Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tiberi-Castle amendment, which would place academic results instead of rules and regulations at the center of federal education programs. Since enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 36 years ago, our approach to helping schools has been very inflexible and heavy-handed. We have set strict regulations as to what communities can and cannot do with federal education dollars, and what priorities they have to set. It has become clear that this approach hasn't worked. After all the billions of dollars spent by the federal government since 1965, we haven't seen a narrowing of the rich-poor educational gap, schools are neither safe nor drug-free, and it seems that much of the ``professional development'' money is wasted. It's far past time to try another approach. I have strongly supported previous proposals to give states and localities more flexibility in the use of federal funds, in return for real accountability, such as the ``Straight A's'' bill in the last Congress and the President's ``Charter States'' proposal in the original version of H.R. 1. I think the Tiberi-Castle amendment is also a step forward in this regard. Building on the ``Local A's'' provision in the Committee-reported bill, up to 100 school districts can enter into performance agreements with the Secretary of Education and consolidate programs, freeing themselves from requirements, regulations, and paperwork associated with many federal programs, and allocating resources to more closely fit local needs. Participation is completely voluntary, and no school district will have their federal funding reduced by one penny for participating. This amendment will apply the central premise of charter schools-- freedom in return for academic results--to local educational agencies, and allow them to spend more time and resources on teaching and less on meeting requirements of various federal programs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a couple of minutes to speak in favor of the provision in H.R. 1 that expands and improves the Troops-to-Teachers program. Our military is a great reservoir of potential talent, particularly in the area of math and science, and this program taps into that talent by encouraging members of our Armed Forces to become teachers after they leave the military. Many have warned of an approaching teacher shortage in this country. According to some estimates, we will have to find somewhere between 1.6 and 2.6 million new teachers merely to replace teachers scheduled to retire. The Troops-to-Teachers program has already been a great help to meet this shortfall, and I believe that it can be ever more useful in the future. Several thousand members of the military retire each year, often at ages young enough that they are searching for new careers. We want to make it as easy as possible for these men and women to take the leadership skills and character that they have gained during their military careers and try to instill these traits in our young people. In H.R. 1, we have improved the existing Troops to Teachers program to authorize stipends for soldiers participating in the program, and bonuses for soldiers who agree to teach in a high need school. We have also expanded the category of soldiers eligible to participate in the program. Under current law, when a soldier completes active duty and decides to be a teacher, he or she has to go through a teacher training program that can take up to a year and a half. Because of this delay, many are discouraged from pursuing a teaching career. H.R. 1 eliminates this roadblock by expanding eligibility so that an active duty soldier nearing retirement can participate in the program. Mr. Chairman, this is a great program that enjoys bipartisan support, and it will bring many more qualified, excellent teachers into the profession that we so desperately need. I applaud its inclusion in H.R. 1 and I trust that in improved version of Troops-to-Teachers will be enacted this year.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to establish a commission to take a comprehensive look at assistance programs and ways to reduce the disincentives that result when they are phased out. Our task must be to help people move from subsidized jobs into self- sufficiency. Current welfare and tax policies put up tremendous roadblocks to that goal, as each time a low-income worker increases his or her income, the Government takes all or most of the increase away. The miracle is that there are some who, perhaps out of pride, work their way out of this lower-income range. We must focus on this problem and look for solutions. The commission provided for in the legislation I am introducing today will help us do that, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this initiative.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this resolution that recognizes the charter school movement for its contribution to improving our Nation's public school system. I have been a strong supporter of the charter school movement since 1992 when former Representatives Penny and McCurdy and I introduced the Public School Redefinition Act of 1992. That bill was based on legislation introduced the year before by Senators Durenberger of Minnesota and Lieberman of Connecticut. This was the very beginning of Congressional efforts to encourage charter schools. I am happy to say that the bipartisan efforts of a handful of dedicated individuals resulted in the subsequent creation by Congress of a federal Public Charter Schools program in 1994. Later, the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 revised the Public Charter Schools statute by, among other things, increasing its authorization and giving priority for grants to states providing charter schools with financial autonomy. The charter school movement, we should note, is a true grassroots movement. This movement was started in the early 1990s by concerned parents and frustrated teachers who were tired of the status quo, tired of fighting the bureaucracy that smothers innovation, and tired of seeing their children sink into mediocrity and failure. It is therefore important to keep in mind that Congress should try to avoid imposing federally prescribed requirements such as teacher certification. According to the Charter Friends National Network, ``More than two- thirds of the states--with more than 80% of the charters--currently have some degree of flexibility in allowing use of teacher qualifications other than traditional certification.'' Any attempt to apply a teacher certification mandate to charter schools would jeopardize their very nature, which is based on autonomy in exchange for academic achievement. In my state of Wisconsin, I am proud to say that we have a strong charter school and school choice program--especially in the city of Milwaukee where we have the support of education-reform minded individuals such as former school superintendent Howard Fuller and Mayor John Norquist. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that charter schools work. They work because they are freed from burdensome regulations, and in return, they are held accountable for academic results. I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado, Representative Tancredo, for introducing this resolution. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this measure, and I urge may colleagues to support and promote a National Charter Schools Week.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will reform the method by which fluid milk has been priced in our country for too long. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system is a relic that flxes prices and feebly serves the outdated aims of a bygone era. Created in the 1930's, its original purpose was ostensibly to provide a locally produced supply of fresh milk throughout the country. Over sixty years ago, such a system may have made more economic sense. We didn't have the Interstate highway system, efficient refrigerated trucks, or reconstituted milk, for example. Today, conditions are vastly different, necessitating reform of the federal dairy program. By basing the price of Class I, fluid milk, on the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the federal government has radically distorted dairy markets and discriminated against the dairy farmers of the Upper Midwest. The resulting inefficient production of milk in areas distant from the Upper Midwest has led to the oversupply of milk and depresses the price of processed dairy products. Dairy farmers in Wisconsin have paid dearly under this system. Today, my state loses approximately five dairy farmers a day. Furthermore, by using distance to set the price of fluid milk, the federal order system is inherently anti-consumer. Consumers are stuck paying the set price for milk instead of the price determined by a free marketplace where efficiency is rewarded. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating this market distorting system would save $669 million over five years. In an age of ``global free trade,'' this system that effectively puts a tariff on milk from other regions of the country is absurd. The bill I introduce today reforms the single most discriminatory element of the Federal Milk Marketing Order program by prohibiting the Secretary of Agriculture from basing the price of fluid milk on distance or transportation costs from any location outside the marketing order area unless 50 percent or more of that area's milk comes from a location outside that order area. By eliminating this factor the Secretary of Agriculture will have to consider supply and demand factors when setting milk prices as required by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to report to Congress on the specific criteria used to set milk prices. This report will include a certification that the criteria used by the Department in no way attempts to circumvent the prohibition on the use of distance or transportation costs as the basis for milk prices. Reform of the Federal Milk Marketing Order program is long overdue. The discrimination against the dairy farmers of the Upper Midwest must end. Not only will this bill restore fairness to our dairy policy, but consumers of fluid milk across the nation will also benefit from this reform. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support this bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, as a former Peace Corps volunteer, I am pleased to rise to speak in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Peace Corps. When President John F. Kennedy signed the Executive Order establishing the Peace Corps on March 1, 1961, the response to this bold initiative was both swift and enthusiastic. Less than six months later, the first volunteers had accepted the challenge and left for their two year assignments overseas. In 1966 and 1967, I myself served as a volunteer in Somalia. It was a meaningful experience for me, and it allowed me to see that Peace Corps volunteers are the best grass-roots ambassadors the United States can have. The Peace Corps provides direct aid to ordinary people, and it is probably one of the most cost-effective forms of foreign aid that there is. I am also pleased to say that the state of Wisconsin leads the Peace Corps' legacy of service. The University of Wisconsin-Madison is the nation's top producer of volunteers, with other 2,300 graduates having joined the Peace Corps and bringing their skills and talents to dozens of countries. Now, as we observe the Peace Corps' 40th anniversary, it continues to capture the imagination of the American people. It has emerged as an international model of citizen service and of practical, grassroots assistance to people in developing countries. Additionally, Peace Corps volunteers also make a difference at home by continuing their community service, and strengthening Americans' appreciation of other cultures. By visiting classrooms, working with community groups, and speaking with friends and family members, Peace Corps volunteers are helping others learn more about the world in which we live, and helping to build a legacy of service for the next generation. Today's 7000 volunteers are somewhat different than the volunteers of the early years. The average age has risen from 22 to 28, the percentage of women has increased from 35 to 60, the number of volunteers with graduate degrees is growing. But having said that, I believe today's volunteers still share a characteristic with their predecessors that is a cornerstone of Peace Corps service--a commitment to the spirit of volunteerism and service that President Kennedy first envisioned 40 years ago. I salute the Peace Corps and the thousands of volunteers who have served, and I look forward to many more years for this organization which has truly made a difference around the world.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute and congratulate WOMT Radio in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, as it celebrates 75 years of community leadership and local broadcasting. This station has become a mainstay of the community and we have come to rely on WOMT to provide current, useful, and--perhaps most important--community-based programming. WOMT is relatively unique in the current broadcast world by maintaining its local control and focus. It prides itself on its ability to provide programming that centers on talk, news and local sports programs. The station first went on the air back in 1926 and at the time was only the third radio station in existence in the state of Wisconsin. Over its proud 75 year history, WOMT has had only three owners. In this era of broadcasting mega-mergers, WOMT has thrived under local ownership, providing the community not only news and information, but also shows featuring local on-air personalities that lakeshore residents have come to know well over the years. Throughout its long history, WOMT has proven that a radio station can be successful without compromising its goal of informing and educating its listeners. WOMT has provided hours of listening pleasure to lakeshore residents over the years as we drive to work, pick up the kids from school, run our errands on the weekend, or tune in to catch a high school game. I again want to congratulate all the people at WOMT, including longtime owner Don Seehafer, for their dedication and commitment to making our lives a little more enjoyable. Congratulations, WOMT, on your first 75 years and we look forward to at least 75 more.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5637.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5637) to provide that an amount available for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Transportation shall be available to reimburse certain costs incurred for clean-up of former Coast Guard facilities at Cape May, New Jersey, and to authorize the Coast Guard to transfer funds and authority for demolition and removal of a structure at former Coast Guard property in Traverse City, Michigan.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 5637. The purpose of this bill is to authorize certain appropriations contained in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act. Without the specific authorizations contained in this bill, the amounts already appropriated will not be available this budget year. Section 1 of the bill authorizes the Coast Guard to spend $100,000 to reimburse the owners of the Cape May Lighthouse, formerly a Coast Guard facility, for the cleanup of lead contaminated soil found at the site of the lighthouse. Section 2 of the bill authorizes the Coast Guard to transfer $200,000 and project management authority to the Traverse City Area Public School District for the purposes of demolition and removal of a building at a former Coast Guard property located in Traverse City, the district of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). I urge the Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the motion because it is a step backwards as far as flexibility is concerned for local school districts, and that is very important. The legislation that we are basically talking about increases funding for schools and for hiring teachers and for teacher training, and that carries forward a pattern that we have seen under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) during the last 6 years in this committee. He has constantly talked to us, as we have heard here this afternoon, about the importance of having quality in education; and he has not just talked about it, he is the point man in negotiations over a number of budgets and has actually managed to get significant flexibility in these programs. What is the difference? Well, let me just give my colleagues an example. If one happens to represent a relatively rural area or an area with a small school district, without the efforts of the chairman of this committee in negotiations, one would get nothing out of this program, because half the school districts in the country, their share of the money we are talking about would be less than the salary of one teacher. Because of the flexibility that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) negotiated a year ago in the budget, if we do not get enough money under this Federal program to hire even one teacher, then one gets the money for teacher training and upgrading, and one can participate in this program. That is half the school districts in the United States. He also fought repeatedly to try to have as much of the funds we are talking about in this program to be able to be used not just to hire bodies, but to assure quality, by teacher training and a variety of other approaches, and that is important. In the real world, the area that I represent, I visit a lot of schools and, by the way, in our State, school construction is going forward at a very great pace because of changes in the way the State aid program works. And the new schools, of course, are much different than the older schools. We have electricity, not just a couple of lights, but wired all the way through, and the kids are going to be learning with computers and personal computers as an aid from early grades on in the next few years. The whole configuration of the school and how it works changes. Also, we are in our communities trying to get much more parental and community involvement in education. I was just recently at a school district dedication where there was, in addition to the classrooms, a senior citizens center. Why? Because they wanted to have a separate entrance for the senior citizens and then the doors open so that seniors could be honorary grandparents to young kids and read with them and have them as friends. We have had a family crisis in our country. We have many families with just one parent and that person having to work, and what is to happen to the little kid? There is no one taking an interest in them. So trying to do things like this makes a lot of sense, and just a one-size-fits-all that does not provide flexibility would miss opportunities in the areas I represent and all across the country. So I hope my colleagues will listen to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and not support the motion.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 4441, the bill before us today. Before I do, I just think I would like to take a minute to point out that this may be the last piece of legislation that comes out of the subcommittee that I have had the privilege of chairing for the last 6 years. Under the rules that have been set in the House since 1994, we have term limits for chairmen and subcommittee chairmen, so I will not be chairing that subcommittee in the next Congress, should I be fortunate enough to be reelected. During those 6 years I have had the opportunity to work with a remarkable ranking Democrat on that subcommittee, and that is my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). Our committee has been, I think, the most productive committee, as a whole, in the Congress of the United States over this period of time, and that is something that no one person could bring about. Only a group of people working cooperatively together were able to accomplish that. That means that that is a bipartisan accomplishment, and I think that while we clearly do not agree on everything that this committee has to deal with or this Congress has to deal with, we all agree, regardless of party on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on the importance of transportation infrastructure and transportation investment and a need to keep up on the public side of the ledger with investment and needed infrastructure to keep our economy strong and growing; and we have worked together, industry, labor, the safety community, the environmental community, in this effort. The door has always been open of our chairman, of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I hope I can say that of myself, to listen to different people with ideas on legislation and to do what we could to bring them together to a common productive result. This legislation before us today is just one example of that spirit. Its prime author is a member of the minority party; but it is before us today, and I think it is going to receive bipartisan support. It came out of a hearing that our committee had, or perhaps a series of hearings on the fuel crisis; meeting with industry groups and the Teamsters Union and others to explore different ideas about what we could do as a Congress to react to this crisis to help the little guy, to help the person who does not have the power in the marketplace to impose pass-through clauses and provisions as some of the larger truckers do, so that they are not overwhelmed by swings in energy prices, but do have an opportunity to adjust and to continue in business; and that is the basic purpose of the act before us. This reflects, I think, the sensitivity and the concern that my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and that we all have to try to do something constructive in this area. I think that this crisis continues. I am sure, regardless of what happens in the upcoming election, our committee will be eager and responsive to deal with the problems that people in the transportation sector have. The bill before us, H.R. 4441, as has been mentioned, seeks to ease the effect of sudden and dramatic increases in the cost of fuel on the trucking industry by ensuring that these added costs can be recovered. Under the provisions of the bill, the spike in the price of diesel fuel will trigger a mandatory surcharge to be assessed to the party paying for the transportation costs of the motor carrier transporting the goods. This automatic surcharge is imposed when there is a 5 cent disparity between the latest week's national average and the previous year's national average for diesel fuel. In this way, those businesses hit hardest by surges in the fuel market will be able to recoup additional costs by passing them along to the shipper as part of the total bill. This past July, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved a substitute amendment that represents a bipartisan effort to perfect the original text of the bill. This substitute permits companies to include privately negotiated fuel adjustments; and, second, it clarifies the provision and provides the right to sue to collect the surcharge; and, third, it includes a sunset provision that terminates the mandatory surcharge at the end of budget year 2003. At that point, Congress will be able to review the effectiveness of the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, our committee is the largest committee in the Congress; our subcommittee is the largest subcommittee in the Congress. The potential for chaos, or at least disorder and delay, was perhaps great; but in fact the cooperation and the achievement instead have been great. We hear a lot about the decline of civility and an increase of partisan bickering in this Congress; and I think the fact of the matter is, those who go about their business quietly achieving results sometimes are lost among the din but are, in truth, a growing number. This committee has prospered in this Congress. Members have sought to be on the committee. The fact that people seek to be on this committee shows that most Members of this House, when given the chance, want to be a part of a productive team. So I just want to say that as we conclude the second session of this Congress with the passage of this important legislation, H.R. 4441, I appreciate the spirit that has enabled us to reach this point; and I commend it to some other committees in this Congress.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would say first of all that I know that my colleague from Wisconsin and a long-time member of the committee, Steve Gunderson, had wished that he could be here today as a Member of this body to participate in this occasion. Mr. Speaker, it has been an honor and a privilege to learn about education at the knee of Bill Goodling, a true expert who spent his life in the field. He will be sorely missed. It is with immense pleasure and honor that I rise to express a few thoughts about my colleague and good friend, Bill Goodling. I would like to say at the outset that I know that my former colleague from Wisconsin, Steve Gunderson, would very much like to be here today to participate in this occasion. He is a great admirer of Chairman Goodling. The Education and the Workforce Committee, formerly the Education and Labor Committee, was blessed the day Bill was first elected to Congress. Drawing on his experiences as a coach, a high school principal, and a Superintendent of schools, Bill has always approached the issue of education with the interests of America's children at heart. I can remember many conversations we have had, especially in the days when we had adjoining offices in Rayburn, discussing ways to more effectively educate the children of his nation. Given all the work we still have to do in that regard, I hope and trust that those conversations will continue, for Bill's experience, insight, and thorough understanding of these issues are a priceless resource. Both as a member of the majority and of the minority, Bill has maintained his loyalty to our children, often in the face of fervid opposition by many who put their own special interests ahead of the well being of America's kids. His career in Congress is a monument and a tribute to a man of honor, integrity, courage, and vision. I know there are several other Members here who would like some time to share their comments for Mr. Goodling, so I won't go into the details of Bill's accomplishments as a Member of Congress. I'm not sure I could do it even if I had all forty minutes to speak! But I would like to say that many, many programs--not just the Literacy Involves Families Together Act, which we appropriately renamed a few weeks ago as the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program--owe a debt of gratitude to Chairman Goodling. These are programs near and dear to his heart, and they are a reflection of Bill's tireless efforts and passion for providing the children of this nation, all of them, with the best possible education. It has been my pleasure and honor to have known Chairman Goodling for 22 years, and he will be missed--as much as he misses his horses when he's here in Washington--when he retires at the end of this session.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Goodling for allowing me the opportunity to support this bill. We are here today to consider H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act. This bill ensures that family literacy programs like Even Start will continue to help many families break the cycle of literacy that often leads to poverty, unemployment, and dependency on federal support programs. This country has come a long way since we were all children. Although this nation has always placed an emphasis on education, we now live in an age when just having a high school education is not enough to prepare our children for the professional world. Global competition, the internet, and widespread use of technology all indicate that the economy of the 21st century will create new challenges for employers and workers. In order to attain that high quality of life we all strive for, the generations after us will need to meet higher educational standards. But, in the course of attempting to ensure access to a college education for all who can benefit from it, we cannot forget about those less fortunate--the parents and children who, for whatever reason, have not yet mastered the basic yet essential skills of reading and writing. H.R. 3222 would improve the quality of services provided under Even Start and other family literacy programs: By providing training and technical assistance to local providers, by requiring that instructional programs are based on scientific research on reading, by funding research on the teaching of reading to adults in family literacy and other adult education programs, and by establishing qualifications for instructional staff in Even Start programs--whose salaries are paid almost entirely with Even Start dollars. In addition, I would also like to take a moment to express a few words for my colleague and dear friend Bill Goodling. The Education and the Workforce Committee was blessed the day Bill was elected to Congress. Drawing on his experiences as a coach, a high school principal, and a Superintendent of schools, Bill has always approached the issue of education with the interests of America's children at heart. H.R. 3222 is a monument and a fitting tribute to a man of honor, integrity, courage, and vision. As a member of the majority and minority, Bill has maintained his loyalty to our children, often in the face of fervid opposition by many who put their own special interests ahead of the well being of America's kids. It has been my pleasure and honor to have known Mr. Bill Goodling for 22 years, and I will miss him--as much as he misses his horses when he's in Washington--when he retires at the end of this session. Again, I thank Chairman Goodling for this opportunity to support H.R. 3222, and more importantly, for his participation and leadership as a Member of Congress, and as Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2000. H.R. 4844 will increase benefits for widows and widowers of railroad retirees, and lower the vesting period from 10 years to 5 years, which is more consistent with private industry plans. It will also restore the retirement age from age 62 with 30 years of service to age 60 with 30 years of service. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill with advantages for both labor and management as well as for the general taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4844.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the subcommittee chairman for the provisions he has put in the bill, and I oppose the amendment. The fact of the matter is, there has been an ongoing effort to expand charter schools in the District of Columbia. It is one of the most successful efforts in the United States. We have had a policy for a number of years, when the D.C. government closes a school, to allow the people who have charter school programs to have an opportunity to use the unused school building, and that policy has been flouted. It has not been put into effect. The chairman, in the bill, is trying to honor that agreement and get the D.C. Government off the dime to allow the unused school buildings, under proper circumstances, to be used by the children of the District who are enrolled in charter schools. I understand that if we drop this language, the charter school people are going to be ignored. If we keep the language in, we will have an opportunity to work out something reasonable, so I commend the chairman for his language.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 153 on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House. This provision makes changes to existing law by earmarking up to $5 million of the District of Columbia's Federal highway funds to complete design and environmental requirements for the construction of expanded lane capacity for the 14th Street Bridge. This would be an unprecedented earmarking of State formula highway funds by the Congress.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few important comments about the inequities of continuing to exclude the U.S. mink industry from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Market Access Program (MAP). This is an important issue for the mink industry and its many small ranchers and allied industries that reside in some 28 U.S. states where mink is produced. Since 1996, U.S. mink has been unfairly excluded from the MAP program. This exclusion is primarily the result of political pressure brought to bear by animal rights groups. The exclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with the mink industry's eligibility for the program or the success of the mink industry's MAP program prior to 1996. Importantly, the mink industry's prior export promotion program was considered a model program by USDA. The industry's MAP activities, which were used to promote the superior quality of U.S. rancher-raised mink in Europe and Asia, successfully increased U.S. mink exports by 25% between 1992 and 1995. In the last year of participation, exports of U.S. mink skins exceeded $100 million. Today, almost all sectors of American agriculture, except mink, participate in the MAP program. The mink industry is no different from the beef, pork, chicken and sheep industries in the United States, all of which receive substantial MAP funding. Moreover, most U.S. mink ranchers are small, second- and third-generation family-owned operations. The mink auction houses are cooperatives and small businesses, all eligible for the MAP program. This is a U.S. industry that sells nearly 95% of its annual production abroad. All foreign producers, particularly those in Europe, are heavily subsidized. MAP money is needed for U.S. mink ranchers to effectively promote the superior quality of U.S. ranch-raised mink and compete successfully against this heavily subsidized foreign production. Thus, the exclusion only ensures that our foreign competitors dominate the global mink market. I am deeply disappointed that it was not possible to restore MAP funding for mink through the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This inequity, however, can and should be corrected. Accordingly, I strongly urge Mr. Combest and other members of the Agriculture Committee to exert their best efforts to restore MAP funding in the next possible authorizing vehicle that comes before the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. Con. Res. 129.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 129) expressing the sense of Congress regarding the importance and value of education in United States history.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 129, which is identical to House Concurrent Resolution 366, a resolution introduced in the House before the Independence Day recess. I would like first to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the House majority leader, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, whose cooperation has expedited the consideration of this resolution. I would also like to thank Senators Lieberman and Gorton for their support of this resolution and commend the Senate for passing it on the Friday before the 4th of July holiday. I am pleased to be here today with my colleague from California as cosponsor to offer this resolution to draw attention to the troubling historical illiteracy of our Nation's next generation of leaders. Senate Concurrent Resolution 129 expresses the sense of Congress regarding the importance and value of education in American history. The need for this resolution is demonstrated by a Roper Center survey commissioned by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. The Roper Center surveyed college seniors from the Nation's best colleges and universities as identified by the U.S. News & World Report's annual college rankings. Specifically, the top 55 liberal arts colleges and research universities were sampled during the month of December 1999. The results of this survey revealed that seniors from America's elite colleges and universities received a grade of D or F on history questions drawn from a basic high school exam. Seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the United States Constitution. Despite this lack of knowledge, according to reports by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, many of today's colleges and universities no longer demand that their students study U.S. history. Students can now graduate from all of the top colleges and universities without taking a single course in U.S. history. At 78 percent of the institutions, students are not required to take any history at all. Madam Speaker, I believe we should be alarmed by the findings of this study. When we lose our civic memory, when we lose our understanding of the remarkable individuals, events, and values that have shaped our experiment in self-government, we are losing much of what it means to be an American. We are losing sight of the responsibilities we share as citizens in a free democracy. Having just celebrated the 4th of July, our Nation's day of independence and freedom, a day that evokes strong emotions and feelings of pride in our country, I believe it is particularly appropriate to emphasize our need to know and to understand U.S. history. Madam Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: [From the New York Times, June 28, 2000] Basic History Test Stumps Many Collegians Washington, June 27--Nearly 80 percent of seniors at 55 top colleges and universities, including Harvard and Princeton, received a D or an F on a 34-question high-school level test on American history. More than a third of the students did not know that the Constitution established the division of power in American government, said the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut, which administered the test as part of a study to measure the teaching of American history. Students were much more knowledgeable about popular culture--99 percent of the seniors tested identified ``Beavis and Butthead'' as ``television cartoon characters.'' But confronted with four options in a multiple-choice test, only 35 percent could name who was president when the Korean War began. And only 23 percent identified James Madison as the principal framer of the Constitution. Asked the era in which the Civil War was fought, 40 percent did not know the correct period, 1850-1900. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said that he and other members of Congress would introduce resolutions calling on college and state officials to strengthen American history requirements at all levels of the educational system. The study, sponsored by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, found that none of the 55 institutions required American history for graduation. And only 78 percent of them required students to take any history classes, said Jerry Martin, one of the report's authors. The history test was given by telephone to 556 college seniors chosen at random. The questions were drawn from a basic high school curriculum, and many had been used in the National Assessment of Education Program tests given to high school students.