal level, we are wrong when we provide. If we were doing 70 percent of the money, I might agree with my colleague. Seven percent of the money, and we want to run the voc-tech schools, and that is wrong.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], the ranking members, for working together to put together a bill that I think will make a positive difference in vocational education in America. I would also like to commend the staff, Becky Voslow, Sally Lovejoy, and Alex Nock, who worked tirelessly together. We all know, when doing compromises, who really does a lot of the hard work. I want to commend them for all their efforts. I believe if this country is going to compete, if we are going to continue to be a manufacturing leader in the world, and I do not think we will be a strong country if we do not, we have to improve our ability to deliver vocational and technical education. I think this bill moves us in the right direction. It does not solve all the problems. I toured a plant in Blossburg, PA, in my district this week that is doing something very interesting. That plant employs about 1,000 people in one of the most rural parts of Pennsylvania and is growing fast. They have brought to Pennsylvania a Japanese technology, refined it; these things used to be made for Japanese cars, these parts, in Japan. They are now being manufactured in Pennsylvania. But that plant is high technology. There has been a huge investment made there. The workers there need skills and a good academic base. That is important in this country. I recently also toured a plant in State College. If one buys a Japanese TV, there is a very good chance the picture tube came from State College, PA, because they are really becoming a dominant player in that market. Again, huge investment of capital and very high tech jobs. They are not strong backs and strong arms that are needed but technical knowhow. This bill moves more funds to the classroom, 15 percent more. I think that makes a big difference. We need to get the money in the classroom. Many of our arguments have been the Federal rules that we want to put down on the States. I come from State government. State government bureaucracies do not need us to tell them all the fine details of educating our youngsters. It is important that we allow them to be free. Because what we have when we have a lot of Federal rules, we have a Federal bureaucracy, and if we go into most State departments of education, the majority of the people working there are dealing with implementing the Federal rules. So we have all of this money wasted at the Federal level and at the State level that should be going to the classroom. The other issue that we struggled over was the rural set-aside. I was disappointed in the great opposition for that because rural America is way behind urban America in vocational education. If this country is going to remain strong, rural America needs to have equity. We need to be able to train the young people. Many parts of rural America do not have vocational education. All we wanted to do was to have a 10-percent set-aside that allowed States to meet that need if they wanted to. We were not against money for urban. Urban has always been the big winner when we look at the formula. We were disappointed but we do accept the compromise of five and give. But I would like to say to my urban friends, in the future, rural America, if we are not going to be an imposition on the welfare rolls, we have to be able to train our workers, and vocational education is one of the ways we need to do that. I want to thank all of those that compromised. There may have been a little more compromise than I would have liked, but I am willing to accept it today and move this bill forward.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the question do we need the Mink amendment to deal with displaced home workers, single parents, and single pregnant women? In my view, the answer is no. In this bill it is not mentioned once, it is not mentioned twice, it is not mentioned three times. It is in there four times. From the plan to the benchmarks to all the goals, it is listed again and again as one of our top priorities. What happens when we have too many Federal rules? Less money to the classroom, more money for bureaucrats. Do we need more bureaucrats in this issue? I do not think we do. In Pennsylvania I was chairman of Health and Welfare for 10 years and served on that committee for 19 years in both the House and the Senate. I was very much a part of Pennsylvania's historic welfare reform bill, which preceded the Federal bill but paralleled it. Every incentive that is needed to help this population is a part of welfare reform because it is the majority of welfare recipients who are in this position. Welfare to work money targets this population appropriately. In the job training bill we made it much easier to use the money for this population, and in this bill we outline it not once, but four times, that this is a population that needs to be served. In many States, and I know in Pennsylvania we have a very strong displaced homemaker program, vocational schools often have expanded their programs to utilize those State dollars because the need was there. I think we are assuming here at the Federal level that local districts, that States, are not aware of this problem. Everything that is happening in America leads us to serving this population. If States are going to meet the targets in the Federal bill, they must serve this population or they will not. So for us today to over and above the four-time limits in the bill to say that every school district must prove to the State and to the Federal Government that they spent no less money, that is really more bureaucracy than if we had a set-aside. That means potentially 10,000 to 16,000 school districts will have to be evaluated, and, my colleagues, I do not believe that is necessary. If I thought it was necessary, I would support the Mink amendment. I think it is important that we follow the lead of this bill of getting money to the classroom. All the incentives are in place to serve this population, and this bill highlights it not once, but four times. I ask for defeat of the Mink amendment. It is not necessary.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I would like to share my strong support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I find it very frustrating this evening, it is the first time I have heard this debate personally. I come from rural Pennsylvania, where the Allegheny National Forest is in my district, 520,000 acres. I happen to know the person that runs the forest, manages the forest. He talked this morning with the man that does the contracts. I know the design engineer that designs the roads. I understand how the system works. The gentlemen may not like the system, but what they are doing is not the way to fix it. The Porter-Kennedy amendment is like an MX missile on rural Pennsylvania's economy and our rural road system. It is devastating. It will harm parts, and even more so in the west, that have 15 and 20 percent unemployment. We have a group of urban legislators who in my view of listening to all of their testimony know very little about this issue and how it really works. I mean that sincerely. We are playing with the rural economy of this country and the parts of the country that are most struggling economically. We are really cutting $91 million out of rural road maintenance when we take $50 million out of the credit program and $41 million out of the maintenance program because that is what the majority of it is used for. We are trying to change policy through the appropriations process. It is unfortunate that we have an urban group who does not understand the rural economy and are trying to devastate it in behalf of the people who do not want to cut timber in this country. It is not a fiscal issue. If it was a fiscal issue, we would be talking about cutting Amtrak, which has $783 million. That is a subsidy. We would be talking about $4.3 billion that we spend for mass transit. That is a subsidy. And $91 million, if you want to call it a subsidy, it is for rural America, it is for roads that campers use, that tourists use, the hikers use, the fishermen use.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California for the chance to speak on this rule. As a member of the Committee on Resources, I am proud to stand here today to support the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act, and to support the rule that has been designed to preserve the locally generated compromise. For more than 4 years this group has been meeting to find common ground on the policy governing management of these forests. The title of this bill is an accurate description of the proposal's intent to recover forest health and to achieve economic stability. Why would a Member from Pennsylvania be interested in this measure? I support this bill because it serves to move the environmental debate away from passion-driven arguments toward science-based and consensus- based approaches to forest health issues and to the management of all of our national forests. In the Fifth District of Pennsylvania, where I serve, we have the Allegheny National Forest, 520,000 acres, a forest that in no way is similar to these forests in northern California, but the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania is 520,000 acres of the highest quality hardwoods in the world. Unfortunately, in the past, the Forest Service and this Congress has often tried to manage our national forests in one-size-fits-all. There is a great difference between the western forests and the eastern forests. I am not as familiar with the western forests as I would like to be, but I believe there is probably a difference in the California forests and maybe the Montana and Wyoming forests, but yet in the past we have tried to manage one-size-fits-all. H.R. 858 steers us toward sound science and conflict resolution in order to provide habitat protection for the California spotted owl, preservation of the roadless areas for the length of the pilot project, reduction of the fire risks through construction of fuel breaks, and stability of the wood products industry. My fellow colleagues, I know there has been a long-time debate on the national forests. There are those who want to lock them up. There are those who think we should just look at them. I believe these investments were made years ago for many reasons and for many multiple uses. I believe we should always support locally generated solutions when we can have them. I think this proposal steers us in a new direction of managing our national forests in a way that suits the region upon which they are in, in a way that protects the taxpayers of the great investment we made and preserves the high quality of these forests. When local wisdom and cooperation offer a solution to complicated emotional issues, I am doubtful a federal government is better equipped to make these decisions. This is a good issue that has been worked out locally in northern California and I, from Pennsylvania, urge all of those from the East to look seriously at this compromise and accept it as a new way, a new direction to go in managing our national forests.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1658, a bill to reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. The Striped Bass Act is one of the few true success stories in fisheries management. It was enacted in 1984, several years after the Atlantic coast stock of striped bass suffered a severe population crash. The Striped Bass Act provided a means of enforcing a single interstate management plan throughout the eastern seaboard, which allowed fisheries managers to take the action needed to save the fishery from extinction. Over the last 13 years, this program has succeeded beyond any expectations. In 1984, the outlook was truly bleak for striped bass and the fishermen who depend on them. Now stripers are as abundant as they have ever been. They stand as a rare example of how to bring an irreplaceable recreational and commercial resource back from the brink of disaster. This bill before us today would continue this successful restoration program. It would reauthorize the Striped Bass Act and continue the striped bass study which started in 1980 and has provided information necessary to make good management decisions. The restoration program would not have been nearly as successful without these studies. We must continue gathering the best information possible to protect the gains that we have made. In addition, this bill makes technical corrections to the Striped Bass Act to make it consistent with the Atlantic States Cooperative Fisheries Management Act. It also provides for greater public input into the writing of striped bass management plans. H.R. 1658 will ensure that the successful striped bass management program continues into the future. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1658) to reauthorize and amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and related laws, as amended.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1658, the bill just considered.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 205, I was detained in a meeting with a constituent. Had I present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I proudly and passionately rise today to support this amendment that prevents the desecration of the symbol of freedom, the symbol of opportunity, the symbol that was created with bloodshed. Many of our forefathers gave everything, their life, for this symbol. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] for their leadership on this issue, and for allowing me to participate. I am also fiercely proud to join 280-some colleagues in sponsoring this important amendment that will allow Congress to protect our symbol of freedom, our symbol of opportunity. I think it is important to point out precisely what this amendment says. It simply says that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. It does not prescribe how that should be done. Rather, what it does do is restore to Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, and really what this means is that it restores the power to the American people via their elected representatives, and not to live with changes brought about by a very liberal judiciary. As Justice Rehnquist noted, the flag is not simply another idea or point of view competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with almost mystical reverence. All should. In my view, it is literally the fabric which binds us together. It is the symbol of who we are and the emblem we rally around when times get tough. A gentleman by the name of Mike Ashmond in my district was an immigrant from Iran. He knew what it was like not to live in freedom. He went to Germany first, learned of the freedoms of America, moved to America to run his business, and he loves our American flag. Instead of cutting the ribbon in his business recently he raised the American flag, and he stated, ``I want to be able to look out my office window and see the symbol of freedom and opportunity. I want to look out my dining room window and see the symbol of freedom and opportunity, and everywhere I go around my community, because the American people need to realize the price paid for freedom and the freedom and opportunity that it stands for.''

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 168, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote by seconds. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to rise to congratulate the chairmen of this committee and the subcommittee and the ranking members of the committee and the subcommittee because this is how it should be done. Those of my colleagues who think this bill will pass rather easily today without much trouble, that is true. But there has been a whole lot of hard work, a whole lot of compromise, a whole lot of commitment to getting to home plate and scoring the run. I congratulate those. I think a lot of other committees in this Congress could watch and observe and do better. America will be challenged in my view in the years ahead to provide the workers with the opportunities to receive the technical education they need to meet tomorrow's jobs. As I view factories, and I try to tour at least one or two a week in my district, they are changing. If we are going to remain a strong manufacturing nation, and I think we must, I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, if we do not maintain manufacturing in this country, we will be a second-rate nation. We have to have workers with a whole lot more skills than were needed just a few years ago. Today we are taking a step, not all the steps we need to take, but we are taking a major step. When we combine 60 programs into 3 block grants and allow the local folks, the States and the local community groups, to decide what is needed and how to do it, we will be much more successful. Historically, as a State legislator and a State senator, I so often tried to help people fit into those Federal categories and get the training they needed, and so often we failed because even though there were 60-some programs, the Federal Government cannot design enough slots and enough types of programs to meet the needs that are out there, and we failed at it. Many people were trained for jobs that are not available, people were given skills that no longer are valuable, and that will have a chance to cease with this program. Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the gentleman for allowing my amendment which will allow incumbent workers to be trained, and I think that is important. So often we have skill centers sitting idle on weekends and nights, and they were not able to use them because of all the Federal hoops they had to jump through, and those should be on a fee-for-service basis, allowed to train local people, and the investments we made need to be utilized to train everybody we can train. And I just think this is a bill moving in the right direction, and I commend those who made it happen.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 112, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we have heard again and again today that H.R. 478 guts the Endangered Species Act. Is that true? Does it open the floodgates? I have listened to the evidence and the answer is no, no, no. The Endangered Species Act is very important when we build levees, when we build dams, how we locate them, how it is going to affect creatures and people and protect people. But today we just want to maintain them. We want to keep them working so they perform what they were built to do. The Endangered Species Act bureaucracy has failed us with endless delays. It has not worked. Does it open the door? No, we only can use it when there is critical imminent threat to public health and safety or to address catastrophic events, to make sure that our structures work. I have listened to this debate carefully. There has been no evidence given that we are gutting the Endangered Species Act or endangering it in any way. It is a common sense bill brought about by the failure of the bureaucracy that has enforced the Endangered Species Act to prevent us from just repairing the structures that have been built to protect this country.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Today, the Medicare trustees are due to report on the projected solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund. As we all recall, last year's report predicted the part A trust fund would be insolvent by the year 2001 without reform. We also know that in 1996 the trust fund lost $25 million a day and is now losing over $30 million a day. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, this is unacceptable. The state of the Medicare Program warrants serious discussion proposing genuine solutions. A recent proposal introduced in the House would add provider-sponsored organizations to the managed care options available to Medicare beneficiaries. By allowing groups of affiliated providers to organize and deliver a broad base of health care services, we can offer new choices for quality care that is community based. For a rural district like mine, increased choice is a welcome opportunity. Whether your district is rural, urban, or suburban, we all know that localized solutions work best. I ask Members to support that measure.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to give an example of how comp time would work under H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act. Let us say an employee works 10 hours of overtime, 50 hours total in a week in January. She chooses comp time in compensation for the overtime hours. Her paycheck for the week reflects pay for 40 hours at her regular hourly rate. She puts 15 hours, one and a half hours for every hour of overtime, into her comp time bank. She decides to use her comp time during a week in May to visit a friend. During the week in May she works 25 hours, uses 15 hours of comp time, and her paycheck for the week is 40 hours. She pays taxes, and is credited with wages when she is paid for the comp time in May. This is what public sector employees have been able to do for years. H.R. 1 would give private sector employees the same choice. H.R. 1 does not require employers to offer comp time. It protects the employee's voluntary choice whether or not to take time off as compensation for working overtime hours. H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act, is commonsense legislation, and as we look at the public sector, we know it works. I urge my colleagues to support it. It is family friendly.

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to stand and speak out against the tax that I think is the most unfair tax in this country, the capital gains tax. This is a tax that has been debated for a decade in this country and it has been debated and has not been cut because, in my view, those who oppose cutting this tax say that it would be a tax break for the rich. And who wants to give the rich a tax break? None of us. But that is not a fair statement. When you look at the record, 37 percent of the people who pay the capital gains tax make less than $30,000 in income a year. Is that the rich? Fifty-seven percent make less than $50,000 a year. Is that the rich? Seventy-four percent make less than $75,000 a year. Is that the rich? Who does it really affect? I think one of the most detrimental effects is on our farmers, our restaurateurs, our merchants, small manufacturers, small investors, and many of our senior citizens. I want to give Members an iron-clad example. If a couple bought a farm in 1957 for $40,000 and they just maintained that farm until today and sold it, it would probably bring about $400,000, only because of inflation, not because it is of more value, just keeping equal. That couple would pay $111,000 of that money back to the Federal Government who has done nothing to help them, only tax them, for all of that time. Is that fair? I do not think so. Most farmers and small businesspeople do not have savings plans and do not have retirement systems. They depend on the value of their farm and their small business when they sell it as a nest egg to augment their Social Security. Yes, the capital gains tax taxes inflation as it did with that farmer. Who taxes capital gains? The growing countries of the world, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan, do not. They do not tax capital gains. Other countries index assets for inflation so that you do not pay on a false growth. Inflation is not a growth in value. The record is clear. In 1978 through 1985 when we cut our capital gains tax in this country 30 percent, from 50 to 20, revenues actually increased from $9 billion a year to $26.5 billion. In 1986 when we increased it from 20 percent back to 28 percent, 6 years later revenues were just equal. It did not grow. We did not benefit. The 28 percent capital gains tax rate has locked up trillions of dollars of needed capital to reinvest in our sluggish rural economy in America. Too much of rural America is struggling to provide opportunities for our young people. It is certainly obvious to me that a capital gains tax cut is not a tax cut for the rich. It is for our family farmers. It is for the local merchants, small manufacturers, our neighbors who have invested in a business or in stocks, and many of our senior citizens who would like to sell their business and be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I call upon my colleagues today to make our No. 1 priority cutting and initially eliminating the capital gains tax, because it is the greatest deterrent to economic growth and a future for our young people that we have in this country today.