Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who is the leader in Congress on this issue. I want to commend him for these efforts because these are not issues that are pushed by the power brokers in this country or pushed by the big PAC givers. These are the issues that are at the heart and soul of America's kids and who, I feel, have more peer pressure today to deal with the drug issue than any generation before them.

This used to be a city issue. For years, maybe decades, the cities have been infected with drugs. But I hear the experts today say there is not a community in America that does not have a drug problem. Now, one of the problems we have is a lot of those communities do not realize the severity of the problem and sometimes kind of just want to look by it as long as it has not impacted them or their families or their neighborhoods.

I represent a huge rural district in Pennsylvania, one of the largest rural districts in the eastern part of the country, and I have hundreds and hundreds of small towns. I have not talked to a youngster in my office that does not tell of the severity of the drug issue in their school and the easy availability, marijuana being available in middle school. Sometimes kids will actually smoke a marijuana cigarette before they smoke tobacco because it is easier to buy. They do not have to have an ID card. Stop and think about that.

Jonathan Walters, the Drug Czar, was with me in my district about a year ago and is doing a wonderful job. I will never forget the face of a young lady, 16 years old, who lived in a small town of about 6,000 people. This is an area you would think would not be infested with drugs. When she was 14 she was using three bags of heroin a day. The young people in that school were driving into north Philadelphia and they were buying pure uncut heroin.

The tragedy of that is that usually heroin is the drug for the end- of-the-line user. When people got hooked on heroin, they had worked their way all the way up the food chain. Heroin is such a powerfully addicting drug, it is usually just a matter of time until their life is over. But here we have 14-year-old and 15-year-old and 16-year-old teenagers who are into heroin. I have probably 10 or 15 communities in my district that have known heavy heroin use in kids.

The power of it is that it is uncut pure heroin that is affordable and available. And the problem with that is it is so addictive that the drug counselors tell me if you have any kind of an addictive personality you may never lick the habit. Now, this young lady, I said to her, what is your wish? Well, she said, my wish in life is that I had never touched it. I am on my second rehabilitation program, and I hope I can stay drug-free. I do not want to ever do drugs again.

But the addiction is so powerful, and when you take young people like that, who are not even mature as an adult yet, and give them uncut heroin, or uncut cocaine, or the one that has been terribly impacting my region also, which is methamphetamine, where it is manufactured in laboratories out in the country, in homes and garages and barns and buildings, it is about as addicting as heroin and about as powerful. And I am told many times people who may be first- and second-time users will fight that addiction the rest of their life.

So those who think testing is an intrusion of privacy, I want to plead with you that testing is the only way parents know, it is the only way a family knows, it is the only way schools know what your child is doing. And if you have it to where schools participate voluntarily and parents approve of their kids being tested, I would test all kids that parents would allow the test. Leave it a freedom of choice of the family, but I would make it a negative check-off where everybody gets tested.

Now, that is not where most are at today. But I listened to the debate at the Supreme Court when they expanded from sports activities to all extracurricular activities, and some schools have gotten creative and said kids driving their cars to school, because assuming you drive your car to school, you are more likely to be bringing drugs in here.

I had an argument with a nationally well-known figure, and if I mentioned his name you would all know him, but he was arguing on a national television show against testing, so I said to him, well, if my memory is correct, 15 or 20 years ago the military had a rampant drug problem, and random testing fixed it. He stopped, he paused, he said, yes, I was there. I was a part of that. I had never related it, but you are right. I change my position at this moment. I would support random drug testing.

So today I introduce the Empowering Parents and Teachers for a Drug Free Education Act. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) joined me and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). That is a band of three. But I think it is legislation whose time has come.

I cannot tell you how excited I was last night when the President put sufficient emphasis on this. It is not about privacy. It is about helping young people who are now being exposed to drugs that are so powerful that if they use them once or twice they may be addicted the rest of their lives. So it is preserving their life.

It is not about drug enforcement. It is about when you find a youngster that has drugs in their system that the parents get involved, and then the schools get involved to first help them with this problem. A youngster into drugs without help will soon be too far down the road that they will literally owe their life to the drug dealers.

When you look at who the drug dealers are, we know today for a fact that terrorism is often funded by drug dealers. The drug dealers of America in our small towns are the scourge of this country. They are the low life who care nothing about the future of our youth, care nothing about the future of this country. They are just interested in the mammoth profits they make selling this poison to our young people.

I will never forget the discussion I had last year with my granddaughter Nicole. We were going shopping after Christmas, returning some things and spending some of her money she had gotten for Christmas, and we always get on this subject. And she said, Pop, why are you so concerned I will get on drugs? I am a good student. I am doing well in school, she said. I am not going to do drugs, Pop. So I said, well, who do you think will entice you to do drugs? She said, oh, some creep at school or somebody that will come. I said, no, Nicole, that is not who will introduce you to drugs. The person who will introduce you to drugs is one of your best friends, like Jacquelyn, whose boyfriend or friend has, maybe at a party where she has had a couple of beers, even though that is not legal, but her judgment is impaired and she tries them. When she tries them and has gotten into that habit, she is going to want her best friend, Nicole, to be with her.

It is not some creep that introduces our kids to drugs. It is somebody who is their friend. It is somebody who they have an established relationship with. I guess the thing that scares me, and that I wish school superintendents would be more scared of, and I wish parents would be more fearful of is that their child, without any doubt is going to have numerous opportunities to do drugs. Even if they are not an avid drinker, even if they are not into the other things where they are more likely to, there will be a time. So we must help these young people.

In the workplace today it is common practice. You sign a form, and in most cases they say we will be randomly drug testing. That is the way of the work world. In the military, you will be randomly drug tested. And I find there is no tool to help get drugs out of our schools. If I were president of a college, I would have on the application form that you will be randomly drug tested. And I would promise the parents that brought them there that my first goal would be to run a drug-free college. It would be difficult, but it would be my number one goal. Because those are still those formative years.

The kids tell me that the age at which they are asked to do drugs is

getting younger and younger and younger. And when you get down to 8th and 9th graders, who are not that mature yet, who are more vulnerable, and the drugs are more available to them, and they are more potent than they have ever been, a lot of them are pure and uncut, and at that those young ages, if they try once, they may never lick the habit.

I thank my colleague for the chance to join him.

I have had young people and other people who were opposed but most of the young people who come in my office support drug testing. They would like to see that down pressure on their friends who are struggling with the decision-making process.

Several years ago I was discussing this issue with a radio commentator on a big city talk radio program. He was making fun of me, according to the people who were listening to the station, prior to me coming on, that we are going to talk to the Congressman that wants our kids to fill a cup with urine and just was kind of making light of it. At the end of that discussion that day after I was off, one of my staff was listening, he said, you know, I was pretty opposed to this idea, but after the discussion, if I had a 12- or 14-year-old boy, and I don't, would I want testing or would I not and he had a long pause and he said, you know, I think the Congressman convinced me. Just the matter of having a discussion.

We have other tests. We have the hair test, which I think is one of the best because it reaches back. If you tested in September, you know the activity for months before, because the hair holds the drug. You have saliva tests, you have sweat tests, of course you have the blood tests, the urine tests. There is lots of testing today. One of the deterrents to schools doing it is the cost, especially in a small rural school district with there is not much extra cash to go around. That is what is so vital about the President's program saying, hey, if you decide, if the parents in your community talk to your administration and say we would like our kids tested and you develop a testing program, we're going to help. That is what this is about. This is not a mandate. I know in my district, I am going to be selling it. The young people want me to sell it. We need to encourage parents and community leaders to encourage school boards to move out and say, let's do everything we can do to make our school drug free. I have superintendents who are there. I have lots of superintendents who are afraid of the issue.

But I have had a couple of superintendents who have said they bring in dog teams, they bring in a drug enforcement officer, they bring in people who tell about the lives of people who got addicted to drugs and how their life was really over. Parents would have the right to veto if they did not want it. That keeps us out of the ACLU and the courts. In my view, I think there are a lot of things we can be doing, and what we are doing it for is the kids.

Joe Paterno is a strong proponent of drug testing. He has been coaching young men for a long, long time. On my very last time with him, as I went to leave the room, he said, Pete, you keep pushing that drug testing. I want to tell you, over my years of coaching, and I have been drug testing for some time, one year I let up and the next spring camp I saw some of my boys back from last year who I suspicioned may have at times been on drugs, and I hadn't tested much that year and I saw more signs, because as a coach he knew, he could tell by watching their play in spring camp whether they had been using drugs or not. I do not know how he told.

He said, I want to tell you, I'll never make that mistake again. I continue to do more and more and more testing because testing works.

Mr. Speaker, I recently visited a prison in my district, a Federal prison; and 80 percent of those there were addicted to a drug. I believe the figure was 60 percent were there because they were selling drugs. That is a huge figure, $35,000 per person to incarcerate people. We certainly can afford to invest in drug treatment and in prevention.

But I wanted to mention the issue of methamphetamine again. The gentleman talked about the big labs in California. I come from a very rural area. There is hardly a month that goes by that in our local community, a small town, the local paper talks of another meth bust, another lab found.

And I want to tell the Members the story of Suzie. Her name is not Suzie, but I want to protect the family. I remember vividly when Suzie moved to our area. She married a person locally who was very successful, a family. She was pleasant. She was attractive. She was smart. And as years rolled by, I had heard that Suzie might have a cocaine problem. I did not know. But I do know this: over a year ago, or maybe it was 2 years ago now, there was a major meth bust in our region, and it was proven that she was one of the kingpins. She was the person who was buying the material, a lot of the material to make methamphetamines, at the hardware store: lye, paint thinners, a lot of chemicals that one would not think have anything to do with ingesting in one's body. In fact, in my region the drug stores have all the Sudafed-type health medicines behind the pharmacy because they do not allow them out there because they are being purchased by people who come in time and time again and get them because that is a main ingredient to make meth. So it shows us the problem is rampant. It took 4 years to get the kingpin. DEA, the State drug team, the local police worked 4 years to get the person. And Suzie was the person who helped them nail him because before they never could get the kingpin. And he is now in prison, I think, for 40 or 45 years. But residue is he has taught so many people how to make high-quality meth that we remain a meth production area. And the police tell me they just do not know how to get their arms around it because every time they turn around, they hear another lead, they go check, they find another meth lab. I mean, they are everywhere.

So that is a story of a destroyed life. The final page on Suzie is I got to know her pretty well because she was volunteering in the nursing homes and the personal care homes and my mother was there, and she was always very nice to my mother and we talked a bit. And I always wanted to sit down with her and talk with her about how it happened because she was going out also speaking to school groups. Several months ago on a Sunday morning, after friends had talked to her on Saturday night and she was in good spirits, she was found hanging in an old pump house in the woods, dead. Suzie lost her life because we heard, the kingpin said, and I do not know if they can ever prove it, but the kingpin said she will not live long. Suzie did not live long. She was a person in her late 40s. She was a mature woman. She was attractive. She was smart. But she got hooked on drugs. And if a person her age can get hooked, how vulnerable are our eighth, ninth and tenth graders as they are still growing and working to become adults? And that is why drug testing is so important. It is about protecting kids, not about penalizing kids.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge everyone if you want forests to be healthy and be managed, to support this bill. I have heard stated here that we have mismanaged, that the Forest Service and other agencies cannot manage forests under the current law. It is impossible to manage.

In the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, the finest hardwood forest in America, we just had 10,000 to 20,000 acres of blow-down in July. It has been assessed at somewhere between $50 to $100 million in value lying on the ground. The Forest Service chief there just determined that it would be at least 3 years before he could have people there harvesting trees on the ground. Tell me that the system season broke, that it makes sense to have $100 million worth of American assets to lie there and rot because in 3 years they are of little value at all.

Folks, this system is broken. We do not want judges managing our forests. We want soil scientists, fish and wildlife biologists, and all the people that our Forest Service hires. They have every kind of scientist there is managing our forests. They should make those decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate those that have worked on this very complicated bill. I was pleased this morning to receive from the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, an endorsement of this plan. Why would a democrat governor from Pennsylvania support his plan? His people were here and reviewed it.

This allows states like Pennsylvania and 20 other states who have pharmacy plans to wrap around and make a really comprehensive pharmacy program for their state with a state effort and the Federal effort.

Now, those of you who come from rural America better think seriously about voting against this bill. Rural health care has been fighting for its life. This is a lifeline that will for once and forever help stabilize Medicare payments. In rural America what good does a pharmacy program do if you do not have a doctor in a hospital and a home health care agency for him or her to work in?

This program does more to help rural health care than has ever been done. The urban areas of this country have had Medicare Plus Plus while rural America has had Medicare Minus Minus. An unfair system. And this bill does more to equalize that. It also preserves cancer care that has been under threat. And it brings health savings accounts that will be an offering to our businesses more seriously considering about walking away from health care because they cannot afford the current plan.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

Office of the Governor,

Harrisburg, PA, November 21, 2003.

Hon. John Peterson,

Cannon Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Peterson: I am writing to thank you for

your efforts to develop provisions in the Medicare

Prescription Drug bill to allow PACE to continue to be the

primary source of drug benefits for qualifying seniors in

Pennsylvania. As of early 2004, we expect approximately

325,000 Pennsylvania seniors to be in the PACE program, and

we owe it to all of them to ensure the program on which they

rely continues to work for them.

As the Medicare drug benefit legislation had been in

development, our goals have been to ensure seniors in the

PACE program would be able to benefit from the new federal

benefit without experiencing any changes in the way they

obtain prescription drugs and without being forced through a

bureaucratic process along the way. Federal legislation must

allow for a seamless transition for PACE beneficiaries while

at the same time allowing PACE to expand its prescription

drug program and services to more of our seniors.

I am informed that the language in the Medicare drug

benefit bill achieves our major goals relating to the PACE

program. This is good news for our constituents and I

appreciate very much all the hard work you and others in the

Pennsylvania delegation did to make this happen.

Should the legislation ultimately be enacted, I look

forward to working with you and Secretary Thompson to make

sure the PACE-related provisions are implemented as we all

believe they should be.

Thank you again for your efforts on behalf of

Pennsylvania's seniors.

Sincerely,

Edward G. Rendell,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I would like to commend the chairman for his leadership on this issue. I know the gentleman from Ohio is a strong supporter of education.

I want to congratulate the Democrats for coming aboard. Where were they in July when the chairman was funding Pell grants at the level they now want to support? Where were their votes then? Or was partisan politics more important?

I think the record speaks for itself. We talk about a plateau up here, which may be a plateau in the maximum grant, but it is not a plateau in money.

Last year, it was $11.365 billion; this year, $12.250 billion, almost a $1 billion increase; but that has been absorbed by the increased number of students. In fact, from the beginning of this chart we were talking about 2.9 million students, and at the end of this chart we are talking about 5 million students. So the growth in the program has been immense.

Those who criticize the plateau we have reached here in the maximum grant, let us go back to 1992, to 1993 where there was a huge decrease; 1994, a continued decrease; 1995, a slight bump but still way below 1991 and 1992. I do not know what was going on then, but my colleagues were in control, and it shows the blue part here where the real money for Pell grants was not put in the budget.

The increase of the maximum grant was not flat. It actually was declining over a 3-year period. So there is no decline up here, and the reason there is not growth is a strong growth in the number of students at a time when budgets are tight, but we want to congratulate my colleagues today for joining support of the House numbers.

As we review the education issues, I think we had a chart up here last week on special education or whether it is Pell grants or whether it is funding for other education programs, since 1996 the Republicans have put money on the table for the youth of this country. More money in an 8- or 9-year period than has even come close to in 8 or 9 years prior to that. That chart last week on IDEA was almost the same as this, almost flat funding for 9 or 10 years, and then a strong, steady escalation.

We would like to have this chart going on up, but if we had not picked up the number of students we picked up last year, we could have, because we are putting in about $1 billion.

Let us join hands, but let us be fair. Pell grants are the gas and oil of education for the young people of this country, especially for the poor. They are the grants that give people help, and I can think of lots of them in my family. My younger brother was the first one to receive a college education. It was not available, Pell grants and other grants were not available in Pennsylvania when I was in high school. I never had the opportunity to go to a college. Why? I looked at being in medical school. My family was too poor. There was no State help. I looked at going into forestry and found out we could not afford that.

So the minute I graduated from high school I went to work and built a life with hard work; but my younger brother went to the military; and it was through that program, after he came back from Vietnam, that he got the first college education in our family, my brother Bruce, and I am very proud of him. It took him more than 4 years to do it, took him a while to get his act together, but he got a college education because the military system assisted him.

Yes, this program is vital to our future, and we are glad my colleagues are here tonight to support the Republican position that was here in July but was not adequately supported from their party. Pell grants are not about Republicans and Democrats. They are about kids, and I will stand on this record of achievement anytime.

We always wish it could have been better, and the grant may have flattened out in its maximum grant; but the number of students, if we had that chart would show us continuing to go up because we have a lot more students getting them. We have a record of success. We thank my colleagues for joining us. Just wish they had been here in July.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin made a statement that I guess we were confused about. He talked about a number of students that would not get grants under this program. I wonder if he could give us that information again. We did not understand it.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, what does the gentleman mean? If a person qualifies for a Pell Grant, the program borrows money, if I understand it correctly, and then we have to replenish it. But anybody who meets the criteria of the Pell Grants will receive the Pell Grants, whether we budget enough money or not; am I correct?

Well, Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I personally have no understanding of how a student who qualifies for a Pell Grant will not receive Pell Grants. The gentleman is talking about a number of issues here, but I think he is misleading the American public a bit with that statement. If someone qualifies for a Pell Grant, whether we adequately fund the program or not this year, it will be backfilled next year.

And so I hate to leave young people in America with the perception that this budget could disqualify them from a Pell Grant, and if we did something different that they would get a Pell Grant. I think that is a little less than accurate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this conference report and want to commend the chairman and his staff on very, very fine work. I particularly thank them for their willingness to work with those of us from Appalachian districts for funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. That is a part of America that is very rural, it is a part of America that is struggling economically, and with the tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs recently, it is an agency that we believe needed to be funded. We are also pleased that he helped us put language in the bill that said those who receive this funding will be accountable publicly. We want to make sure that these agencies serve us, and that they are open. The language requires that their budgets, their minutes, their audited statements and public meetings be open to the press and public. We thank them for that.

I also commend the committee on authorizing $2.15 billion for hydrogen fuel cells. It is a program I have supported for years. I commend the committee on authorizing $200 million for clean cities. I represent State College, Pennsylvania, which is the first bus system that will be all natural gas, and are now working toward becoming hydrogen, and are leading the way. I thank the committee for the $100 million for increased hydropower which is important. We have a lot of dams in this country which have not been harnessed and hydropower which has not been adequately utilized, and I want to particularly thank the committee for its dramatic increase for LIHEAP from $2 billion to $3.4 billion. With the high cost of natural gas and fuel oil this year, home heating is going to be a problem in cold parts of this country, and this program will be vital. I also was delighted at the $1.8 million clean coal power spending; and I want to thank the chairman and those who worked with him on Yucca Mountain. I know it is a controversial issue, but it needed legislative leadership and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) provided that. I thank him for his work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time, and I would like to thank committee and all those involved in bringing forward this heritage region omnibus bill which includes the Oil Heritage Region bill. I come from the Oil Valley where oil was discovered. In fact, I live 5 miles from Drake's Well where the first oil well that produced oil, ever, in the world was dug. Colonel Drake, in the middle of the 19th Century, came to Titusville, and it was sort of Drake's folly. He was going to drill for oil. They could not get the drilling rigs, and so they actually dug a well 68 feet deep. And one would wonder why they chose that valley. Because that creek was already Oil Creek that ran between Oil City and Titusville, Titusville to Oil City, because that stream always had oil on it. The gas pressure, the oil sand being only 68 feet below the surface, oil was always oozing up into springs and small streams and into Oil Creek; so it was always named Oil Creek because there was always a scum of oil on Oil Creek. That valley changed the world. It changed our whole transportation system. And here 150 years later, we still use for vehicle oil, the same kind of oil that was discovered back when Drake's oil was dug. It was the home base of all the major oil companies. Every major oil company in this country has its roots in Titusville and Oil City. Cities Service and Sunoco, all of those started there. In my lifetime, the companies that used to be there, Quaker State, Pennzoil, and Kendall, were the Penn-grade crude refineries that remained because Pennsylvania-grade crude is a paraffin-based crude, not an asphalt-based crude as in other parts of the world.

I want to make sure that everyone realizes that the Oil Heritage Area in no way threatens private property rights. There are those who believe that a heritage area somehow is going to take away personal private property rights. This legislation speaks clearly to that issue, that those with private property will only be involved in the heritage area if they so choose to. In our area, we have a lot of State land, local land, and Federal properties that are a part of the area, and in 1994 the State started the State Oil Heritage Area, and we are now in the process of making that the National Oil Heritage Area. Why do we want to do that? It is about preserving the history of oil. The one item that I say changed the world more than any other discovery, except, maybe today, the computer, as we look at how the computer has changed the world. Oil changed the whole world in how we travel, how we manufacture. The industrial revolution came from it, and it all started by Colonel Drake's digging a well in Titusville, Pennsylvania, Colonel Drake's Well.

Drake Well Park is there. Oil Creek State Park is there. And Oil Creek today is one of the finest fishing streams in Pennsylvania. Trout and bass propagate there naturally. That is a sign of a pretty good stream. And 150 years ago, that whole area was drilled, oil wells were beside each other, and today it is a pristine State park and a beautiful area, and we just want to tell the story of oil which we think should be told and the whole world should be able to hear it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the chairman on this bill. The bill that we presented increased special education funding by over $1 billion, and I believe those who are offering this motion to instruct tonight all voted against it.

Now, you cannot have it both ways. When you look at the chart that we had up here a little bit ago, the big chart, in 9 years under Republican leadership we went from a little over $2 billion to almost $10 billion. That is just under $8 billion.

Now, the 9 years preceding that, under Democrat leadership, you increased funding $1 billion in 9 years. We increased it $1 billion this year. We increased it almost $8 billion in the 9 years that we have been in control. Just count them, 9 years. Come back here 9, just a little bit over $2 billion. $1 billion in 9 years.

Now, the interesting part is it is easy to say they want to fully fund it. The other body put in a tax provision to fund it that cannot stay there. It is illegal. It cannot be there. So if you are really serious about this, your motion to instruct will say we are going to take it from Pell Grants, or we are going to take it from basic education, or we are going to take it from higher education, because that is how you have to do it.

You are making no choices. When we look at the record, the choices you made for 9 years previous to the 9 years that we have been in power were not for special education. In 9 years, a $1 billion increase.

Just a few days ago, we passed this bill with $1 billion of additional money in it, and they vote ``no.'' I think the American public understands showmanship. I think the American public understands a sham motion, because that is what this one is.

Now, I do not think there is anybody here that does not think we should not fully fund special education, and we are on track today to do it. We have the record. There has been a game plan of when we are going to reach it. Now, that is reasonable, because we will be taking new money and new dollars. But if you are serious, tell us where it comes from, because the other body's tax provision cannot remain to fund it. If you are serious, show us where the cuts are. Is it Pell grants? Is it higher education? Is it No Child Left Behind? Because it has got to come from one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the record, and I am proud of our chairman's leadership on this issue, and his predecessor, John Porter's leadership on this issue. Because this is their record: getting us to where we ought to be as fast as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the chairman and the staff on both sides for working on what I think is a good bill and one that I think meets the needs of firefighting, an issue that has not always been treated appropriately.

I guess what a lot of people do not realize is that when we have these fires and do not fund them, the money is taken from all the other accounts. Now, think of running your business and the money for the new building you are halfway through building, money for other forest projects you are on, is suddenly snatched away from you and you just have to stop until the money comes back when it is restored. I do not think anybody realizes how we have had the bureaus managing our land working with these forest issues that have been hitting us year after year after year. So I am pleased that there has been a major effort this year, $3.2 billion, in different ways; some repayment of funds used, but money to prevent fires, money to fight fires, and money to replenish accounts.

I am also pleased to see some progress on PILT. But I want to challenge the body. Payment in lieu of taxes has been an undervalued account here. When we take millions of acres, we own a third of the country and we only spent $227 million. It is still a pittance nationwide for our payment of taxes. Because when we take all of this acreage out of the economy, it does not pay taxes. But those people living in those regions have to have roads and schools and services, and we need to continue to improve there.

I was pleased that we had a $61 million increase for national parks, $24 million for the National Wildlife Refuge, $30 million for geological survey, $29 million for the national forests, and $6 million for weatherization.

And I was really pleased to see that that fossil energy research was increased by $60 million. Now, there has been a lot of money here, not wanting to put money into fossil research, because we all want to use renewables. I want to use renewables. But the renewables have not taken the place of fossil fuels.

One final statement I would like to make. When we add up the energy used in the world today, geothermal, wind and solar are .56 of 1 percent. My colleagues, we have to have fossil fuel research.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, as Representative of one of the largest rural districts east of the Mississippi and cochairman of the Rural Congressional Caucus, I rise today because I feel an obligation to uphold the will of the House, which seems to have been bypassed in this report.

Just several months ago, we had an amendment on the floor here that removed a provision that forced rural airports to pay a portion of up to 10 percent of the essential air service that helps them provide service in difficult times. The House removed it; the Senate removed it. Today, it is back here.

Now, it is limited to 10 communities and it will not hurt as many, but it is very possible that for these 10 communities, it could cost over $100,000.

Rural airports have a very limited income stream. They do not have much means of income. They are fortunate to have money to match Federal money to pave their runways, fix their lights and run the airport.

So I ask that if this bill is recommitted to conference for other issues, and many other rural Members strongly urge the committee leadership, to remove Section 408, the Essential Air Service Local Participation Pilot Program, from this provision. I personally will find it extremely difficult, and many other rural Members will too, to support the conference report, and I do not want to be in that position.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record copies of letters signed by 48 House Members and 16 Senators.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 8, 2003.

Hon. John McCain,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Fritz Hollings,

Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation, Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. James Oberstar,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Young, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member

Oberstar, Ranking Member Hollings: We write out of grave

concern for a provision added to the Vision 100--Century of

Aviation Reauthorization Conference Report regarding the

adoption of a local cost share for certain Essential Air

Service communities. This addition to the conference report

not only goes against the will of both the House and the

Senate, but may also have a disastrous effect on many of our

small rural airports. Therefore, we urge the conference

committee to remove this language before bringing the report

to the respective floors for a vote.

As you know, the local cost share provision was removed in

H.R. 2115 by an amendment offered by Representatives McHugh,

Peterson (PA) and Shuster, which passed by a voice vote.

Likewise, a similar local cost share provision was removed

from S. 824 by an amendment offered by Senator Bingaman.

It is our understanding that negotiations are currently

under way to remove language from the conference report

regarding the privatization of air traffic controllers. This

provides the conference committee an excellent opportunity to

remove the EAS local match provision that was already

stricken on both the House and Senate floors and not included

in either bill brought to the conference committee.

Additionally, this provision will have untold effects on

many small rural communities. It is unacceptable to force

communities to pay up to $100,000 in a local cost share, in

addition to the many costs they currently incur in running a

small local airport.

We respectfully request the removal of Section 408 from the

Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act

Conference Report before it is brought to the House and

Senate floors for consideration and we look forward to

working with you in the future to ensure rural communities

continue to receive essential air service.

Sincerely,

John E. Peterson, Allen Boyd, Tom Osborne, Nick Rahall,

Phil English, Max Burns, Bud Cramer, Earl Pomeroy,

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for their good work on the reauthorization of EDA. I, as the cochairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, rise today in strong support of this reauthorization for the Economic Development Agency. The programs under the EDA are tremendously vital to rural areas. Without Federal economic development investment in rural economies, many of these communities would lack the resources to attract the next generation of manufacturing jobs and they would wither and dry up.

The reauthorization passed in the 105th Congress focused these programs toward serving the most needy, and I am pleased this reauthorization will continue to build upon those achievements. I have seen firsthand how the past reauthorization has focused Federal dollars to target communities that lack the resources.

I want to give my colleagues a few examples. When Knox Glass closed in Clarion County, it was EDA who stepped up to the plate with a grant that allowed them to build a new industrial park there on 80 and replace many of those jobs. When Franklin Steel closed, it was an EDA grant that allowed Franklin Industries to reopen that factory and have several hundred people working there. When Kendall Refining closed in McKean County, and now we reopened American Refineries, it was an EDA grant that allowed that to happen. When the Stackpole Corporation closed and thousands of jobs left Elk County in Pennsylvania, it was an EDA grant through the North Central Planning Commission that now has 200 and 300 people working in different companies within that complex. And when the Cyclops Steel Plant closed 5 miles from my home and 1,000 good jobs went down the drain, it was an EDA grant that allowed that facility to be taken over by a local development agency, and there are several hundred jobs and about 20 companies providing employment there today.

Do we need it in the future? Yes, we do. In my 16-county rural district in Pennsylvania, we have lost 17,000 manufacturing jobs in the year 2001 and 2002. So I stand here today saying we need an expanded EDA. We need an EDA with more money, with a bigger budget. And I am here today on behalf of the reauthorization of this agency because their structure allows them to go into a rural community that has been devastated by losing their major employer and give that grant that is the glue that will put an economic opportunity back there in those communities.

Rural America is in trouble. We need a bigger, stronger EDA to help us. They have an agency with a good track record. I want to commend Secretary David Sampson for his strong leadership there, and I want to commend the committee for their good work in bringing forth this reauthorization.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When 9/11 hit this country, our airline industry had a crushing blow, and the part of it that is probably hurting the most is the commuter system out there that serves much of rural America. It is vital that we continue the essential air service program that helps them maintain service until they can build their business back up.

Currently, though inadvertently, this bill no longer has funding for essential air services. My amendment is very simple. I will keep it very short. My amendment restores the funding that was in the original committee markup, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Before I do that, I would like to correct one thing on the record a few minutes ago. A statement was made that the timber companies get huge bonuses for cutting timber on public lands. That is not true. Timber companies bid for timber, a very little bit of it that is put up for sale, and there is no subsidy. They bid for it. They win the bid, and they pay for it. I do not know how you call that a subsidy.

Back to this issue. I have many forest service recreational sites in my district. We do not get a lot of complaints on this program. I see the benefits as where the money is put back into enhancement.

Let me tell you why it was needed. This Congress every year will take money that ought to go for maintenance of our parks and our forest service recreational sites to buy land. Buying lands wins every time. We have underfunded every one of our recreational opportunities, and because of that we have gone to a demonstration fee.

My State parks have fees. We want enhancement. People like these sites. People are using these sites more and more. They are wonderful. But if we want them well-maintained, we will have to help pay for them.

I think there are some problems in this system, but everything I have heard today would be very fixable.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

When this debate started, I was disappointed. We saw a picture up here of a clear-cut, trying to inflame the American public. That clear- cut picture had no reason to be in a roadless debate, has nothing to do with it. It is another whole issue, but let us look at the Forest Service.

The Forest Service has approximately 175 million acres. Over 75 percent of it is never considered for forestry or able for forestry. That is 135 million acres. Of that that is practiced forestry, it is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the Forest Service land. If we treated all the Forest Service land in that manner, it would take 1,000 years to treat the forests owned by the National Forest Service.

We used to cut 10 to 11 billion board feet of timber that is dying and going to waste today. We now cut less than 2 billion board feet on all the Forest Service land all over America, and I have one of those forests in my district. I know what they are about.

What is roadless about? Roadless is peopleless. How many of my colleagues have walked a mile from a road in a land they do not know? How many of my colleagues have walked 5 miles from a road? A few, not the majority of Americans.

I was up in an aircraft recently on the first day of buck season in Pennsylvania, one of the heaviest hunted States. We seldom saw one of those orange coats a mile from the road, and the aircraft pilot and I talked about people in the Allegheny National Forest. They cannot kill the deer because they cannot get the hunters back in those huge areas. Roadless is peopleless.

Who uses roadless areas? Very few Americans. A few young hikers will do it, routine. It is certainly no to seniors. It is no to most of the young youth of America to go back in very far. In a mountainous area like I live in, it is easy to get lost. Even hunters seldom go way back in.

Roadless is ``no'' to treating disease. Roadless makes it almost impossible to fight forest fires. It is ``no'' to the vast majority of Americans to utilize and appreciate.

A speaker a moment ago said about appreciating. How can we appreciate a 100,000-acre plot when there is no road in it? Think about it. A road is not some destructive process. The vast majority of our public land by this country, we own a third of the country, is not timbered. It is not used for forestry. It is roadless. It is wilderness, it is recreation, and a lot of it is just abandoned land because it is roadless and people cannot use it.

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